Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Longstreet as Grant's Best Man

Not too long ago there was some debate about Longstreet being Grant's Best Man -- before Chernow's account came to the table. Since weddings in Western culture have virtually always involved a Best Man, I don't see where this is anything unusual or unlikely. Grant and Longstreet were close friends and their association is how Grant met Julia. The two were, albeit briefly, at West Point together. Among the groomsmen Longstreet was the only family member, cousin to Julia. Chernow has referred to Longstreet as Grant's Best Man. Others have referred to him as one of Grant's "groomsmen". Longstreet as Best Man is not something that is at all unlikely. Assuming Grant had no Best Man at all, or that one of the other non-family groomsmen was the Best Man would be something of a stretch. We now have a major and reputable Grant biographer referring to Longstreet as Grant's Best Man. What else is required to say so here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

He's wrong. The sentence where Chernow identifies Longstreet as best man is uncited, but the nearby cites refer to Julia's autobiography, which does not back this up. The best man story is an urban legend among Grant writers and, as we discussed, where sources conflict we should try to get the one that's backed up by historical evidence. Also, [citation needed] as to the idea that "weddings in Western culture have virtually always involved a Best Man". I have no idea if that is true of American weddings in the 1850s. Neither Grant nor Julia mentions anything of the sort in their respective memoirs. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I remember that discussion, and still am against adding it for the same reasons, it's still of doubtful validity (and even if it weren't, its too minor, like trivia - if we had long soliloquies by these men about firing on "thier best man" and had long discussions between them later in life about it - then perhaps).Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I also remember several discussion that it's not up to us to judge the sources unless concrete evidence can be used to show an error, not by challenging that idea by maintaining that none of the primary sources uses a particular term, like Best Man, or by simply asserting fuzzy and highly opinionated claims like it's only "trivia", etc. How many of the cites can we question using the same yardstick? Coemgenus however does raise an interesting question. The idea of a "best man" may have not been used to refer to any one of the "groomsmen", or that they were usually present in the 1850's. However, formal wedding ceremonies in Western culture overall have not changed much in the last several hundred years, where the bride and groom stand before a minister, mayor or some noted official and are joined together in matrimony , and where family and friends are present and among them are bride's maids and groomsmen, even though they may have not been referred to such in earlier years. The idea of a best man may have been an unspoken idea, that one of the groomsmen was indeed the favorite one, or best man. Since Longstreet was one of Grant's close friends and Julia's cousin, it's no stretch for anyone, including Chernow, to refer to him as a best man. However, since we can say Longstreet was at least a "groomsmen", and that he was up front at Grant's wedding, and since this is the most important idea, regardless of how he's referred to, I can live without referring to him as best man. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
After thoughts. Two other reputable sources use "best man" Both Smith, p.73 and Waugh, p.33 say Longstreet was Grant's "best man". We now have Chernow's account. Again, I can live with the present wording, but will support use of "Best Man" since there are three RS that use the term, and that at least it is a figurative term commonly used in today's prose, which is what we use, not Old English, etc, to write articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The idea of "Best man" is treated objectively in the Early life and career section of the James Longstreet article, so we may want to consider such an approach, given multiple sources, which on retrospect, we should not challenge unless we have more than speculation or concrete evidence to do so. So far, all we have is the idea that "Best Man" isn't spelled out in anyone's memoirs. That's hardly a solid basis to make conclusions or challenge multiple reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Aside from Chernow, Smith and Waugh, other reliable sources that identify Longstreet as Grant's Best Man are emerging, so we may want to reconsider matters. In the face of multiple reliable sources, we need more than the idea that "best man" isn't spelled out in anyone's memoirs to fairly and objectively challenge the idea. Esp since Longstreet was a groosman, best friend of Grant and family member to the bride. The idea is not only plausible, but highly likely, so we would not be advancing any unusual or radical. It seems we should make the statement and qualify the idea that it is not mentioned in anyone's memoirs, as was done in the Longstreet article.
Proposal : Multiple historians have identified Longstreet as Grant's best man, but others maintain there is a measure of uncertainty since Grant or Longstreet didn't mention it in their memoirs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. We have had this discussion before. Longstreet was at Grant's wedding. We know that. Let's say you call Longstreet the best man, but what does that mean in the 1840's ? It was an informal wedding, in other words not inside a Church. It was at private home. Did Grant give Julia a ring ? Did Longstreet hold the ring for Grant ? Was there even a ring ? We just don't know what Longstreet did at the wedding. There is not enough information even to call Longstreet a groomsman. Since there are little details or records of Grant's Wedding I think it is best not to call Longstreet a best man. Was Grant's wedding even a traditional white wedding. There are too many intangibles. Grant's wedding seemed to be a very low key event without formality of a best man and brides maid. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

All interesting speculations, but let's not substitute our opinions for those of multiple historians and reliable sources, several of which we use throughout the biography. Whether the marriage occurred in a church in a home or if there was a ring is beside the point. I was thinking we could leave the existing statement as is, and add the idea in a foot note, denoting both views. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The General’s Wife: The Life of Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant Ishbel Ross This book describes the wedding somewhat. Men dressed in uniforms. Grant was in uniform. Grant could not afford jewelry so he gave her a photo of himself in uniform. It was by candlelight. Grant was flanked by James Longstreet, Cadmus M. Wilcox, and Bernard Pratt all in uniform. There was no mention of a best man. The ceremomy was conducted by Rev. J. H. Linn. Julia's bridesmaids wore white. Julia wore a bridal dress. This might help. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Bear in mind that the 1840's was not the dark ages. In fact history after Martin Luther (1517) is considered modern history. The fact that the wedding was performed by a minister and that Grant and the groomsmen were all in uniform, Julia wore a veiled wedding gown, while a violinist played music in the background, more than indicates the wedding was indeed a formal one. Since there was no electricity in those days, candles were used to illuminate the scene, which is neither here nor there in terms of formality. Another thing to consider is that Longstreet was standing next to Grant, which would signify that he was the Best man, a term that dates back to 1782. There are numerous sources that say Longstreet was the Best Man, several say "groosman", a couple note things like no mention of a best man in any memoirs -- but not one goes so far as to say Grant had no best man. Anyway, we can't ignore what multiple sources say, while we should note any uncertainty in a foot note. Originally I said I could live with the present wording, but this was before I realized that many reputable sources say Longstreet was the best man, who collectively know how to interpret historical events a bit better than we can. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I put in the note that Chernow (2017) said Grant was the best man. I added detail. I took out groomsman or best man wording, leaving that in the note. I also added information that all three of these men surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External Video

External videos
video icon Presentation by Ronald White to the White House Historical Association on American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant, October 5, 2016, C-SPAN
video icon Q&A interview with White on American Ulysses, December 4, 2016, C-SPAN
video icon Presentation by White at the National Book Festival on American Ulysses, September 2, 2017, C-SPAN
video icon Q&A interview with Ron Chernow on Grant, NOvember 5, 2017, C-SPAN

Is their another place for these external Ronald White Ron Chernow videos? I don't think Grant's historial reputation is the best place. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep them in the See also section if it were up to me. --14:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
They look interesting, but adding all these links to videos for a couple of particular authors doesn't seem like a good idea, esp since this media is not used as a source for the article. If all these c-span video links should go anywhere it would be in Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant, somewhere appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I moved the information to its seperate section. It might be good to put in Grant's historical reputation article. I think the videos are good and White does a pretty good job defending Grant and attacking the Neo Confederates. The real question is whether all these pro Grant biographers Smith, Brands, White, and Chernow, will improve Grant's reputation among scholars and the general public. I read there will be a movie on Grant after Chernow's book. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This is all historiography, and only to the extent of two authors who are already definitively mentioned in the Historical reputation section. Creating a 'box' for four videos not used as sources and making a dedicated section for this is a little overkill, while giving it as much weight as some topics that merit their own sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The box was premature discussion wise, and if it belongs anywhere it should go in the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant#External links section, which is where I placed it. If there is a full discussion and clear consensus to keep the box here, okay. In any event, a box for four interviews is not the best way to present these things. Unobtrusive links to them in an appropriate section would be the way to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant book 2017

This book might be under the radar. It is called The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant by Charles W. Calhoun (August 28, 2017) (October 2017) Here is the link: The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. It's focus is Grant the President rather than Grant the Civil War General. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the website Calhoun (2017) " explores Grant’s leadership style and traces his contributions to the office of president, including creating a White House staff, employing modern technology to promote the mobility of the presidency, and developing strong ties with congressional leaders to enhance executive influence over legislation." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The University of Kansas has an entire series, of which I presume this is one, that focuses on the actual presidencies, with little diversion into biography. I've found them useful before, and Calhoun's other work is also good. Looking forward to this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Bunting III (2004) authored a book on Grant's presidency, but at 208 pages it was not in depth. Calhoun's work is 736 pages 3.5 times as large. I think it is a lengthly book long over due and needed on Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course you can't judge a book soley on its number of pages, but at 736, AGF, it would seem Calhoun has gone the distance covering Grant's presidency, too often treated as the secondary subject in his biography. Seems like a great find. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
McFeely (1981) (200) Grant biography is 596 pages. That is 140 pages less than Calhoun (2017) Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant book. Yes. I would think historians could read Calhoun's book and there can be no more excuses for Grant's negative treatment by historians. But that is only my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Page view stats interesting

Yesterday the DYK hook for the World tour of Ulysses S. Grant article hit the front page. As a result views spiked to 12,000 that day. On the same day the views for this article spiked to about 12,000, from an average of 5,000 views this article receives daily. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds like the public has a lot of interest in a ex presidents 19th century World Tour. As for the imaging, I think that the images need to be during the time period. The Russell photo does not fit the time period in the Aftermath section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Everything not being perfect, the photo is the best depiction of Young. He was aprox 39-40 years old during the tour. The other image you had shows a younger man, while the photo shows Young sometime after the tour and appears to be in his mid to later 40's, which would be in the aftermath years of the tour. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
. . .
Cut-pasting last two paragraphs to Talk:World tour of Ulysses S. Grant#Moved talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Palo Duro Canyon and killed horses

The decision to kill horses was that of Colonel Ranald S. Mackenzie subordinate Eugene Beaumont. The source for this is Tucker/Coffey, p. 604, which doesn't even mention Grant. The battle was instigated by racist Indians who refused to share vast amounts of land with white settlers and who were routinely attacking settlers and other hunters. MacKenzie lead a surprise attack, which only resulted in a few Indians killed. The fleeing Indians abandoned almost everything they owned, including their horses. Beaumont, a captain under Mackenzie's command, out of some 1500 horses, kept about 300 and had the remainder killed. This was Beaumont's decision, who wasn't even in command. Grant at the time couldn't have even known about the incident. Your reaching attempt to distort the killing of horses as something Grant "supported" was either made out of ignorance, once again, or malfeasance. The Coffey/Tucker source clearly describes the event as that of Mackenzie's and Beaumont's planning and execution. Going so far as to claim Grant didn't love horses, in the face of multiple sources, based on this isolated episode in Texas, seems to mark a new low for this talk page. The Battle of Palo Duro Canyon article doesn't even mention Grant, either. Since Lincoln was President during the Civil War, did he 'support' the high death toll at Shiloh? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Bringing up a fact of history is neither ignorance nor malfeasance ! Is does not help to accuse me of bad faith. Wasn't Mackenzie under the authority of President Grant ? Grant did not know ? Racist Indians ? 1,500 horses is a lot of horses. These horses were not sent back East for preservation, nor to Yellowstone Park, where they could be protected under law. The horses were slaughtered. 1,500 - 300 is 1,200 horses killed. This incident, which is not in question, took place under Grant's presidency. I am glad we are having this disussion. Remember Grant is Commander and Chief of the Armed forces under the constitution making military officers under Grant's authority, including Mackenzie. Gwillhickers, you were the one who brought up Grant loved horses. All I am saying is that Grant at heart was a general and he did what he believed had to be done to pacify the Indians, without their extermination. We do not know Grant's responce to the horse killings by Mackenzie, if there was a response. Did Mackenzie receive any reprimands from Grant ? Grant had an admiration for race horses, or possibly tall and noble horses. I don't think that Mackenzie should be ignored ? You can start the article anytime Gwillhickers. You don't need my permission. Please stop the personal attacks too. Again, I don't object to you starting the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I brought up Grant and horses -- for a lede statement, given his life long and noted involvement with them. You were the one who made compound accusations, lecturing me on neutrality, and then went on to make a wild stretch, doubting numerous reliable sources and Grant's well established love of and ability with horses,, and then dragging the discussion into a battle that occurred in Texas without Grant's knowledge. Yes, we do not know Grant's response, but we do know the battle erupted and ended quickly where horses were killed without his knowledge back in Washington. You, however, used this as an excuse to deny Grant's well established love for horses and accused him of "supporting" the effort. Please don't try to rewrite such disjointed talk here on the talk page. You need to educate yourself on a given topic before going off 'talking' about it. If you want to try to connect Grant with what happened to horses at the battle, in the capacity you seem to desire, perhaps you should go to the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon article and see how long you can get away with simply claiming that Grant "allowed horses to be slaughtered". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not rewriting any disjointed talk. Again, personal insults don't help this discussion, nor lecturing me on what articles to edit on, like I am some sort of child. I hope we can treat each other with mutual respect. I was the one who came up with Equestrianism of Ulysses S. Grant for a title of the article. "Let us have peace." Those were Grant's words. The horses were killed after the battle, not during. I think that Battle of Palo Duro Canyon and its aftermath should be included in the article. Is there is a source that McKenzie was acting on his own authority ? Grant, former Commander of the Army, does not seem the type of President to tolerate rogue generals. Why not start the article first before there is any continuation of this historical incident? We are going around in circles for an article that has yet to be created. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Grant and horses

There are many events involving Grant and horses, from boyhood to world tour, that I'm wondering if the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. I'm well aware that 'Grant and his horses' isn't anything that compares to his many landmark involvements that directly impacted the fate of the U.S.A., but in terms of Grant the person, it's more than significant enough. Grant, from boyhood, was exceptional in his ability to manage and ride horses. I'm a little hard pressed for a name for such an article. e.g. Ulysses S. Grant and his horses doesn't sound quite right. Ulysses S. Grant the equestrian doesn't seem to ring quite right either. Any ideas? With all the Grant and horse buffs out there the topic/article would present an interesting cross section of Grant's life, and in turn would direct many readers to Grant's biography in the same capacity that the world tour article is doing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to any sub-article, but the sentence about horses is way too trivial to belong in the lede. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Grant was famous for his ability with horses, during boyhood and during the Mexican and Civil Wars and it became one of his trade marks. Grant was given horses as gifts, specifically, for his love of horses. e.g.His favorite horse Cincinnati was a gift. There's enough there that an article could easily be written about Grant and horses, and hence deserves a mention in the lede, which is already supported by the text in several instances. However, I'll trim and try to tone it down a bit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I never lived in the 19th Century, but everyone during that time period was probably around a horse. I don't see enough information for Grant and horses for a sub article. I think that is a stretch. The Arabian stallions from the Sultan may have been used to produce race horses in the U.S., but Grant had nothing to do with that. I don't think the horse information belongs in the lede. We don't want to over article Grant. His world tour article had 12,000 hits. That is great ! I think in an article on Grant and horses, Grant will get lost in the article and the horses will take over. Maybe Grant understood horses better than the average person, but that is unprovable. I am not trying to put a damper on the article, but just expressing my honest opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Not everything concerning Grant and horses is positive. After the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon in 1874 when Grant was president horses were slaughtered to prevent Indians from fighting. Opening the doors to Grant and horses or buffalos might not be good for Grant's reputation. Again. That is only my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Horses have always died in war. At the Battles of Shiloh and Gettysburg, hundreds of horses perished, often killed intentionally. When food was short, sometimes the troops would slaughter horses for food and I'm sure if Grant was hungry enough he would also. None of these practices would hardly be a reflection on any one individual in civilian life. As for Grant's reputation, all we can do is present the facts. Suggesting that this sort of thing not be covered because it might tarnish someone's reputation would not be neutral editorship. At any rate, Grant's love of horses is something he's famous for. He did extraordinary things with them as a boy, at West Point, during the Mexican War and during the Civil War, esp at the Battle of Fort Donelson, where the long ride he took over icy roads to warn other generals has been compared to Paul Revere's ride. Mention of horses is due in the lede and is more than supported by the text in several sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The horses at Palo Duro Canyon were slaughtered, nothing to do with being in a fight. Killed purely so the Indians could not use them in war. That is no love of horses. To say Grant loved horses is speculation. Grant used horses. He had too during the Civil War. The first gasoline car was built until 1879. [1] Grant allowed horses to be slaughtered to keep Indians from fighting. He allowed buffalos to be slaughtered to keep Indians from hunting. Neutral editorship is to bring in the bad with the good. You just want to bring in the good without the bad Gwillhickers. That is not neutral editorship. You want to make Grant into someone he was not, a horse lover. He was a general. He did whatever was necessary to win. He defeated the Indians by allowing their horses and buffalo to be killed. I have a right to express my opinions in the talk page, not put them in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Insert : Buffalo are not horses. What "bad" there is to say about Grant I have never opposed. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, you can create an article on Grant and horses. I am just saying that it would open the door to Grant's Indian policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Grant's decisions made during war or conflict, where human lives are in the equation, have no bearing on his love of horses. Men, who were loved or admired by Generals, were also ordered to their deaths at times. Grant's affinity with horses has long been established in multiple cases throughout his life. After all these years of reading and writing about Grant I'm a little surprised that you are still ignorant of basic facts. Below are six major sources that more than establish Ulysses' love of and ability with horses.

  • "The major outlet for Grant was his rapturous love of horses." -- Chernow, p. 13.
  • "He was so expert at handling horses he began riding at age five." -- Chernow, p. 13.
  • "He became known for breaking in wild horses for local farmers." -- Chernow, p. 13.
  • "His love of horses lingered in every memory of his friends and neighbors." -- White, p. 18
  • "Ulysses began to establish a reputation throughout Brown county and beyond for his love of horses". -- White, p. 18
  • "When it came to horses, Ulysses was quite enterprising ... By age eight he drove a team of horses hauling logs for his father." At age ten he was transporting people distances more than 40 miles. -- Chernow, p.14.
  • "In horsemanship he was noted as the most proficient in the Academy, said Longstreet." -- Chernow, p. 24
  • "Grant, from an early age, developed an enduring affinity with horses." -- Smith, p.23
  • "Not his studies, however, but horses were Ulysses' greatest interest." -- McFeely, p.10
  • "His temperament was perfect for handling horses." -- McFeely, p.10
  • "...he preferred to be with living animals, especially horses, for whom he soon developed a passion." -- Simpson, p. 3
  • "Ulysses loved horses and early displayed a gift for riding and managing them." -- Brands, p.8

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)-

Do any of the above authors discuss the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon where over 1,000 ponies were butchered, just like Grant allowing the the buffalo to be slaughtered? You can't paint Grant the horse lover and then ignore why he allowed the destruction of 1,000 ponies. Grant did not want Indians killed, but their food supply and transporation, no problem. Grant never stopped being a general when he was President. A scortched earth policy was adopted by Grant and Sherman to keep Indians on their reservations. Did Grant start an horse reservation or haven ? His interest in horses only seemed to be in racing or war. Wikipedia should be an article on Grant for who he was, not who we want him to be. I am not stopping you from starting the article Gwillhickers. I think there should be inclusion of all animals, buffalo, seals, and horses for a neutral article. I feel I have a right to be critical in the talk page. I am all for people being "bold" on Wikipedia. Also the term "love" is very subjective. We might be going around in circles here. Let the article get started. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Upon retrospect, mentioning that Grant had allowed the killing of horses during the Indian wars would be an interesting point of context, somewhere in the text -- bearing in mind that horses were often ordered killed during wars or violent conflicts, when human lives were involved. Right now we are discussing a simple statement about horses in the lede. We can say Grant had a love of and ability with horses because this is what multiple major sources say, and as you should know, is an idea that is supported by a life time of events. The term 'love' can refer to any number of degrees and meanings, so I'm not understanding why you need to belabor that term when used in context of horses and in light of the facts and sources supporting the idea. Grant had a general love of mankind, around the world, and because he ordered the killing of some men during battles doesn't change that. Ditto with horses. Evidently this is something that's confusing for some individuals. In that case, we simply say what the sources say, already supported by our text in several areas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
If the article is just on horses I would title it: Equestrianism of Ulysses S. Grant. If the article was more expansive I title it : Conservationalism of Ulysses S. Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I like the first title! I was still wondering about a title for such an article but every idea I've come up with comes off clunky. If and when, we should use that title.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Ulysses S. Grant, the equestrian, is even better, because the verb Equestrianism doesn't ring quite as well as its root word, equestrian, a noun. Besides, it's much easier to pronounce, esp when placed at the end of the title, imo-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Ulysses S. Grant and horses makes the most sense to me for a sub-article. Straightforward prose that clearly identifies the subject. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Battle scenes

I think more battle scenes are needed in the Overland campaign and Petersburg seige section. The other photos do not depict any battle scenes and do not convey the brutality of the battles fought. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede statement for Grant and horses

Major biographers have covered Grant and his relationship with horses, sometimes at length. If there was only one or two incidents with Grant and horses the idea might be considered trivial, however, there are many notable incidents, from boyhood all the way up to the world tour, which gives us a common thread that runs through Grant's life. Out of compromise, I trimmed down my original edit, per Coemgenus' comment. This common thread deserves at least a peep in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the article on Grant and horsemanship ? I found a book on the very subject. There is more information on the subject than I thought. But the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon is signifigant concerning the slaughter of over 1,000 horses scortched earth policy during Grant's presidency. I had also provided the source for that information. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
What happened to the discussion about a lede statement? There's been no real discussion on that yet. If you're anxious to start an article on Grant and horses, by all means go for it. The book you pointed out is a good find. Meanwhile I created this section so we could discuss a simple lede statement, given Grant's life long involvement with and all the literature on Grant and horses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There currently is not enough informaton on Grant and horsemanship in the article for a lede statement. However, the Dowdall (2013) book is all about that. If that book were added to the article and used as a reference, then I think there could be enough information to be in the lede. I was previously unaware of the Dowdall (2013) book. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that putting it in the lede would be undue weight. A separate article on the subject would make sense, if anyone wants to write it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
After reading through the Dowdall (2013) book, this sentence might be appropriate for the lede:
Grant's passion for thoroughbred horses and his horsemanship skills made him an aggressive field commander and general. page ix Introduction Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the effort, but it wasn't 'horses' that made Grant an aggressive commander. In any case, I believe there is enough on Grant and horses in the article, and because he became famous for his love of and skill with horses, virtually all his life, to warrant a simple mention in the lede. Don't know why this turned into such a big debate. It certainly doesn't involve any controversial content dispute. We don't even mention or his famous horse Cincinnati, or the serious accident Grant had while riding (a different horse). Am still open to suggestions, and if there really isn't enough in the article about Grant and horses, then perhaps we need to add a bit more, as this is the Grant biography, where Grant the person, his love and interests, etc, should get top priority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, we have to go by what the sources say. Grant is primarily known for being a President and Civil War general. Horses made Grant a "man of action" according to Dowdall. "Love" is very subjective. As far as I know Grant made no outcry when the horses were slaughtered after the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon in 1874. His Indian policy included a scortched earth policy. Indian wars were common in Grant's time. Horses were essential to warfare at that time period. Even Dowdall mentions that Civil War horses were often wounded or killed in battle. I have tried to help out. Dowdall would make a good book for this article and a Horsmanship of Ulysses S. Grant article. I don't think that mentioning "Cincinnati" or Grant's "love of" horses in the article is enough weight to put in the lede section, unless more information from Dowdall is given in the article. Dowdall is a reliable authority on Grant and horses. The book was published in Ireland. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we have to say what the sources say. As has already been pointed out, many of them say Grant loved horses. Also, we treat the subject in proportion to the how the sources have covered it, and many of them, including Chernow, White, McFeely, etc, cover Grant and horses throughout his biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Cincinnati

Dowdall devotes numerous pages to Grant's favorite horse, Cincinnati, which was a gift. She also mentions that because of Grant's reputation for his love of horses received "many" thoroughbred horses as gifts throughout the Civil War and after. Chernow on four different pages covers events involving Grant and Cincinnati and has an entry for it in his index. Smith on at least four different pages mentions Cincinnati. White also refers to events involving Grant and Cincinnati on at least four different pages. Simpson and McFeely also mention this horse. Somewhere in the text we should cover an event involving Cincinnati and mention that this was Grant's favorite horse. If we launch a dedicated article on Grant and horses we of course can get into this topic in depth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem mentioning Cincinnati in the article, but Dowdall contends Grant's horses made him a "man of action". That would be worthy of a lede mention, but you Gwillhickers, disagreed with Dowdall. Dowdall makes a lot of sense. Grant was not a big man, but on a big horse, he stood out. Horses gave Grant the confidence he needed in battle that he lacked because of his size. Horses served as an equalizer. That is what Dowdall is saying. Just mentioning that Grant "loved" horses is trivia. And saying Grant "loved" horses makes Grant sound like a horse preservationist. This is not true because of the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon and the "scorched earth" policy of Sherman, the slaughter of over a thousand horses, allowed by Grant toward the Indians. You can edit what you want to Gwillhickers. You do not need editor approval to make edits. Be bold. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
What you're saying is that the only time Grant had confidence is when he was on horseback. Rubbish. He had unusual amounts of confidence even as a boy. Grant was not a tall man, but he was far from being a little man who needed horses to stand out. What is Dowdall's quote on this? This just sounds too weird. Once again, what happened at the Battle of Palo Canyon was decided by an other officer, which Grant was not even aware of until sometime thereafter. Grant sacrificed men also. Does this mean he didn't love his fellow soldiers? We do not live on a flat earth. Many things in human endeavors are not at all two dimensional. This has already been explained for you, yet you insist on believing this battle somehow underminds the idea that Grant loved horses, regardless that multiple reliable sources say so. It's very likely that horses were sacrificed to prevent further fighting and continued loss of human life. And I never proposed saying "Grant loved horses", period. Please pay attention to the debate, and look at my lede statement in edit history, before it was reverted, so you don't waste our time in the usual argumentative, repetitive and wandering fashion. Sorry Cm', but you bring this tone of debate on to yourself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
It means that Grant did what it took to win. The sacrifices of animals, horses or buffalo, were necessary to Grant for the pacification of the Indians and to put them on reservations. "Horsemanship made him into a man of action : a commander who went forward when other generals might theorise or dither." Dowdall (2013) Introduction Cmguy777 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I can accept the idea that horses helped Grant become a man of action. After all, they got him to where he was going much faster than if he was simply on foot -- but the idea that he was not aggressive and had no confidence unless he was on horseback is wholly absurd. Are we sure Grant was on horseback during all the battles he won? Are Generals on horseback during battle an unusual thing during the Civil War? I would think it was common, but not necessarily a rule. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. I gave you the Dowdall quote. She is saying the horses gave a shy introverted 5'8" man the confidence to fight. That makes a lot of sense. Of course Grant had an inner fight in him, but the horses brought that side out of him. I was just trying to help. She is explaining why Grant had a passion for thoroughbred horses. If you disagree with Dowdall that is your opinion. I think you are kind of defeating your own purpose. You want to add information on Grant and horsemanship, but seem to reject Dowdall who wrote a whole book on the subject. I am not here to argue over the Dowdall book. You are free to make edits or create an article on Grant and horsmanship. I gave the Dowdall source for such purposes. It seems we are going around in circles. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Dowdall offers some good history about Grant and horses, but we'll need more than her account to make the sort of statements she is making about Grant the inner man, etc. We know Grant was shy, on the surface, and generally quiet, in public settings, and we can say so in terms of fact because this is what multiple sources say, but her estimation that it was horses that produced some sort of miraculous transformation should be corroborated with other sources. Again, Grant exhibited courage, resourcefulness and ambition since he was a boy. I have not rejected this source, but merely scrutinize it like any other source when it comes to subjective matters about a personality that existed over 130 years ago. This is one of the reasons why there's guidelines about relying too heavily on one source. If we cite the established facts, i.e.actions, deeds, etc, Grant the person in relation to horses will reveal itself to any reader with average intelligence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
There is an interesting early photo of Grant standing next to another taller soldier. You can see the height difference. When Grant was on a horse he was a "taller person". The equalizer. I would not completely discount Dowdall's view that horses made Grant a "man of action". Sheridan, himself, was not that tall, but he was part of the calvary and very aggressive. As said before, if you have something to add to the article, using Dowdall as a source reference, that would be good for the aritcle. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Gwillhickers that Dowdall's theory is too bizarre to include on its face. If there were a Grant and horses article, I could see discussing it there. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Dowdall seems to be reading some of her own impressions into matters, like all historians, but a little too much with this particular topic. Horses made anyone appear taller. In battle of course it made soldiers 'men of action'. Bear in mind that in most biographies there's coverage of e.g. Grant entering West Point, who was small upon going in, and four years later graduating almost 6 inches taller. Other than that sort of thing, I've never come across any issue made over Grant's height. His height, nothing unusual, never compromised his command and the greater respect he had among the military and as President. The idea that Grant, with his ability, was able to perform exceptional feats on horseback, is already demonstrated in the biography at least twice: Once for the Mexican War, once during the Civil War, at the battle of Fort Donelson. -- Let's stay focused on Cincinnati, why this section was initiated. Grant received Cincinnati as a gift by a thankful admirer after his victory at Chattanooga. It was his prize horse, the "apple of Grant's eye", according to Smith, and he would let no one ride it, with the exception of Lincoln, whom Grant considered a good horseman, when the two were inspecting the Union front lines at Petersberg. Grant also rode Cincinnati while commanding the Overland Campaign. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

What then is the proposal for the article ? Cincinnati was the "apple of Grant's eye" ? Did Grant go to the front lines riding Cincinnati? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
As said above, Lincoln rode Cincinnati in this instance. We can introduce Cincinnati at the end of the Chattanooga section, and ideally cover the topic with no more than a couple of sentences, if that's acceptable. Not that the topic needs additional justification for inclusion, but it's the sort of thing that humanizes the narrative and keeps the reader with us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Humanizes the narrative ? Remember Civil War horses were injured and killed. The Overland Campaign was particularly violent. I was thinking more in this line: Unknown to Lee, Grant, puffing heavily on his cigar, rode across the James River on his trusted steed Cincinnati, together with his troops, using a makeshift pontoon bridge, marching to Petersburg. The helpless Lee could do nothing to stop him. Lincoln was the only other person Grant allowed to ride Cincinatti. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this is more accurate: "Grant sat tall on his mighty steed Cincinatti, puffing heavily on his cigar, watching his Union troops victoriously cross the James River on a makeshift pontoon bridge marching to Petersburg, while Lee could do nothing to stop him. ''" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That's really not encyclopedic language. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Rewrite:"Grant sat atop his horse Cincinatti watching his Union troops cross the James River on a makeshift pontoon bridge marching to Petersburg. Lincoln was the only other person Grant allowed to ride Cincinatti." 19:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Grant may have been mounted on either Egypt of Cincinatti. I believe Bruce Catton wrote about this in Grant Takes Command, but he may not have mentioned the horse he sat on. This is the problem of bringing in horses into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Because of his love of horses, he liked to try out different ones. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Correction: According to Smith (2001) page 373 Grant was standing, not on his horse, when his troops crossed the James River on the pontoon bridge. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I added information on Cincinnati using Smith (2001) as a reference in the Overland Campaign and Petersburg seige section. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget Appomattox -- Cincinnati was rode by Grant all the way up to Lee's surrender. Deserves a few words of mention there also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
What source says Grant road Cincinnati at Appomatox ? Both Chernow (2017) and Smith (2001) mention Cincinnati at the start of the Overland Campaign. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
That's one of those things that seems more relevent to Cincinnati's article than Grant's. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Dowdall, p.102, mentions that Grant rode Cincinnati "until the end of the war". We should simply mention this, in the proper place in so many words, rather then mentioning Grant rode Cincinnati here and there in every instance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, Grant had several horses available, most likely to rest a horse and ride another. "Until the end of the war" does not exclude that he rode other horses. The statement by itself is confusing and could mean that Grant rode Cinicinnati everyday. We have no way to substantiate that. We need to be specific when Grant rode Cincinatti. Why so much emphasis on Grant and his horses or Cincinnati ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a general statement. During the campaigns in question it would seem Grant just rode one horse, his favorite, and didn't bother with the task of transporting other horses around, esp if there was no pressing reason to do so. Grant wasn't on a journey where he had to ride many miles at one time, requiring him to ride a fresh horse. i.e.Grant advanced no faster than his army could and had cavalry and pickets to deal with the overall advance. Unless there's a source that says Grant also rode an alternate horse from Chattanooga to Appomattox, there's really no issue here than goes any further than speculation and argumentative doubt. Again, a general statement. If you have another source that gives us more than speculation otherwise, we can discuss it. If you require a supporting source to make the general statement good luck in your search. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't oppose putting in a statement that Grant used other horses in the Civil War or any specific time that Grant used Cincinnati when verified by a reliable source. "Until the end of the war" does not give specific information when Grant actually rode Cincinatti. This is not a "speculation or argumentative doubt" issue or concern. The Dowdall From Cincinnati to the Colorado Ranger: The Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant (2013) mentions Grant used Egypt in the Virginia campaigns mostly, but Cincinatti was used on special key occasions. I don't have that book. Just using the Google search. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I added a note on Grant's horsemanship and his horses he rode during the Civil War using Smith (2001) references. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

edit break

Once again, it's only a general statement about Cincinnati, given to Grant after Chattanooga, near the end of the war. It's understood that Grant had other horses. If Dowdall claims Grant rode Cincinnati until the end of the war that would included Appomattox. If you find a source that says Grant rode another horse, also, during this time, we can entertain that idea if it involves more than an exceptional incident. Also, you've added too many details about about Cincinnati's lineage, even for a foot note. This sort of material involves in dept coverage and is much better placed in a dedicated article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above Dowdall 2013 says Grant road Egypt throughout most of the Virginia Campaign, but sometimes road Cincinnati. I don't have a copy of the Dowdall book and the Google public book version does not contain page numbers. We have to know when Grant first road Cincinatti. Smith mentions Cincinatti's heritage. Gwillhickers, you are welcome to make edits to the article. I think my edits have been appropriate. I don't like being critisized for every good faith edit I have made concerning Grant's horsemanship and horses. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Grant received Cincinnati at the end of the Chattanooga campaign. The huge and intelligent horse instantly became Grant's favorite -- from that point on. Many sources, including Smith and Dowdall, say so. Dowdall, while mentioning Egypt, also gives us the overall claim that Grant rode his favorite horse, Cincinnati, up to the end of the war, which occurred at Appomattox. There are paintings of Grant and Lee at Appomattox on their favorite horses, Cincinnati and Traveler, respectively. In any case, Grant's biography doesn't have to cut it any finer than with the general statement. If you'd like to cite exceptions involving Egypt in a dedicated article that would make interesting reading. Also, while the leg work and effort that went into your well cited foot note is appreciated, much of it goes a little afield, with details of other horses and such. However, the first two sentences in that note are good to go and should remain, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I was only going by what Smith (2001) had said in his Grant. Page numbers and authors are needed. It would be appropriate to say Grant met Lee on Cincinatti but that needs to be referenced. Mentioning Egypt would need to be referenced. Details of other horses were kept at a minimum. The reader has to have some context to Grant's horses, not just their names. A dedicated article could expand on each horse. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Another source that definitively covers the idea that Grant rode Cincinnati before and during his advance into Appomattox would be nice. Dowdall, while not mentioning Cincinnati at Appomattox specifically, and if we didn't semantically belabor the point, could still be used to reference the idea, as the "end of the war" indeed involved Appomattox. Appomattox is one of the cornerstone subjects of the Civil War, directly and primarily involving Grant and Lee -- it shouldn't be difficult to find perhaps a better source to cite the event where Cincinnati and Traveler are concerned. I'm in no hurry. If and when such comment is introduced, it should be brief and intelligently worked into the existing narrative with just a few words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I feel like we are riding Grant's horses in circles. We have added information on Grant's horses to the article. From reading the biographies information on Grant's horses is sporatic. Chernow (2017) mentions Grant rode Cincinnati to Appomatox Station, but does not specifically say Grant rode Cincinnati to meet Robert E. Lee. I think Grant's horses has been talked out and other areas of the article could be looked into. I seem to be doing most of the editing on Grant's horsemanship and his horses. We need specific information for the article, not guess work, speculation, or general phrases. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Originally I simply wanted to mention Grant's love and ability with horses, an idea you doubted, in the lede with some supporting text about how Grant received the horse as a gift and would let no one else ride it except Lincoln. At your own initiative you went ahead and added material on Cincinnati in the Overland section but somehow missed the big items, just mentioned, and topped it off with a giant foot note about other horses, lineage, track record's, etc. On top of the belaboring of simple points, you now seem to have rejected your own source. Dowdall said Grant rode Cincinnati until the end of the war but because she doesn't mention 'Appomattox' specifically you make issue. Further, we have Chernow placing Cincinnati at Appomattox, but because Chernow doesn't specifically mention that Grant rode Cincinnati to Lee's doorstep, you, once again, belabor this idea as well, as if Grant just got off his horse, or for some reason hopped on another horse, before he met Lee. Now, once again you feel you're going around in circles and are ready to throw the towel in without even mentioning how and why Grant received the horse in the first place. I can wrap this up myself if you're not up to it. Most important, we need to cover the horse as a gift, Lincoln, and make it clear to the reader that Grant rode this horse to Appomattox. General statements, i.e. "until the end of the war", are fine for a general biography, so long as they are sourced. The biography is filled with general statements that don't go into depth with specific details. We can look for more specific claims in the mean time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already mentioned I don't have a copy of the Dowdall book and I can't edit without having a page number. Has Dowdall even been added to the bibliography? I sometimes think there is too much talking in the talk page and not enough editing to the article. Turning against Dowdall ? She said Grant's horses made him a man of action, but Coemgenus and Gwillhickers disagreed with that assessment. General statements in an article can be misleading particularly when Grant rode many horses during the Civil War. We are dealing with the 19th Century before the invention of the automobile in 1879. But that begs the question, did Grant every ride in a car in Europe or the USA ? I don't like being lecture too in a talk page. Grant rode Cincinatti to Appomatox Station. That is all we can say in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Dowdall cover's Grant, with throbbing headache, on Cincinnati at Appomattox quite well, but without page numbers this source isn't much help. Grant at Appomattox is well covered by the majority of Grant's biographers and historians so it shouldn't be too difficult to find coverage of Grant's initial encounter with Lee, which seems to have been on horseback. Grant on Cincinnati, Lee on his horse, Traveller. There is at least one famous painting of the encounter. This is the landmark closing of the war. Will look further for specific coverage of their initial encounter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Johnson POV

There is no need to POV Johnson in this article in the title President Johnson's term. Johnson was never elected President. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

How about a compromise ? Keep the title Grant and Johnson but not mention Simon's contention that Grant was forced to think blacks were human. Simon was just telling the truth. Grant changed during the Civil War and he was "forced" to recognize blacks as humans. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Johnson's only term as President lasted three years and 323 days. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Consistent section titles

Johnson was the president, regardless of how he assumed or how long he held that office. Using "Grant and Johnson" reads redundant and sort of clunky. Why not put the phrase 'Grant and' in front of the other section titles? e.g. Grant and Mexican War -- Grant and the Civil War -- Grant and Shiloh -- Grant and Vicksburg campaign, etc. Also, the statement, as written, sourced by Simon, was (very) misleading, directly implying that Grant thought blacks were not human, etc. In any case, the section title should indicate the main subject in the same fashion as the other section titles. How about Relationship with President Johnson, or simply, Relationship with Johnson ? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I can accept Relationship with Johnson. I think more accurately Johnson feud. Either of those will work. There is no need for an edit war over a section title. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Relationship with Johnson sounds best, as there was more to the relationship than just a feud. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. That is fine. I can accept Relationship with Johnson Yes. Johnson was President. It is signifigant he was never elected to the office of President. "He lacked the moral and political authority of an elected President." Albert Castel (2002) The Presidents A Reference History page 238 Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Election of 1868

I trimmed the Election of 1868 section to reduce article narration. Please feel free to make changes. Information in the original section has been transferred or incorporated into the main ariticle. Comments welcome. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Size

We're now back up to 103k of prose. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The idea of Grant and horses is fairly worked into article for purposes of a biography, so it's not my intention to expand on the topic of horses overall. My intentions here originally were to mention Grant's gift, Cincinnati, after Chattanooga, with a reference to Lincoln, placing the three subjects together at that point in the war's development. Cm' with just a few words has already mentioned that Grant was riding Cincinnati during the Overland campaign. Brief mention that Grant was atop Cincinnati upon his arrival at Appomattox would tie the narrative together from Chattanooga to Appomattox. I hope to accomplish this with just a couple more sentences. Given the new sources of Chernow, Dowdall, with all of their new information, as well as some others, we should allow no more than a 110k word count. This would give us some breathing room. Then if we must we can condense some grammar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Nope; all the allotted breathing room is 100k. YoPienso (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Grant's time as a General under Andrew Johnson could be condensed. I know I added information. It is an important section, but I think it can be reduced. There were really no wars, except Indian Wars. Some of the information in this article could be moved to Grant as Commanding General article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Insert : Let's not confuse in depth coverage, i.e.many lesser details, with summary coverage. Don't mind moving some minor details and such, so long as the entire sub topic, often covered with just a sentence or two, doesn't disappear or is reduced to B-class writing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Even 100k is actually too long. YoPienso (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not that simple. Atop of every guideline is the stipulation that there are exceptions to guidelines. That is the big difference between a policy and a guideline. There are also guidelines that say deletions should not be made simply to satisfy page length concerns. There is also an FA policy for FA articles that such articles must be comprehensive, well written and not overlook any important details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is a rule, but it cannot become the only rule. Without a good reason for why this article is different from all other articles, why must obey the size rules and all other rules. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree. We can't blindly embrace one guideline or rule and ignore the others. Am willing to work at keeping length in check, reasonably, as I've done all along.-- Gwillhickers (talk)
I think that this article has two priorities: Grant's presidency and his Civil War career. I did mention that the Commanding General section could be reduced or his feud with Johnson. The World Tour section has been reduced. I think the Commanding General section could be reduced to two or three paragraphs. The information that is already in the article could be transferred to the respected Commanding General article. Any thoughts or objections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
sounds reasonable to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll reserve judgement until we see 'what' and 'how much' disappears. One of the major drawbacks of rigidly following a page length guideline, aside from the unstable writing environment it has caused over and again, is that it assumes all articles are the same, so when it comes to very involved subjects like Grant we are expected to use the same approach as we would when writing a biography about 'Congressman Smith'. As such, this guideline can get in the way of an article trying to reach its full potential in terms of a comprehensive and inclusive narrative. Methodologically applied for no other reason than to reduce length, which goes against an other guideline, it also places our personal preferences above any consideration for the readers, which is sort of selfish when you think about it. Before we inflate another issue we should remember that the readers are our first and primary concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I reduced the Impeachment of Johnson section to one paragraph. More could probably be reduced in the Commanding General section. I believe Coemgenus reduced part of the Commanding General section too. Maybe it is best for editors to just focus on one section at a time in reducing article size. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think two sections Breach with Johnson and Impeachment of Johnson should be combined into Grant and Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Two sections for Johnson is a bit much. Please don't simply chop portions of the text out. If we must reduce the section significantly then we should rewrite it, including the most important points of context involving Grant, so it reads like it belongs in a FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The information reduced from the article was transferred to the appropriate article. That is part of the reduction process. Rewrites should not be hastily done and I don't like being pressured to or ordered to do a rewrite. I did do a rewrite of the former Impeachment of Johnson section. I am not against rewriting the section and any editor is free to do so at anytime. Information on Grant keeping Lee from being prosecuted can be readded to the article in a rewrite at anytime. There is nothing inappropriate about keeping the remaining information intact. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I did add information on the definition of Reconstruction, something that I believe was missing from the article. That was a partial rewrite. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I have done rewrites on a few paragraphs. If there is an issue between spacing between punctuation and citation, this can be discussed in the talk page rather than mentioned in an editing notation. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The objective originally was to reduce the text in the Johnson sections in significant proportion to satisfy page length concerns. When I first suggested a rewrite it was with the idea that we were going to reduce the text in large proportion. The now combined sections are nearly as large, approximately 5000 characters, as the original sections of Dec 11, aproximately 5500 characters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
No one said the Commanding General section was finished. The Election of 1868 section can be reduced. The Grant and Johnson section can still be reduced. The difficulty is the controversy Johnson created while he was President in his lack of administering Reconstruction, fighting Congress, his racism against blacks, his anymosity toward Grant, and his impeachment. The Grant and Johnson section is in three paragraphs. It can possibly be trimmed more. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I reduced the Grant and Johnson section to two paragraphs. I put information in notes. If there are too many notes then some could be moved to the main article or removed from the bio article if already added to the main article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Notes and information have been moved and blended into main article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Down to 100kb--nice work, everyone. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Coemgenus. It seems to help to move information from the bio article to their respected main articles before doing any rewrites. Maybe the Presidency section can be reduced since there is a Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Presidency blocked quote

Does the Presidency section need a blocked quote from Grant's letter to Sherman ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Article history

I thought this was interesting. This article was stared on March 29, 2001. Here is what the article looked like on February 24, 2002: Revision. Maybe looking to see how this article changed over the years might help make the artile better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting interests?

The idea of removing text to reduce article size is an idea I can go along with so long as we don't rush into it and begin removing some of the important details, which has occurred several times now, and without discussion about the various deletions of the given topics. This is reckless and inconsiderate editing, both to the readers and to editors who spent time and effort gathering and contributing this information. We had a discussion about article stability and constant major changes to a Featured Article, but apparently this isn't important either. Some of the rewriting has been okay, but overall we are losing too many of the important details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

My edits have been done in good faith, not "reckless and inconsiderate". I thought it was approved to reduce the article size by editors in general. My editing was done to keep focus on Grant in a summary manner consistant with Wikipedia standards. I thought that the article, and yes it has appropriate content, was reading like a text book rather than a summary fashion. I focused on the Ku Klux Klan prosecutions and convictions otherwise known as "white sheet terrorism". Feel free to add any "missing" or "removed" content. I also tried to clean up some chronology sections. My model for all of my edits was Simon (2002) pages 247-248, Reconstruction, who wrote a summary article on Grant's presidency. Grant became fed up with the Klan when Congress was slipping in their efforts to implement Reconstruction. To reduce the article one must reduce the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, "reckless" was inappropriate, but we're moving too fast and removing too much context just to satisfy a guideline that almost no one cares about -- and it is inconsiderate to the readers, regardless of any intention not to be so. Do we stop adding new content, esp with the new books at our disposal? -- Btw, let's not idolize the klan again, holding them up as the main reason Reconstruction was a general failure. Grant was faced with policing the entire South, which he strongly opposed, replacing one problem with another that's worse. Remember also, that attempts at Reconstruction occurred right after the Civil War, and as anyone may guess, much of the south wasn't exactly in a cooperating mood just after that long bloody war. -- Yes, I'll be restoring any important context that may have been thrown out with the wash. I am trying to cooperate as much as my patience will allow, but it's difficult to sit and watch constant major changes while much of the research and writing both of us and others have added just disappears, very often without being moved to a dedicated article, which most readers don't read anyways. Again, other FA and GA exceed guidelines, with consensus, or at least with no issues. If you doubt this, try going to the Reagan or Obama page and see how far you get with the slash and burn approach, holding up a guideline as your excuse. I'm a bit confounded as to why this isn't happening here while we're trying to comprehensively cover this exceptionally involved subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I was using Simon (2002) as a guide. He wrote a summary article on Grant's presidency. I thought the section could be done using four paragraphs. I added content by mentioning scalawags and carpet baggers as does Simon (2002). I had removed the Grant 1874 quote because it was out of chronology. Mentioning the Klan is very important. The Klan was in essense a continutation of the Confederate Army. Grant's Appomatox agreement told the rebel soldiers to put down their arms. The Klan took up arms. That is why Grant and Akerman prosecuted them. The Klan was widespread throughout the South. Neither the North or the South were in a cooperating mood, that is why Grant had to push Congress for the Klan bill. No "slash and burn" approach was used. I also added needed dates and cleaned up the chronology, again, using Simon (2002) as a guide. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Gold standard and Gold Ring section

I think the Gold Standard and Gold Ring section could be tightned up a bit, maybe a title change to Financial Affairs and Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed name for article

In Chernow's index, under Grant, Ulysses S., there is a topic, with many pages devoted to it, listed as Horsemanship of.... In other words, Chernow refers to the topic of Grant and horses as Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant, which flows better and would do well for an article title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a good name for the article, but I still think that the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon needs to be mentioned. Grant was a general, President, and a pragmatist. If over a thousand horses or ponies had to be slaughtered for Indian peace, he would allow it. Horses also were killed during the Civil War. That should be mentioned too. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Btw, killing the horses of the enemy, or sacrificing horses, was a somewhat common practice in the military. The event, which was not Grant's decision, had nothing to do with Grant's horsemanship and his love of horses, as we discussed. The event in question is not even tangential to the subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
The could make Grant look like a super horse hero and give a romantisized view of Grant. He stopped a guy from beating a horse during the Civil War. That can be mentioned. Grant permitted Sherman's scorched earth policy against the Indians that included or allowed the destruction of horses and buffalo. The killing of Indians was to be kept as a minimum. I don't think that can be overlooked. Even Dowdall mentions the destruction of Civil War horses. The destruction of the horses at Palo Duro Canyon would not have been done unless authorized by a higher chain of command. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Ranald S. Mackenzie, the person responsible for the destruction of the horses, was viewed by Grant as a promising young soldier. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Cm', you're wandering off again. Short of declaring another war, generals in command of a battle were given much discretion and were pretty much allowed to do whatever they thought was necessary, unless instructed otherwise. (e.g. Remember Grant attacking Fort Donelson, right after taking Fort Henry, without Halleck's orders?) Implying that Mackenzie just wanted to kill horses is sort of a stretch -- implying Grant did also and instructed Mackenzie to kill horses is stretching it to the breaking point and ignores the idea that men, and horses, were often killed in times of war. Such events have no bearing on Grant's life with horses. There's a dedicated article for the battle. it would be best to entertain such notions there, assuming you have a source that says in no uncertain terms that what happened with Mackenzie and horses reflects directly on Grant's feelings about horses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, you are free to start the article at anytime. I have a right to my own opinion on the matter, just as you do. All that needs to be cited is the fact that over 1,000 (horses or ponies) were killed to keep Indians from raiding settlers. Grant was President when Custer was killed at the Little Big Horn. That was a defeat on Grant's Indian policy. I just believe the potential article should be done from a 19th Century vantage point of view. We can't forget that Grant was a General. MacKensie won and Custer lost. Grant was still President of both of them. Horses were killed in the Civil War and after the Indian Battle at Palo Duro Canyon. If the article just focuses on Grant's "love for horses", but ignores Grant's Indian Policy, I believe that is more POV more than NPOV. I don't want to repeat myself. Civil war horses killed or the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon could be mentioned in one or two sentences. I am for the addition of the new article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
That reminds me horses were slaughtered by the Indians at the Battle of Little Big Horn in addition to Custer and his men. Maybe one survived. Maybe one sentence can handle the matter that horses were killed during the Civil War and during or after Indian battles. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 2 Jan,uary 2018 (UTC)

The article is about Grant's horsemanship and love for horses. The event involving Mackenzie, who was free to use his own discretion within the realm of army war-time policy, reflects in no way on Grant personally. Many horses were killed at Shiloh. It would seem all Generals knew this would happen before going in. Trying to attach personal significance to such an event, on any one individual, esp one not present or in command of the battle, is ridiculous. You are free to have any opinion you like, but if there's no source that connects what Mackenzie did with Grant's horsemanship, or one that specifically calls into question Grant's love of horses, them we're only spinning our wheels here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This was the link I gave: Indian Wars the the Collapse of the Comancheria This article links Machenzie with Grant's Indian Policy which was in essense a horse policy of extermination, whether Grant approved or not, but there is no evidence Grant disapproved. Dowdall mentions that Civil War horses were killed in battle in her book specifically on Grant and horsmanship. One sentence could cover the matter: Horses were killed during the Civil War and during Grant's presidency, such as at the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon, to prevent Indians from raiding settlers. You can think about it. I believe that one sentence would bring the reality of the 19th Century to the reader. There probably is not need for further discussion until the article is actually made. Again. I support the article on Grant and horsemanship to be created. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
All very interesting but this stand alone claim has nothing to do with Grant's horsemanship and his personal involvement, i.e.love of, horses. Further, is there a source that says 'killing horses' was part of an Indian Peace policy, and that Grant was the major contributor to that policy? What did the document actually say? Was the policy involving horses any different towards other enemies than the Indians? Once again, horses were often intentionally killed during battle long before the Civil War, as SOP for army tactics. You're suggesting Grant invented the wheel on that note. Once again, this has nothing to do with Grant's horsemanship and his personal involvement with horses. You don't seem at all interested in the main theme of the article. From the start all you've talked about is the idea that Grant, not even present, was responsible for killing horses, an idea that runs 180 degrees contrary to the theme of the article, and it would seem you know that. We can't make fuzzy speculations about Grant based on "no evidence". Thanks for all your help, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I am all for the article to be written. I did give a link above. Here it is again: Indian Wars the the Collapse of the Comancheria. The article references a scortched earth policy that was adopted during the Civil War was carried over into the Grant's Indian policy. All I am requesting is that the article be kept in the scope of the 19th Century. I say let the article begin. There is no need for further discussion on the matter until the article is created. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Sheridan ordered the killings of the horses believing that the horses were too valuable to let go and to expensive to feed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
All that I ask is that the article stay within the scope of Grant's horsemanship and personal relationship with horses, all of which occurred in the 19th century. The stuff about Mackenzie, Indian wars, etc, etc, is all very interesting but is not even tangential to the main subject of the proposed article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You have to remember Gwillhickers, the Comanche "loved" their horses and were known for their horse riding. A one sentence addition I believe would give the article better perspective. There is a National Geographic article on the subject, but I currently don't have a subscription to that magazine. People of the Horse March 2014 by David Quamman. I don't think it is a tangent. I think it would offer the article balance and neutrality. It is not meant to be anything negative against Grant. That is the 19th Century perspective. A majority of the article should be on Grant's equestrian ability, his horses, and his "love" of thoroughbreds or fast horses. Out of compromise I am only talking about one sentence. I think it is best to get the article written first and published. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Election of 1872

The section on the Election of 1872 may need some changes.

I am not suggesting relying solely on Party Platforms, but I think, as in the Election of 1868, the platforms give a better understanding of each party or parties and the concerns or moods of the nation at that time period. The Democratic Party supported "equality of all men before the law", "emancipation and enfranchisement", and opposed" any reopening of the questions settled by the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments of the Constitution." The Democrats were highly critical of Grant's implementation of Civil Service Reform and even wanted to keep Presidents to one term in office outlawying reelection. Also , the section could possibly reduced in size. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It could use some tightening up, and I rearranged it so the inauguration comes after the election (!) but I think the main themes of the election are already present. I'm not sure how much could be cut without losing important details that all of Grant's biographers discuss--and you know I love to cut the article size. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Coemgenus. I think that the party platforms could help reduce the section size and focus essential details from the biographers or other sources particulary the Democratic-Liberal Republican fusion party. On the platform, the Democrats accepted enfranchisment of African Americans but under "state control", not federal. In reality they wanted white rule in the South. The Liberal Republicans did not want Grant to be even allowed to run for a second term. I was thinking on the lines of putting in what each party advocated sourced by the party platforms in addition to the biographers or other sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I got the section to three paragraphs. Maybe more could be trimmed. I tried to focus the narration and avoid repeating information. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_36&oldid=823257373"