Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Presidential IQs

I removed information on "estimated" IQs of Presidents. Its extreme POV is that Grant was not a successful President. The Prosecution of the KKK, Settlement of Alabama Claims, Reunification of the Country, all Confederate States readmitted, proseuction of Whiskey Ring, desegregation of Washington D.C. (Navy Yard 1869 and Post Office 1870) Someone like Woodrow Wilson segregated Washington D.C. and considered a better President than Grant. League of Nations treaty a big failure. Again. It's all speculation and extreme POV. None of these Presidents took the same standardized I.Q. test. There is no way to establish validity to these testings. This nation is divided by racism. I am begining to think historians are divided by racism too. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's junk science, not based on anything but subjective opinion. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Intelligence quotient testing started in the 20th century. It was used by the eugenicist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. It is impossible to test 19th Century Presidents with modern IQ testing. The article went beyond the IQ testing and maintained the smarter the President the more successful the President. The term "successful" is really subjective, as well as the IQ testing. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree mostly. While IQ testing can give us a general idea of someone's 'smarts' (after all, you can't be an idiot and still come through with a high score), it is not the final consideration, as it doesn't differentiate between static intelligence and dynamic intelligence i.e.the ability to maintain and employ intelligence while under pressure. That is where Grant shined. By almost all accounts he was exceptionally stable and a man of few words, mostly, thus allowing him to employ intelligence under duress. In any case, the edit about Grant's IQ was surely speculative, and as you mentioned, no 21st century testing can make such a determination with any degree of certainty. All we can do is look at the facts, [and his writings,] which imo, reveal Grant's intelligence more than any IQ test could. One could argue that Grant was at times fooled, and thus not very smart, but even the smartest person can be deceived, esp when they are trusting of others, as some biographers have pointed out. Perhaps a comment to this effect, per sources, would be better than any statement about IQ. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • At West Point Grant graduated 21st in his class, Lee was first in his class some years earlier. By some measure, Lee was the more 'smarter', but only academically evidently. In the field, however, Lee was defeated by Meade, 19th in his class, and by Grant, 21st in his. Given the throws of war, the available men and supply, and other factors, this is all highly argumentaive in terms of who was the more intelligent. Like Jefferson, it seems Grant was a polymath, possessed with a variety of abilities, with horsemanship, with math, as an artist, as a general, and as a president and diplomat, esp after his presidency during his world tour. His memoirs, praised by Mark Twain and many others, by most accounts exemplifies Grant's innate and unique intelligence. It seems a summary statement about Grant's overall intelligence and ability during the course of his life is called for in the Historical reputation section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Study: Smarter People Are More Trusting This article counters the IQ test article. Why are some people more trusting than others? Blame their brains. Was Grant a fool or stupid for being dooped out of money ? I would say no. But I think it is clear his brain, good or bad, was wired to trust people. It does not matter whether Lee was smarter than Grant. Would Lee have been beaten by someone who was stupid. That would make Lee an idiot. Lee respected Grant's intelligence. Lee admitted this. Grant's fault was his trust in people. Something he finally admitted when he was bankrupted by Ward. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting articles, but I don't know if they're any more reliable than that previous IQ report you rightfully removed from the article here, esp if we're going to tie them in with Grant. We can't in effect say, A report says intelligent people are more trusting, therefore Grant was smart, as that would be the worst sort of OR, not that you are advancing this. Grant's intelligence is demonstrated throughout the biography, with horses, as a general, memoirs, etc, but not specifically stated as such. In terms of his overall intelligence and reputation it would be nice to see a sourced statement, ideally from one of the prominent biographers. Will keep an eye open. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The IQ articles says Grant was above average IQ at 120. In my opinion, Grant was not dooped because he was stupid. He was duped because his brain was wired to trust people. Smarter people are more trusting. Grant technically, at least, is smarter than the average person. He was smarter than 19 people at West Point. He used deception when he attacked at Belmont, sending in diversionary forces. Since he used deception himself, I would call that intelligence. It's all speculation. My main contention with the IQ article is that it implied Grant's presidency was not successful. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Bear in mind also that more than 100 other cadets dropped out of Grant's class, so in an overall sense, Grant was among the minority that graduated. Finding a source that sums up Grant's intelligence for the Historical reputation section seems like something of a long shot. Plenty of sources give examples of Grant's intelligence, not always in such terms, but I haven't come across one that makes the general overall statement. We can't resort to WP:SYN if we have to reach to support such a statement either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Same ol' fixes

Coemgenus, I realize you've routinely fixed dashes in the text. Just want to say it's not my intention to disregard this. There is no such dash on my key-board, so when I'm typing along the standard dashes appear. Will make efforts to keep this in check, but if I should forget, please know it's just an oversight. Thanx for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes happen and I shouldn't let my frustration show in edit summaries. But if you want to add en dashes, there's a button you can click right below the text box next to the word "Insert". (Also, if you have a number pad, hitting Ctrl and the minus button makes an en dash.) My larger complaints are things like a space between the punctuation and the citation and, even more importantly, basic misspellings. It's minor, but FA standards are high and we should try to make sure this article continues to represent Wikipedia's best work. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Ahhh!! — — — — Right under my nose, once again. — — — — Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to be sure, I noticed that the standard dash is used in hyphenated words in the text such as 'brother-in-law', 'court-martial', etc. I'm assuming this is the correct approach(?) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's right. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I continue to have to copyedit this article in order to maintain FA standards. Could I ask that editors please do some basic spellchecking? Many browsers or browser extensions have spellcheck capability, so it's barely any work. In addition, please please please stop putting a space between the punctuation and the citation. It's against the MoS and I must constantly correct it. I'd rather spend my time here making substantive edits, not cleaning up other people's messes. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I should add that I appreciate Gwillhickers using the en dash in citations. Thank you! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant book list

  • The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (American Presidency Series) Charles W. Calhoun (2017)
  • The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Preserving the Civil War's Legacy Paul Kahan (May 18, 2018)
  • The Caribbean Policy of the Ulysses S. Grant Administration: Foreshadowing an Informal Empire Stephen McCullough (2018)
  • Ulysses S. Grant (The American Presidents) Josiah Bunting (2004)
  • The Virginius Affair Richard H. Bradford (1980)
The above is a list of books on Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked quote 01

How many editors are for or against the blocked quote in the Presidency section ?

  • Against The blocked quote is not needed or unnecessary. It takes up too much narration space or readable prose. Also the letter to Sherman was authored in 1868 not 1869. This is a summary article, not a book. Chronology is important. Editor input is needed to settle this dispute. My edits have constantly been met by opposition from Gwillhickers. Editing on Wikipedia should not be constrained by editor control. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Why has there been no discussion ? The quote is unnecessary. All that needs to be said is that Grant was reluctant to be President and it belongs in the Election of 1868 section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I kept most of the block quote intact but removed the blocked quote format. The information was moved to the Election of 1868 section. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Benjamin Bristow and Mrs. Kate Williams

I think there is more to Bristow that was uncovered by the Calhoun 2017 book Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Bristow was a reformer and civil rights activist, but he was behind undermining three cabinet members: Amos T. Akerman, George H. Williams, and Columbus Delano. Calhoun also discusses information on the bizarre action of Mrs. Kate Williams, George H. Williams wife, of sending letters to cabinet members, their families, and Julia Grant with solicitous accusations, including sexual misconduct. I am not making this up. I know there is a 100k cap on the article. It gives a better understanding of Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd add that to Williams's article, and maybe Akerman's and Delano's, but it's tangential to Grant (probably why most biographers leave it out). --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It might make sense in the Presidency article, too, if there's room. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the part about Bristow undermining Akerman to Grant is important enough be in the Grant bio article. Bristow spoke to Grant in person saying Akerman was not a good Attorney General. Bristow wanted his job. It is all tangential. Yes. This information would be good for the Presidency article and respected Cabinet articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

Fix missing apostrophe typo to this sentence in the Chattanooga and Promotion section: Change this: "Lincoln relationship with Grant was friendly allowed him to make his own strategy..." To this: "Lincoln's relationship with Grant was friendly allowed him to make his own strategy..." Bschermerhorn (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that typo. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Foner discrepancy

The citations for Foner read '2014' but link up to a source listing in the bibliography for Foner, 2002. My copy of Foner is dated 2005. In the Election of 1868 section there is a statement that reads, He lost Louisiana and Georgia primarily due to Ku Klux Klan violence against African American voters.<Foner, 2014, pp.243-244>, but mention of the loss of Georgia and Louisiana because of klan violence is no where to be found, anywhere. We need to list the correct publication, per citations, for the Bibliography and fix the citation for this statement, or remove it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement seems true enough, so instead of deleting or tagging it I simply hid the text until we can located the proper source and cite it correctly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
In the election of 1868 Klan violence was very high: "Across the South, the Klan and other terrorist groups used brutal violence to intimidate Republican voters. In Kansas, over 2,000 murders were committed in connection with the election. In Georgia, the number of threats and beatings was even higher. And in Louisiana, 1000 blacks were killed as the election neared. In those three states, Democrats won decisive victories at the polls." Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK American Experience 2018 access date April 10, 2018
A PBS article with no name attributed is not exactly a reliable source, esp for this FA article. Again, I don't doubt the account. Wouldn't it be best simply to straighten out the Foner citation, assuming it can? He's among the best sources on this subject, if not the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course a book account is better and author. Foner does not talk of Grant much in his book on Reconstruction. The book has been updated, but Foner does not talk of Grant very much and ignores his contribution to Reconstruction. At least the PBS article acknowledges Grant's name and Reconstruction in the title. I have not idea if the updated verson of Foner acknowledges Grant or what has actually been updated. PBS will work for now. Give them credit for studying the Election of 1868. It reveals that Forrest was the KKK leader, Grant's old war nemesis, was trying to defeat his election bid. Both White (2016) and Chernow (Chernow) mention Forrest as the KKK leader. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of the NRA

I feel like there should at least be a part that mention's Grant's presidency of the NRA. (Note: I am not a member of the NRA myself, just in case anyone wonders). York12321 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Grant at Belmont

"A tactical defeat, the battle gave Grant's volunteers confidence and experience.[1] Confederate morale was shaken, while Grant as a general willing to fight was noticed by President Lincoln.[2]"?

I take issue with some of the facts stated about Grant and Belmont

"A tactical defeat"? - Not correct, this was a decisive CS victory. (This can be backed up by many sources).

"gave Grant's volunteers confidence and experience" - Experience - Yes, confidence - No. (This can be backed up by many many sources) but also this sounds as though the writer is leading up to say that Confederate forces lost confidence and failed to also gain experience when the opposite is true (again, many sources).

To top off the absurdity of these two sentences the next sentence reads...

"Confederate morale was shaken" - What? We are telling the world to believe that CS morale suffered as a result of Grant's routing defeat at Belmont. Dozens of period sources can be cited here to refute this. Also, and not surprisingly, the source cited does not appear to say that. A cursory free view of that source at books.google.com shows the word "morale" and "Belmont" are not even mentioned in the same chapter. I do not believe this source backs that statement but I have not bought the $35 e-book by that author. Common sense dictates and a dozen sources can be added here to show Confederate morale soared after this battle.

"... while Grant as a general willing to fight was noticed by President Lincoln." I have not researched that particular folk tale, thus I personally will not try to change that but I do not believe a viable period source will ever be found indicating the President was impressed in any way by Grant's acting contrary to specific orders to not attack which resulted in a huge bloody blunder at Belmont. Yes, shortly after this, Grant began to show he was willing to mix-it-up with the Confederates and aggressively attack but Belmont?? Come on. Grant was not perfect, yes he probably did learn quite a bit as a result of that very bloody loss. I can further explain where this thought process originated and became perpetuated but no period source will ever be produced backing this statement up.

Confederate morale did not suffer as a result of their rout of Grant's army at the Battle of Belmont. They gained valuable experience and the rout caused an increase in volunteers. Grant's blunder at Belmont probably prolonged that war.

I suggest we simply omit that language rather than adding a few sentences with viable sources to prove these statements are not only impossible to believe, are not correct and there is no authentic period source that can back them up. Keep in mind, these statements are not even backed up by the sources cited.

If anyone wants to see sources here, I can post those. Rjr1960 (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by sources. I can recheck the reference on Confederate moral being shaken. Grant had less men but he created more casualties among the Confederates. It was probably Grant's most risky battle in terms of personal safety. He was the last one to retreat. The article says that the battle was a Union victory Battle of Belmont. On a personal note, I would just call it a battle. There were really no victors in that battle. It inflicted casualties on both sides. One could assume that the Confederate dead and wounded would have had a negative affect on moral in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Lincoln sacked Frémont before the battle. How could Grant disobey orders when Frémont was no longer in command ? Was Grant obligated to keep orders from a sacked general ? Certainly Lincoln did not think so. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal life

Grant was arrested three times for speeding while riding his horse, the first two incidents happened while he was the "Commander of the Army", on April 11 and July 1, 1866, the speeding ticket was a $5.00 fine for each ($5.00 in 1866 → $75.67 in 2018, based on the U.S. Inflation Rate[1]); the third incident occurred while Grant was the President in 1877, in which he was caught speeding by an Officer called William H. West, the officer initially apologized but Grant encouraged him to do his duty, the horse and buggy were impounded and Grant was fined with a $20 ticket ($20 in 1877 → $459.27 in 2018[2]); later on, the President went back to the White House on foot. (source: The Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. 1861 to 2011; 150th Anniversary Edition; page 17). GrecoArm (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: I read this story in a blog with the aforementioned reference [1], Is the story correct ?! I know some Flash cards about US Presidents which mentioned the story as well.
References
  1. ^ "U.S. Inflation Rate, $5 in 1866 to 2018". Official Data Foundation.
  2. ^ "$20 in 1877 → $459.27 in 2018". Official Data Foundation.

edit request :

This sentence in the introductory section :

"His death in 1885 prompted an outpouring in support of national unity."

Would someone either delete it or turn it into a real sentence ? As-is, it's an embarrassment to English teachers everywhere.

thank you 116.231.78.79 (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done I hope my attempt is satisfactory. YoPienso (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

error

At the time of he death, he was memorialized as a symbol of national unity. --80.251.112.203 (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the typo. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018

I think the name "Simpson" should be removed, unless some verification that it was used by Grant is established. 104.228.28.16 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done YoPienso (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Image

I ran across this image, and really like it so I was wondering if it would be ok to switch with the one of him sitting at the table. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It is used in the Presidency article. It is a good portrait of Grant. He looks professional. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Gilded Age has long been the standard term

The term "Gilded Age" is the usual term among historians and in textbooks for many decades now. Although originally coined for a novel, it has lost its literary connotations and now refers to social, economic and political history. See De Santis, "The Political Life of the Gilded Age: A Review of the Recent Literature." The History Teacher 9.1 (1975): 73–106. in JSTOR for evidence from 43 years ago. Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the term accurate ? I am not sure what it means. There were wealthy people before and after Grant. It was coined in 1873. Grant was president in 1869. That is a period of four years when the term did not yet exist or was published. The definition of the Gilded Age is that it began in the 1870s. No specific date is given. Is the term neutral ? It still has a connotation that back then the people were corrupt only during this period, but corruption existed before and after Grant. Clemen's book is fiction. It was not history. The characters from the book came from Clemen's imagination. In my opinion, respectfully, to be historically neutral, the article should say what took place during Grant's Presidency without a label. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a standard term for those times. Pretty common in historical writing about the period. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
This is interesting. The book was co written by Clemens and Charles Dudley Warner. Who then coined the phrase ? Warner was from Massachusetts. Clemens was from Missouri. This is the 1874 edition: The Gilded Age A Tale of To-Day Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a quote from Calhoun (2017) page 404 : "But some contemporary observers drew finer distinctions and saw Grant and his administration's agenda as victims of congressional misbehavior." Gilded age corruption had to do with Crédit Mobilier and the Salary Grab. The only time Grant would have been directly involved would have been the Salary Grab Act, he signed into law. Is it neutral to equate the "Grant Era" with the "Gilded Age" ? The New York Herald said, "but the people still trust and honor the soldier President and look to him to redeem the national character from the stain left upon it by their dishonored representatives." I suggest keeping the term Gilded Age in the article, but put it in after the Crédit Mobilier and Salary Grab scandals. I am using Calhoun (2017) as a reference for this. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
"gilded age" is the standard term used in textbooks and monographs. It is not controversial and it covers the Grant years. Yes, he was personally close to some of the shady financiers of the era--that is he was abetting corruption. These "friends" wanted legitimacy and visibility and Grant gave it to them. And he paid for it as Grant's money disappeared in failed speculations. Grant was close to Mark Twain/Samuel Clemens who handled the unusual finances of Grant's Memoirs that made Grant's family rich. Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not objecting to the phrase in the article. Is/Are there any objection(s) to moving "Gilded Age" to the Crédit Mobilier and the Salary Grab information in the article? That is about the time the book was published ? Calhoun (2017) page 404 is the reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
This is how I would edit the passage: By 1873, public opinion of corruption in government was so low, the era was coined the Gilded Age.[1]
  1. ^ Calhoun 2017, p. 404.

Cmguy777 (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

ok by me. Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Btw, the wrong name (Chernow) was inadvertently used in the citations, here in Talk, and in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
All I wanted to put in the article is that the Gilded Age terminology was created in 1873, and that the Salary Grab and the revelation of the Crédit Mobilier were extremely unpopular by the public. Thanks for the editor concensus. I think the issue of Grant only making one cabinet change after his reelection did not help matters either. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Orville E. Babcock

I have been trying to trim this article. It is 102 K. One of my edits was reverted. I believe this article should focus on Grant, not Babcock. There is an article written on Orville E. Babcock. Is there any evidence that Babcock indirectly controlled other departments ? He did interfere in the Treasury Department. He did interfere in the Whiskey Ring investigation by Bristow. What other investigations did Babcock interfere in ? And again, much of this could be in the Babcock article. How can we reduce ariticle narration when edits are reverted ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspected involvement of Babcock included the Gold Ring, New York Customs House, Whiskey Ring, and the Safe Burglary scandal. The only investigation Babcock interfered in was the Whiskey Ring. Babcock may have profited while he worked as commisioner of Public Buildings. This is information on the Washingtion Ring led by Alexander Shephard BOSS McFeely 1974 says that Babcock was possibly "linked the events to one another." Babcock was indicted for his involvement in framing reformer Columbus Alexander. Also Babcock may have received land for the Santo Domingon treaty. It is clear that Babcock was involved in crime. How many investigations did he interfere in ? The only one apparently is the Whiskey Ring. Babcock controlled the Treasury's secret service for his own benefit in the Safe Burglary Conspiracy and Whiskey Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Babcock was linked to involvement in multiple scandals and he used the Treasury's secret service to protect himself from investigation. I think this is a more accurate statement. Details of corruption can be put in Babcock's main article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentence there already was fine, I think. It established that there was no overarching scheme of fraud--thus demonstrating that Grant was not directing the corruption--while noting, as the sources do, that Babcock did have connections to more than one scheme. As it is, it's fair and not too wordy. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It is not contested Babcock was linked to crime or corruption. Here is the full sentence from the article: "No person linked any of the scandals together, except possibly Grant's private secretary, army officer Orville E. Babcock, who indirectly controlled many cabinet departments and delayed federal investigations." The scandals were linked together by Babcock. That is evident. But the statement also says Babcock "indirectly controlled many departments". It is clear that is true in the Treasury Department. He had control of the Secret Service. What other departments did he control ? Babcock did delay or interfere in the investigation into the Whiskey Ring. That is true. What other investigations did Babcock delay ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
In the Woodward cite, it says "In this, as in many similar cases, Babcock was the manipulating force at work" and "'He fished for gold in every stinking cesspool,' writes one historian of Babcock, 'and served more than any other man to blacken the record of Grant’s administration.'" --Coemgenus (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
No one is disputing Babcock's malicious profiteering or scheming or that he damaged Grant's reputation. The problem is that there is no biography of Babcock. All the information we get from him is always linked to Grant. My concern is the accuracy of the above sentence that is in the article. He did interfere in the Washington Ring and the Whiskey Ring investigations. Part of this discussion is to determine clarification of information. He controlled the Treasury Department. What other departments did Babcock he control ? I am only trying to verify what is said in the article. Woodward's quote is only a general statement. Did Babcock control the State Department when he went to Santo Domingo ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Babcock apparently controlled the Navy, State, and Treasury Departments. He interferred in the Washington Ring and Whiskey Ring federal investigations. He was indicted and acquitted in two trials. He was involved in the Gold Ring, the Whiskey Ring, and the Washington Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposal II: Grant's military secretary, Orville E. Babcock, was involved in many scandals, while he controlled federal departments and obstructed federal investigations. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's OK, but it loses the part that exonerates Grant which, frankly, I thought you'd want to keep in. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why does Grant need to be exhonorated ? McFeely suggested Babcock was a leader or organizer of the corruption. Babcock may have been. Let's say Babcock was the leader of organized crime. Grant did nothing to stop Babcock's corruption. Either way, it makes Grant look bad. Calhoun (2016) says Babcock was a paid military officer. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Coemgenus. As President, Grant was automatically suspect for any illicit activity that occurred under his watch, so we should make clear that he wasn't complicit. We should restore the prior statement or edit it for clarity on that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
What in the edit makes Grant a culprit ? The edit clearly states it was Babcock who was linked to the scandals. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Once again, as President, Grant was automatically suspect for any shady activity that occurred in his Cabinet, so we should make clear that he wasn't complicit, as do the sources who saw fit to add this important context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The article says Grant was not personally involved in scandal. How much more clear can that be ? In part this discussion was for more clarification on Babcock. He was indicted twice for the Whiskey Ring interference and Safe Burglary attempt to frame a reformer Alexander. Babcock must have made money as Superintendent of Public Buildings. Both cases would be obstruction of Justice in federal investigations, either by Congress or the Justice Department. The Alexander case probably was more detrimental than the Whiskey Ring case. Babcock was a dangerous individual. Blowing up a safe and then planning on planting the information on Alexander. Grant had nothing to do with that. That case does not get much attention. Nothing in the article says Grant profited from any of the scandals or was the cause of any of the scandals. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Once again, as President, Grant was automatically suspect for any illegal or questionable activity that occurred in his Cabinet. Merely mentioning the complicity of a Cabinet member by itself would leave the intelligent and not so naive reader wondering. Even in modern times, a President is automatically suspect when a member of his administration is involved in questionable activity. Once again the sources thought it necessary to be clear on matters, so we should be clear also, which I see you have. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The only controversy was Grant's February 1876 deposition. McFeely said he committed perjury. More likely Grant held back the truth from his testimony to defend Babcock. Grant was not directly involved in the Whiskey Ring or financially profitted from it. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles in The Century Magazine

"To restore his family's income and reputation, Grant wrote several articles on his Civil War campaigns for The Century Magazine at $500 each (equivalent to $14,000 in 2017). The articles were well received by critics, and the editor, Robert Underwood Johnson, suggested that Grant write a book of memoirs, as Sherman and others had done. Grant's articles would serve as the basis for several chapters."

The article's timeline for the publication of articles in The Century Magazine that doesn't quite square with what I can find. Reviewing the archives for 1883, 1884, and 1885, I can only find two articles with U.S. Grant's byline, in January and Sept. 1885, the latter of which would have been posthumously published. (The years 1886 and later have excerpts of his memoirs and additional coverage.) Obviously there's going to be some lag between writing the pieces and their publication, but putting "wrote several articles" in a paragraph before mentioning his 1884 cancer diagnosis seems backwards. (I get the impression that everything happened pretty quickly after the cancer diagnosis.) I'm not sure what I'm trying to prove, but mostly I was looking to find the year he was paid for these articles so I could correctly adjust the $500 for inflation and then noticed the minor discrepancy.-Ich (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

"A tactical defeat, the battle gave Grant's volunteers confidence and experience"

Could you change this to "Although the battle was a tactical defeat, it gave..." 208.95.49.47 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Minor edit only, not the type of edit protection is meant to prevent. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

McFeely sentence

Is this sentence historically accurate or truthful. It assumes Grant gave up on Reconstruction. "William S. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for his critical 1981 biography that credited Grant's initial presidential efforts on civil rights, but lamented his failure to carry out lasting progress." McFeely (1981), page 522 sourced Pierrepont manipulated much of Grant's comments made in a dispatch on September 13, 1875, in regards to Mississippi elections. McFeely makes much of Governor Ames plea for help from Grant. Is McFeely falsely applying the failure of Reconstruction to Grant, rather than Pierrepont. How did Grant fail to carry out lasting progress ? My source is Calhoun (2017), pages 507-509. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Also President Andrew Johnson did much to undermine Reconstruction, that Grant had to repair while Grant was President. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem was that Ames have a very hard time governing with a week support inside Mississippi, and very little support across either the north or the south. He refused to use state militia to suppress violence (he said it would cause a race war--by that I think he meant that the white population was strongly against using the black militia and violence levels would be much much higher.) Grant of course appointed Attorney General Pierrepont and was responsible for his decisions. Grant knew he had little support from Congress or from the public opinion in either the North or the South. using the United States Army to control state politics bothered him, and bothered Pierrepont even more. Calhoun is hostile to Pierrepont, and McFeely is hostile to both Pierrepont and Grant. In my opinion the bottom line is that in a democracy the governor & the president cannot act against the will of the general public at the state/national levels--that is specially the case if you the militia or the Army would lead to much higher levels of violence. just yesterday I was reading up on the current situation in Ukraine, and I think the 21st century shows in Ukraine and in many other countries that politicized civil wars have extremely high violent components – much higher than in Reconstruction. if you add in the 20th century, you come to high death levels in places such as ex-Yugoslavia, Mexico, Spain, Northern Ireland, China, Vietnam, Korea, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Central America, etc Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
On page 522 McFeely (1981) neither says he credits Grant and Reconstruction, nor lamented Grant's "failure to carry out lasting progress." McFeely may have said this, but not in his biography on Grant. Also, McFeely is neither critical of Robert E. Lee, nor Andrew Johnson in the Grant biography. McFeely is not critical of Sumner nor Schurz for not supporting Grant and Akerman's prosecution of the Klan. McFeely refers to African Americans as "descendents of the slaves," not giving them any citizenship status. McFeely does not support that slavery was the main cause of Civil War. McFeely said that Grant "did not make war for reasons or in ways that enoble the Civil War." I would take that to be a denial from McFeely that freeing slaves, giving them citizenship, and voting rights, were not noble reasons for the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Ulysses S. Grant pros overpower the cons?

hELLO EVERYONE IM IN DEBATE AND IM REASERCHING ULYSSES S GRANT IM WONDERING DO YOU THINK THAT HIS PROS OVER POWER HIS CONS LET ME KNOW! THANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaserchvaeh (talk • contribs) 20:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This article talk page is only used to discuss the article, sources, and citations. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

new article by Ferraro in Jan 2019 J Military History

There is a major new article that covers all the major books and primary sources regarding Grant's military career. It pays special attention to the (flawed) new edition of his Memoirs and biographies by Chernow and White. I highly recommend it: Ferraro, William M. (January 2019). "Old and New Views of Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and The Man". Journal of Military History. 83 (1): 195–212. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) I added some text to the section on Memoirs:

Throughout his career, Grant repeatedly told highly detailed stories of his military experiences, often making slight mistakes in terms of dates and locations. As a poor hardscrabble farmer in St. Louis just before the war, he kept his neighbors spellbound till midnight "listening intently to his vivid narrations of Army experiences."-- Albert Deane Richardson (1868). A Personal History of U.S. Grant. p. 157. In calm moments during the Civil War, he often spoke of his recent military experiences, typically in "in terse and often eloquent language." Adam Badeau (1881). Military History of Ulysses S. Grant: From April, 1861, to April, 1865. p. 143. Grant's interpretations changed over time – in his letters written during the Mexican War period, there is no criticism of the war. By contrast his Memoirs are highly critical of the political aspects, condemning the war as unwarranted aggression by the United States. Grant told and retold his war stories so many times that writing his Memoirs was more a matter of repetition and polish rather than trying to recall his memories for the first time. Ferraro pp 205-5. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
My concerns are chronology and article size, currently 101 KB. Is there a way to condense this information ? The chronology starts at Hardscrabble. This information would be good in an article on Grant's Memoirs. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I will do some trimming--such as verbosity & useless ibid-like muliple cites to the same source. Rjensen (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Corruption, reform, and Gilded Age

Is the article neutral having its own corruption section ? Do any of the other presidential articles have a corruption section ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding has a scandals section. It is not called corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Richard Nixon has Watergate scandal, but not corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Theodore Roosevelt has a prosecuted misconduct section. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
"corruption" is the usual term in the RS regarding Grant's presidency. (it is not used before or after his twp terms). Rjensen (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It's one of the things he was known for, whether that association is warranted or not. I think the title and section are appropriate. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The new research covers Grant's Civil Rights, Civil Service Reform, and his prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan, and the Whiskey Ring. The Dunning School focuses on Grant's corruption. Does Wikipedia endorse the Dunning school, or should this article focus on modern research ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Calhoun (2017) page 592 says Grant's political adversaries stigmatized Grant's presidency with corruption. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral. I am not for deleting the corruption nor stigmatizing it in the article. The corruption was there. My concern is the way the corruption is presented. Calhoun (2017) page 404 said Grant's presidency was "carelessly" equated with the "Gilded Age." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This article covers both and doesn't endorse either school. That's neutrality. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I changed the title to "Scandals and reform." The Warren G. Harding article used the term "Scandals." I believe the article should go by modern research: Smith; Brands; White; Chernow; Calhoun. There were scandals and corruption; duly covered in the article. That is not disputed. It is the way that the information is presented. Wikipedia should not carelessly equate or stigmatize. That is not neutral. I made changes in the article to present modern research. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check your spelling

New additions to this article are constantly full of spelling errors. Please check your spelling--this is a featured article, and is supposed to represent Wikipedia's best work. Most browsers have spellcheck built in to them now, so it shouldn't take much effort at all. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I was using a spell checker, Grammarly, as requested by this talk. Now I am told not to correct mispelled words in quotes. The "judgement" quote was found in McFeely page 441. However, since this apparently has to do with historical accuracy, then why is "[f]" in article narration, when in the McFeely page 441 quote it is a capital "F". To be consistent with the historical quote, then the "[f]" should be capitalized, since it is capitalized in the quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

ulysses grant

i jus figured out u could do this so imma do wha eve4ryone elee does and type some bullshit :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.104.135.176 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

lede image

Why was there a lede image change without discussion ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There should not have been, but it seems to be reverted, anyway. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In "Notes": Please change "tonsillar fossa" to "tonsillar fossa" .

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

World Tour federally funded (sponsored)

I think it should be said Grant's World Tour was federally funded since he used two Naval ships to travel: the USS Vandalia and USS Richmond. How much it cost to use these Naval ships to transport Grant is unknown. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What do the sources say? We mention already that he used the naval vessels. But were they already going that way, or was it a separate voyage planned just for Grant and his guests? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
White (2016) pages 597-600, 602 and 610 is the source for Grant boarded and voyaged on the USS Vandalia and USS Richmond. The Odyssey of Ulysses S. Grant Meredith Hindley Humanities, May/June 2014, Volume 35, Number 3 is another source Grant boarded and voyaged on the USS Vandalia and USS Richmond. These ships were federally funded, constructed, and operated by the U.S. Navy. Why should it matter whether Grant was a guest ? What matters is that he was on two federally funded U.S. Naval ships used for his World Tour. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In fact Grant used the USS Vandalia for a five-month tour of the Mediterranean. That sounds more than just a guest. "In mid December, the Grants boarded the USS Vandalia in Nice, beginning a five-month tour of the Mediterranean." Hindley (2014). Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The USS Richmond was used to transport Grant from (Tientsin) China to (Yokohama) Japan. White (2016) pages 588-589, 610. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
If that's all we have, we do we need to add anything? Do we need to tell the reader that the Navy is federally funded? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion yes. I thought this issue was worthy of discussion. It is true Grant's World Tour was both privately and federally funded. A five month tour on the Mediterranean is signifigant. I don't think it is a common practice of the U.S. Navy to give U.S. citizens abroad a five month tour anywhere in the world. Grant had to have been fed and lodged. I am not sure how long the trip from China to Japan was, maybe a few days. As far as I know there is no direct source that says Grant's World Tour was federally funded. Grant did pay for a signifigant amount of the tour, no doubt, probably from the money he made on the Nevada silver mine. This is what I would add: "Grant's World Tour was both privately funded and federally sponsored." Maybe federally sponsored is a better phrase. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Grant's World Tour could also be considered public affairs. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
So there was private funding from Grant, too, you're saying? We should find out exactly what was going on before adding anything. I would ignore that regulation you linked, since the Code of Federal Regulations did not exist in Grant's time. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
We know that the private funding came from Grant himself. I mentioned that. But how much more private funding would be good to know. I think we should add what we know that is sourced. Grant must have had more than $25,000 to fund his tour around the world. Respectfully, we may not know what exactly was going on. That depends on what the sources say. I added the CoFR to the talk page because it seems any public persons on Navy Ships is done for public relations. But from what I read I don't know of any Navy ships that offer the public a free ride to Hawaii, Japan, or Europe. I thought one thing that was missing was how Grant funded this tour. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What did the S. stand for?

This article could say what the S. stood for in his name. Vorbee (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Vorbee, Notes (b) and (e) cover it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As a child, I learned that the S did not stand for a name, therefore should read Ulysses S Grant, without a period following the letter S. This was in a World Book encyclopedia, published in the 1960s. Anyone else remember this? ‎TrulyV420 (Talk) 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Since Congressman Hamer mistakenly wrote down "Ulysses S. Grant", thinking it stood for Simpson, and since Grant himself retained the initial as inclusive of his official name, it would seem the 'S' should be used in conjunction with the period, even though Grant said it didn't really stand for anything. If you're suggesting that since the 'S' didn't stand for anything, and should not include the period, by the same reasoning we should not include the 'S' either. Since all the leading sources employ the 'S' with a period, it would seem we should let sleeping dogs lie. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hamer wrote "Ulysses S. Grant". Grant signed his name "U.H. Grant" (1839, 1842) to avoid the initials "H.U.G." It is not quite clear when Grant first used the S. initial in a signature. Ulysses S. Grant at West Point, 1839 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
What is needed is Hamer's appointment letter. I have yet to find it. This book says Hamer appointed Grant: Ulysses Sidney Grant – Life of U.S. Grant Benjamin Perley Poore, O. H. Tiffany (page 12) 1885. The "S." could have stood for Sidney. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Grant's enlistment is "U.S. Grant" :Enlistment Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I would just put that Grant was enlisted "U.S. Grant" at West Point. His enlistment has been published. He was not enlisted "Ulysses S. Grant" Until the Hamer letter can be found it really is unknown that S. stood for Simpson. It was a hasty appointment. Hamer could have written Sidney. I think there needs to be clarification in the narration and note. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Reconstruction Grant's presidency

The Reconstruction section under Grant's Presidency could use some tweaking, maybe better narration, context, and clarification. There could be more distinction between his two terms. The Hayes Reconstruction information is not needed since that took place under the Hayes Administration. The Compromise of 1876, had more to do with Hayes than Grant. That could be moved to the Election of 1876 section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing the small amount of text regarding the Hayes administration's actions doesn't seem to be a good idea, in that the Reconstruction coverage now ends with Grant's last effort, leading a reader to assume that reconstruction efforts and ideas were still on the plate. Here's the context that was removed.
Grant's successor, Rutherford B. Hayes, abandoned the remaining three Republican governments in the South that were supported by the army after the Compromise of 1877, which marked the end of Reconstruction.<Smith, 2001, pp.603-604>
I would recommend that this sentence be restored to the coverage.
Also, the last paragraph in the Reconstruction section, covering education, religion in public schools, etc, had nothing to do with reconstruction, so the subsection title Public schools has been added there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The Compromise of 1877 link is in the article in the 1876 election section. Hayes removed military protection from the three remaining Republican governments, not Grant. The reader could falsely assume Grant was fully complicit in the matter. We don't know for sure whether Grant agreed with the removal. That information belongs in the Hayes article. This article hovers around 100k. We can't keep adding information. Religion has to do with civil rights. Was there any legistlation passed by Grant that kept religion out of public education ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The reader will ask then why did Grant force the Indians to be Christians and to wear Western attire ? We need to keep this article under 100k. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I readded the information on Hayes in a note referenced sfn style. That will not add to the narration of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Hayes had removed military protection, not Grant. Grant was not president when protections were removed, Hayes was, as the statement clearly indicated. The reader won't assume that Grant was complicit, esp since Grant worked for reconstruction measures. The end of reconstruction efforts is a major point, and a good closing statement for the section. Recommend it remain in the main text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yet Grant had nothing to do with it. Why mention it ? Grant started his world tour in 1877 and was happy to get out of the White House. Once Grant left the White House he had no more responsibility over Reconstruction. This is not a general Reconstruction article. That is where the information belongs. Mentioning Hayes infers to the reader Grant still had some sort of power over Reconstruction. He did not. I put the information in the note. Grant did not participate in the Compromise of 1876. Hayes did. Was the Compromise of 1876 even legal, especially the Wormley Hotel meeting. It gets into things that really can't be summed up nicely in one or two sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It is unknown the extent of how much Hayes was involved in the Compromise of 1876, but Hayes was determined to persue a "new departure" policy toward the South and Hayes was concilitory toward the South. There was an abandonment of racial equality and Reconstruction would return to white southerners. Why should any of this be associated with Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I added more on Hayes. Grant gets the blame for not doing enough for Reconstruction, when it was Hayes who abandoned racial equality and ended Reconstruction, not Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it wasn't Grant who ended Reconstruction, that's why we mention Hayes ended it, which is a major point. The main text should make it clear, as it once did, that it wasn't Grant who ended reconstruction. Most readers don't click on links, let alone the tiny footnote letters. Recommend using that point in the main text. A good closing statement for the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Why not a blanket statement that Hayes ended Reconstruction ? Grant often gets blamed for this. Grant did too much. Grant did too little. Why not give credit for what Grant did ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Readded information to the narration with more context. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hayes

Something doesn't seem to add up about Hayes in the Reconstruction section. The article here says Hayes allowed Jim Crow laws to prevail, yet the lede of the Hayes article says: "Hayes was a lawyer and staunch abolitionist who defended refugee slaves in court proceedings in the antebellum years." I made an edit to the statement about Hayes in the Reconstruction section, that it was Democrats who enacted Jim Crow Laws (See: * Bartlett, Bruce (2008). Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), p. 24), but I'm still wondering if Hayes "allowed Whites to control blacks", via Jim Crow Laws. Bartlett, 2008, p. 24 says, "Democrats opposed every civil rights measure proposed by the Republican Congress". Hayes was a Republican. The source for the previous "control blacks" statement doesn't seem the best, and is not viewable online, so I'm wondering, given the discrepancy here, what its exact wording is. Seems more clarification is needed here. Chernow, 2017, pp.853-854 covers the part about Hayes withdrawing troops from the south, and that Hayes "surrendered" to the Democrats, but he didn't give them a pat on the back regarding Jim Crow laws. Saying that Hayes "allowed conservative whites to control blacks" seems politically divisive and implies that Hayes endorsed the democrats and their Jim Crow laws. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The article does not say Hayes endorsed Jim Crow laws. Chernow says Hayes "surrendered" to the Democrats. The source John G. Sproat said:"At times during the negotiations, the spokemen for Hayes appeared to compromise as well his ethical position by committing him to details beyond their knowledge of his intentions. Part of the understanding involved the abandonment of what remained of the goals of racial equality of Reconstruction with the deliniation of racial relations left in the hands of local white leaders in the South." Cmguy777 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Also Sproat said: "The extent to which Hayes himself was involved in the compromise is not fully known. He was determined in any extent to pursue a "new departure" policy toward the South and to award Southerners a generous share in his administration's functions. His conicilitory attitude, once he became President, fed the suspicions of those who questioned the legitimacy of his tenure." Without military support, Reconstruction could not be enforced in the South. That is when Jim Crow laws and segregation took over. Hayes withdrew the military support. Grant did too, I believe, removed troops from a state, before he left office. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Grant has been blamed for ending Reconstruction, but Hayes was involved too, more so than Grant. Once the military was removed Jim Crow took over in the South. The Republicans abandoned thier pledge to enforce or secure racial equality for blacks made at their 1876 convention. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Where does it say Hayes "favored" Jim Crow laws or "white control"? The idea of "surrender" and "compromise" doesn't amount to favoring Jim Crow laws. You seem to be making that assumption simply on the basis that Hayes withdrew the military; the article doesn't even give a reason why he withdrew, once again, laving the reader to assume matters. As you remember, Grant also frowned on the use of the military to enforce reconstruction efforts. Was Grant in "favor" of Jim Crow laws too? Grant, and perhaps Hayes, didn't want to solve one problem by creating another one that was far worse. Read: Military dictatorship. Section still needs clarification. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hayes favored "local control" rather than federal enforcement, like Grant had done with the Ku Klux Klan, concerning Reconstruction. The Compromise of 1877 was secretive and illegal. It took place at the Wormley Hotel, not in Congress. It is clear the white leaders "local control" did not honor their pledge of civil rights in the South for blacks, and it was naive to think they would do that. Jim Crow took over. Hayes removed the military so white people in the South would allow him to be President. That was the deal at the Wormley Hotel. Sproat says the Republicans renounced their pledge to secure civil rights for blacks in the South. Sproat says Hayes was for "local control" followed by a pledge from white people in the South to enforce civil rights. That clearly did not happen. Their can be no clarity on this issue because the Wormley Hotel meeting was entirely secretive. It came down to removing troops and Hayes would be President without protest. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hayes was already president. Does Sproat explain 'why' republicans renounced their pledge? As you mentioned, Hayes wanted a pledge from "white people" in the south to enforce civil rights. Yet you said Hayes "favored" Jim Crow laws without an explanation. In any case, the section reads better. Hayes effectively put an end to Grant's reconstruction efforts. A closing statement regarding Grant's feelings was added, but we're still leaving the readers in the dark as to why reconstruction was deemed a done deal, effectively telling the readers to go fish, rather than having this Featured Article include that point of context. Chernow, pp. 853-854, at least says Hayes was weary of all the "embitter hostility" and surrendered to the Democrats who now controlled the South. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

the term ":Jim Crow laws" means legal separation of the races. That came in 1890s 10+ years AFTER Hayes left office. The Supreme Court approved it in Plessy 1896. see John B. Boles (2008). A Companion to the American South. p. 339. Rjensen (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, this suggests the first law was in 1881, although not general in the all the south until later, and the laws were preceded by train companies doing on their own, see also the Ida B. Wells train incident of 1883. [2] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
post Grant & post Hayes. 1st local segregation laws after Hayes left office. South-wide in 1890s. Disfranchisement of blacks also started 1890s. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The article recently said that Hayes, a staunch abolitionist, favored 'while control', a term that was piped link to Jim Crow laws. That's been fixed, as Hayes was pressured and finally withdrew troops. Leaving troops in place throughout the south could very well have fermented an other civil war, or at least have further aggravated the southern states so much that the idea of national unity would never have materialized, making for a Congress that would never have agreed on much of anything, the implications of which would have been far reaching, politically and economically. Getting back to Grant, we might want to look into the political exchanges he had with Hayes during the transfer of power, which ultimately left Grant disappointed. While interesting, the Tennessee train law of 1881 was four years after Grant had left office, and the Ida Wells incident six years after. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Changes have been made. The term has been altered to "local control". I removed Jim Crow laws. Prevent a Civil War yes, but Hayes was a politician and he wanted to be president. The rumor was he stopped Reconstruction so he would be President. Here then is the difficulty. I have tried to be as "nice" as I could with Hayes and Grant. I have no alterior motives. The Wormley Hotel meeting was secret and no records kept. We don't really know what compromise or compromises were made. It is all speculation. That is the trouble. Again. The link to Jim Crow is gone. Why Hayes ended Reconstruction ? That is specualation. Why Grant removed troops from Florida ? That would imply he agreed with the Compromise of 1877. Both Grant and Hayes share responsibility for shutting Reconstruction down. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I remember reading that Grant frowned on the use of troops to enforce reconstruction and withdrew them because he rightfully didn't want to behave like a military dictator, a 'solution' that would have been far worse than the problem, and as was just mentioned, would have driven the existing wedge between north and south even further. "Share responsibility for shutting Reconstruction down"? Perhaps Grant deserves credit for making the tough choices and not turning the nation into a military dictatorship. Hayes too. No one wanted a dictator for president, no matter what the reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
That depends. One could say that blacks, or white Republicans, had to live under a white military, para-military dictatorships. (Klu Klux Klan, White League, Red Shirts). Whites controlled all the laws. The troops were there to protect black rights. Sherman, the General in charge of the Army, did not want to enforce Reconstruction. The racism was so bad, white people did not want their mail carried by black hands. Grant's appointed Secretary Cresswell integrated the post office. America today has the highest imprison rate in the world, more than Russia, North Korea, and China, while blacks have a 5 times more likelihood than whites in going to prison. I know I am diverging. I am only saying this from a modern perspective. I think editors are working well on this article. That is good. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK "Across the South, the Klan and other terrorist groups used brutal violence to intimidate Republican voters. In Kansas, over 2,000 murders were committed in connection with the election. In Georgia, the number of threats and beatings was even higher. And in Louisiana, 1000 blacks were killed as the election neared. In those three states, Democrats won decisive victories at the polls." I would call the Klan a military dictatorship. 00:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK " Racist activity in the South often took the form of riots that targeted blacks and Republicans. In 1866, a quarrel between whites and black ex-soldiers erupted into a full-fledged riot in Memphis, Tennessee. White policemen assisted the mobs in their violent rampage through the black sections of town. By the time the violence ended, 46 people were dead, 70 more were wounded, and numerous churches and schools had been burned. Just two months later, on July 30, a similar outbreak of violence erupted in New Orleans. This time, a white mob attacked the attendees of a black suffrage convention, killing 37 blacks and three whites who allied with them." Whites and blacks were attacked. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This is getting side tracked again it seems. None of this has much to do with Grant. A military dictatorship can't be justified by the KKK or anyone, defeating the entire foundation of the U.S. Constitution. Seems Grant and Hayes were well aware of that, despite the violence towards blacks. Further, there simply wasn't enough troops to go around in every state, city and town, to police everyone in the way you seem to think should have been done. It could easily be argued that a military presence throughout the south would have only aggravated the situation, create more contempt for the north, causing an increase in violence towards blacks, while rendering the idea of national unity into an abstract and unattainable goal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Pensions ?

Why are pensions mentioned in the Reconstruction and civil rights section ? Presidential pensions have nothing to do with Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

They should not be, so I shortened that sentence. The latest round of edits have jumbled things up again. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I support it being removed from that section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the pensions. I put information in notes to reduce article narration size. Also I focused more on Grant and Reconstruction in the second paragraph. According to Kahan 2018, prosecuting the Klan, prior to the election of 1874, did not help Republican Party win election to office. What area(s) are (is) jumbled up ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, the statement could be mentioned in a better place. Grant leaving the White House without a pension, and being uncertain about the future, are important details in his life at that point in time and should be mentioned somewhere, so I added it to the end of his presidency. At that time Grant was also "shocked" (Chernow, p. 853) that incoming president Hayes didn't defer to his opinions and had appointed critics of Reconstruction to his cabinet. All these things were on Grant's shoulders at that time and left him in a not so happy state of mind when he left the White House, even though he was glad to leave the White House. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Article narration size

I added notes to get the article narration size to 99K. The information in the notes is not disputed. In my opinion the article should be kept under 100K. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The article size has been slightly over 100k for many months, and as usual, out of many dozens of page watchers for this article, it doesn't become an issue until a certain individual makes it an issue, and for no pressing reason. Footnotes are not intended to serve as a dumping ground for information just to reduce a word count number. They're intended for minor details besides the point, they're not a place to stick major details about Grant's state of mind, and other major points about his life. Once again, this begs the question about editors adding new information. Will we be playing musical chairs with the narrative every time an editor makes a contribution? I remember bringing this to your attention several times before, and every time you refused to address it. Please find minor details to put in footnotes if you must fixate on article size. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is Wikipedia policy: Size guideline. Between 50k and 100k there is mention of discussion of the article division. "Almost certainly" at 100k. Are you recommending an article division ? Why push the article narration size ? Putting information in the note keeps the information in the article, retains content, and reduces article narration size. The best of both worlds. Making the article larger will only induce an article division. I am not playing musical chairs. Can we please be civil ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.
Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to recite things for us, you should get it right. These numbers are not "Wikipedia policy", they're guidelines. Also, please review this guideline. Your concern for guidelines can't be taken very seriously when you ignore other guidelines, and when you continue to evade legitimate concerns about contributions made by other editors. I appreciate the idea that content has not been deleted, but once again, footnotes are for minor details, they're not intended to serve as a receptacle for major points in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The content was not removed from the article. It was put in article notes. This discussion is not a forum for personal attacks. This is a discussion on article narration size. You have a tendency to make discussions hostile when discussions are suppose to be civil. I am not continuing "to evade legitimate concerns about contributions made by other editors," or playing "musical chairs." Rather than discuss the issue of article narration size the talk narration is directed at me personally. Please stop. I added efn information notes. That was done only as a good faith compromise to reduce article narration. Otherwise we have to trim the article. We can't just keep adding "content" and balloon the article more than it already is. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I had no intention of adding content in the manner you're suggesting. i.e."ballooning". You have a tendency to describe events in divisive and exaggerated measures, much the way a journalist does to get the attention they would otherwise never get if events were described honestly. I submitted legitimate criticisms. i.e.Moving major details into footnotes. i.e.Asking what you would do when other editors make contributions. Are they not allowed? 'Musical chairs' is an accurate estimation of this sort of meddlesome and whimsical behavior. There was no page length issue until you made it an issue, once again bringing instability to the article. The article is at 100k. Guidelines allows size discretion for articles that have subjects with a broad and varied scope. You refuse to accept that only because you're arguing. Also, why is it that when you want to remove or move information it almost always involves someone else's contributions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Open question forum: Are there any areas of this article that can be trimmed ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Article size guideline : Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length.
WP Policy : If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
The article is currently at 100k. You have been the primary contributor for the last couple of months, and during this time the article has fluctuated at 100k (+ -) with no issues from anyone. Now listen to you. Your call for a reduction in the narrative is not needed and disruptive and is only made out of scorn for me it seems. Would you kindly just drop the stick? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no "scorn" for you Gwillhickers. Unless other editors don't have an issue with the article length, I can drop the stick. In my opinion where the article can be reduced it should be reduced. Other editors have not responded. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Between the lot of us, over several years, (years!) we have forged a great article on Grant, the envy of the internet, with scores of reliable sources to back us up. It behooves me to think why anyone would want to diminish our narrative because it happens to exceed a guideline number. Next to Washington, the Grant article should be among the largest articles here at Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

A better Source?

  • @Billmckern: — Thanks for reverting my mistake. I also found another source, from a book about Tyrone County in Ireland, where Hannah's father came from, and found the information involved, but the google book listing offers no page numbers. If anyone has access to the source with page numbers perhaps this would be a more adequate source, i.e.a book v a web site source. Not a a big deal I suppose but I always try to cite things with books, whose page numbers never change, before using a web-site source. McFeely, White, Chernow, Smith and Simpson were consulted but no luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I added a second reference -- a 1989 travel guide which has a page number and includes all the relevant information. See if that works for you. If not, we can always look for another source to cite.
Billmckern (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, we can leave it for now. Don't know if it qualifies as a scholarly work. Other than the snippet view of p.62 it's difficult to tell. Will keep my eyes open for other sources. Meanwhile, I moved the template to the sources section and added the conventional SFN style citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Grant's opinion of Johnson

One part of the article says Grant dreaded a change in administrations, he feared Johnson would cause another Civil War, while another part says Grant was optomistic about Johnson. Was Grant in favor of Johnson or did he fear Johnson ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think he was optimistic. Most people were. I looked at the cite for that "dreaded" sentence, and I think it's a little strong. Grant worried that Johnson might be too harsh on the South, but I wouldn't say he dreaded the change. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the information can be edited to fit the sources better. It seems Johnson was initially hostile to the South, but then there is an unexplained turn-around where Johnson is the South's advocate. I am not sure the article addresses that. That could be briefly addressed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Grant intervened in the prosecution of Lee by Johnson. That could briefly be mentioned. I think Johnson wanted to put Lee on trial for treason. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • McFeely, 1981, pp.227-229, per citation [239] doesn't say anything about Grant's comment to Julia. Grant thought that Lincoln's assassination would put reconstruction efforts on hold. However, it was Sec' of War Stanton who was undoing Lincoln's policies, not Johnson, who, when assuming Lincoln's place, asked Lincoln's cabinet members to stay on. There was a lot of uncertainty after Lincoln's death, and feelings and fears towards the south's reaction were mixed, not black and white. In any case, the text, per citation [239] needs tending to. McFeely 227-229 mostly lends itself to changes in administration and relations with Sherman and Stanton with Andrew Johnson and Confederate Gen Joseph E. Johnston and what direction reconstruction would take in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln's death. [Add :] After the war both Grant and Sherman praised the confederate general for his actions at the end of the war. Lincoln's death, had a "numbing" effect on both the north and south, and actually prompted Gen. Johnston, and the south, into compliance.<McFeely, p.228> It's rather amazing that the south did not use that opportunity to 'rise again'. Not even a rallying call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

New book

Posting here, though this book is best served at the World tour of Ulysses S. Grant article.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Grant's birth place

Grant's birthplace

The former image of Grant's birthplace diden't convey the idea of the place, and the time, Grant was born in. The building looked new, with its screen door and manicured lawn, cement driveway, etc, with the fireplace almost completely out of view, save the top of the chimney. The trees that were present during Grant's day are gone, and there is no indication that the house is next to the Ohio River. There exists other more historically accurate images of this place that convey these things, e.g. posted here. Though not a photograph, this engraving is accurate in terms of the structure and surrounding environment. It was taken from a book by James T. Boyd, published in the year of Grant's death. IMO, it captures the place, and the day, in which Grant lived. With all due respect to its creator, the former photo comes off as a modern day promotional image for tourists, and looks like any other structure that was built in the late 20th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The older version is fine with me, if you want to switch it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I added the publisher and year. Tweaked caption. The reader will know Grant's birthplace depiction was published in 1885. Apparently there is no earlier depiction or photo of Grant's birthplace. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
In terms of historical accuracy, and artistic quality, I doubt we're going to do better. I tweaked another caption. in a different section, which led me to thinking whether we should include publisher information, with the same size lettering in the captions, per due weight. Most of the images in the article don't have publisher info. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The artist and engraver information should be kept in the information on the photo when provided. The photos or pictures come from books. The author of the book could be the artist. Putting in the publisher and date of publication gets around putting in the artist and engraver information since the picture is published in a book. Unless the art work is a seperate painting or photograph, it is best to put in the publisher of the book, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
We could just put in the word "Published" out of a compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
That would work. The date of the photo, painting or engraving is the definitive piece of information and is all that's needed in most cases. All the information concerning any image is in the file summary of the image in question, but we need only mention the date of publication in this case, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC).

Babcock's military status

Orville E. Babcock apparently never left the Army while Babcock was Grant's personal secretary. In 1867, he was commissioned a Major in the Regular Army Corps of Engineers. Should the article refer to Babcock as Major Babcock ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Added the Babcock was a Colonel (Col.) in the Army. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_39&oldid=924822361"