Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Moiety

The article says Grant abolished the moiety system in 1872 in response to the 1871 scandals at the custom house. I have two other sources that say it was actually 1874 (see this footnote in the Chester Arthur article.) I don't have the source cited in this article that says 1872 -- do any of you? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Grant ended the Moiety system in 1872, however, Butler put a rider that one person Sanborn could continue the practice. After the Sanborn corruption, I believe Grant and Congress got rid of the moiety system completely in 1874. The 1872 law was a progressive reform legislation that was part of Grant's Civil Service Reform initiative plan. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean Congress outlawed moiety payments in 1872? Because Arthur was still getting paid by that system until 1874 at least. This book agrees. Did the '72 law not apply to New York? I can't find mention of it in any Grant biography. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Grant appointed Chester A. Arthur at the New York Customs in response to an 1872 Senate investigation. I believe the moiety system had to do with the collection of taxes and customs. The New York Customs house was investigated by the Senate in 1872 for fraud, bribery, and high rates. The scandal originated when Grant's appointment, Thomas Murphy hired George K. Leet, who had been on Grant's military staff. Complaints came that Leet had a monopoly on collecting storage charges on imported goods. Grant wanted Leet fired but he relented when Murphy convinced Grant that was not necessary. The Senate investigation began in January, 1872. Grant himself was not implicated in the scandal. After the final Senate report, President Grant removed Leet from his position. Murphy resigned and Grant put in place Chester A. Arthur. Apparently Arthur improved the civil service of the New York Customs house. Abuses had also taken place under President Andrew Johnson at the New York Customs House according to Grant's Civil Service Commission leader George William Curtis. Compared to Murphy, Arthur was considered a reformer. My source is McFeely-Woodward (1974), Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct, pages 144-146. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand the confusion now. Moiety payments for revenue officers (tax collectors) were stopped in 1871 or 1872, but for customs officers weren't stopped until the Anti-Moiety Act of 1874. Two separate laws, two separate groups of federal employees. I'll sort it out in the article, and write some more about Curtis and the Civil Service Commission.

Calling Chester Arthur a reformer is ... generous. But we needn't fight over that, since it's beyond the scope of this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Coemgenus. I believe Arthur complied with the 1872 Senate Investigation recommendations and in that sense, in my opinion, he was a reformer. However, Arthur apparently made money from political contributions, an issue that would come later starting in 1876 and into the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidency. I believe political contributions and the moiety system are two separate issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

Since the lede is supposed to simply summarize the article (which is presumably cited) it shouldn't need citations itself. Unless you're using a direct quotation, I guess. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That depends. Grant's life was surrounded by controversy and possibly with the exception of his World Tour, there needs to be some clarification in his biography. I believe references are necessary for the lede in terms of his historical assessment as a Civil War hero and President. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend dropping all cites in lede (except for quotes). I dropped several that seem quite unnecessary. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There should be a brief historical assessment in the lead, but I don't know that it needs heavy citation. That will come later, in the Legacy section in the main article, which will be longer and full of citations. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Gilded age corruption and reform

What happened to the Gilded Age Corruption and reform section? President Grant prosecuted the Whiskey Ring giving permission to Bristow and Pierrepont to let no guilty man escape justice. Bristow did not prosecute Belknap! Congress did. Col. George Custer was the person who broke the corruption on Belknap. Congress investigated. What happened to Pierrepont and Jewell. Both were reformers. Pierrepont cleaned up the Justice Department. Jewell cleaned up the Postal Department. The article needs to make clear that Grant thwarted the gold ring and prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

President Grant instituted Civil Service. Why was that eliminated? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I made changes to the segment that add balance to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That section is still there, I just reorganized it. It's a part of the "Gilded Age corruption and reform" section -- a name you chose. By adding a separate "Reforms" section, you're duplicating the work we already did above. The civil service reforms were mentioned, as they were also mentioned in the 1872 election section. Now we have it three times. That's a bit excessive, don't you think?

As I've done throughout, I tried to make each section chronological and more oriented toward a theme, first the scandals, then the reforms. I don't object to any of the points you're trying to make, I just wanted to work on the prose and length of the thing.

And again, can we please stick to scholarly sources? I have four Grant biographies within arm's reach as I type this. If there's something we need to cite, I'm glad to look it up. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, reading recently the Sources section of a book that studied the end of Grants life (published 2004) and it identifies these biographers as essential for "detailed reading": Lloyd Lewis; Bruce Catton; William S. Mc Feely; Brooks Simpson; Jean Edward Smith and Adam Badeau. Together with the Grant Memoirs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits Coemgenus. I have stuck with scholarly sources: McFeely, Brands, Hoogenboom, and Morgan. Yes, there was corruption and Grant was protective of Babcock and Secretary Delano. I believe that it is important to have balance and mention Grant and Civil Service Reform and ending the Moiety system in addition to his role in thwarting the Gold Ring and his prosecution of the Whiskey Ring. Post Master General Jewell also made progress in reducing the corruption of the Star Route contract spoils system. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree! That's why I mentioned them. I'll polish it up a bit tonight -- you rightly pointed out some confusion in the way I describe Belknap's prosecution. And I'll gladly ork the star routes business into the narrative. I just think a separate "reform" secion is unnecessary, since the one above it is already called "corruption and reform". Putting them together makes for a more balanced approach, I think. The reader can see the crimes, then the punishments (or lack thereof) and reforms that followed. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. I think the Whiskey Ring is classic Grant. He wants to go after the culprit until his associate, and fellow West Point Graduate, Babcock was implicated in the Ring by Bristow and Pierrepont. Then Grant becomes defensive. That is the fluctuation. I believe another Grant appointment Blueford Wilson who helped prosecute the Whiskey Ring. The Republican Party was shaken with Bristow's investigations and that is why I believe the 1876 Convention went with Rutherford B. Hayes, rather then Bristow. Yes. Bristow, Pierrepont, and Fish were the top reformers in the Grant Administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Grant underrated

Historian H. W. Brands contends in Grant Takes on the Klan December, 2013, p. 44 that Grant has been underrated by historians. Here is the direct quote. "Historians have long underrated Grant's performance as President. His Administration was marred by scandals involving corrupt appointees and by an unstable economy that crashed in the Panic of 1873." Can the term "underrated" be allowed in the lede? Does the term "underrated" ruffle a few historical feathers? My view is that "underrated" means that historians have ignored Grant's Civil Rights record and focused only on corruption. Is this a fair assessement? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd put that quotation in the "Historical reputation" section, to be sure, but I think it's too specific for the lede. The lede ought to have a very basic summary saying that Grant's rep used to be bad, now it's better among some historians. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole historical ranking system, in my opinion, is biased because slavery and civil rights is never taken into consideration. Grant is being ignored. Julian E. Zelizer critisizes the Ranking system. "But rankings don't tell us much about presidential history. The rankings are weak mechanisms for evaluating what has taken place in the White House." Source: What's wrong with presidential rankings This is what Brands is pointing out. Why do historians leave out Civil Rights and slavery, because that would affect the rankings of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? I believe this is why Brands uses the term "underrated" in his American History article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The other issue is that Grant's reputation was initially good (19th Century), then bad (20th Century), now building up for better then used to be (20th Century-21st Century). Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Brands uses the wrong term in his popular essay: the great majority of historians considered his presidency a "Failure" and used that term (read Murray & Blessing). He NEVER had a good reputation as president among scholars & experts--Brands' book said it always poor. Rjensen (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Respectfully, what about my query that historians ignore Civil Rights and Slavery in there assessments of Presidents? What about the Zelizer article that states rankings are "weak mechanisms for evaluating what takes place in the White House"? How is "Failure" defined? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

C Vann Woodward & McFeeley are leading proponents of civil rights as well as Grant's harshest critics. Historians since the 1960s have been strong supporters of civil rights. The problem is Grant's second term: every year conditions got worse for blacks and ended in the Compromise of 1877, which permanently hurt blacks (with Grant still president). It's one thing to get points for "trying" but historians also deduct points for failing. As for ranking, whether one is #17 or #23, that is indeed a game like the US News ranking of colleges. However there is very real different between the top of the list (Princeton, Harvard, Yale) and the schools at the bottom---between Lincoln and Washington and Grant and Buchanan. As for being a "failure" and "worst president", that is serious business & is the normal role of historians in evaluation of the past. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen. Why then do historians ignore Civil Rights and Slavery in their rankings? If you look at the actual rankings they do not list Civil Rights and slavery as a qualifications for rankings. Even if one assumes Grant failed, and I don't believe he did, Washington, Jefferson, and all anti bellum Presidents are excluded from Civil Rights and Slavery in the rankings. Grant is far superior then all Presidents on Civil Rights, with the possible exception of Lyndon B. Johnson, but Johnson never took on the Klan like Grant and Ackerman did. This is what Brands is pointing out that Grant was a fighter President. The Supreme court failed on Civil Rights. Grant did his job. The American people betrayed Grant just as much as Babcock and Ward did. Historians are betraying Grant, in my opinion, by ignoring his record on Civil Rights, and avoiding war with Spain and England. If slavery and civil rights are included in the rankings then Washington and Jefferson would be at the bottom ranks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think historians give very heavy weight to civil rights (& before 1860 to slavery). It's just that in his 2nd term blacks did very poorly under Grant. Stopping the KKK was his main achievement, indeed. But state after state was "redeemed" in his 2 terms, and as he left office the last 3 states fell. That's a civil rights disaster for blacks. As for avoiding war with Spain & England, all the presidents after 1812 also managed to do that (except McKinley, and McK DID try to avoid that war in 1898.) As for slavery, Grant himself owned slaves and he married into a slaveowning family. 08:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jensen. McFeely gives Grant credit for his first-term enforcement of civil rights, but his real complaint seems to be was that by the end of his second term, there was no one in the White House who gave a damn about black people (his words -- see p. 439). As for rankings, they're imperfect, but it's not for us to question the judgment of professional historians, only to summarize it in encyclopedic form. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Civil Rights and slavery are not reflected in anyway in the modern rankings of Presidents. Maybe these historians are not personally racists, but they do not count Civil Rights and Slavery in their rankings because they don't want to give low marks to Washington and Jefferson. The result is that Grant is suffering in the rankings. This puts and unfair advantage on other Presidents. Grant, Lincoln, and Benjamin Harrison were the only anti racist presidents of the 19th century. Zelizer is a critic of these rankings as weak assessments of the Presidents performance. Please stop blaming Grant for the racism that was prevalent in the both the North and South. Grant did everything legally possible to stop racism. He would have had to become a dictator to stop all the racism in the country. Please put the blame on the racists who disobeyed the Constitutuion of the United States. Grant set his slave free without selling the slave at a time when he desperately needed money. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Brands quote keeping the same context, modified the narration, and added Brands reference. I will accept this current edit. I don't have an issue with rankings being put in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Since we're keeping that Brands article in, I'm going to change all the Brands cites so it makes sense. Needs to be "Brands 2012a" and "Brands 2012b" for the book and article, respectively. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hawaiian treaty and Korea

I believe the Grant Administration Hawaiian treaty needs to be mentioned since this treaty launched Hawaiian statehood. This was a Grant-Fish negotiated treaty. Babcock was not involved. Grant needs to take credit for bringing Hawaii into the United States or at least starting the statehood process. This would add balance to the Santo Domingo fiasco or crisis. Yes Congress rejected Grant-Fish-Babcock treaty on Santo Domingo. Congress did accept the Hawaiian treat in 1874. Grant entertained the King of Hawaii at the White House. Also Grant was setting sites on opening trade with Korea. Seward may have had a hand in this. This was the first time the U.S. battled Korean forces or Tiger Fighters. I believe this is important because Grant was trying to expand trade in the Pacific. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii: a pretty minor trade agreement. Neither Brands, Smith, McFeely, nor Hesseltine mention it at all. I'd leave it out.

Korea: a minor clash of arms. Neither Brands, Smith, nor McFeely mention it. Hesseltine devotes twelve words to it. Again, I'd leave it out. I'm sure there's room for it in the Presidency article or, even more appropriately, in the Hamilton Fish article. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hawaii: Kreiser, Christine M. "Royal visit." American History 47.6 (2013): 19. General Reference Center GOLD. Web. 27 Oct. 2013

Kreiser states that the King of Hawaii paid a royal visit in December, 1874. Kreiser stated the successful treaty barred other nations from making a treaty with Hawaii and brought eventual annexation to Hawaii. I would not call that a minor treaty. No historian has yet written a complete book on Grant's presidency. Brands, McFeely, and Smith focused their biographies on Grant, not his Presidency. Hesseltine did mention the treaty. Kreiser is the most modern research on President Grant and Hawaii. I believe Kreiser is a valid source. Krieser found the Royal visit important enough to write an article. Also this addition would increase balance in the article, rather then only focusing on Grant's fiasco Santo Domingo Treaty because some racist Senators did not want more blacks in the U.S. and Sumner who wanted to control U.S. Foreign policy from the President.

Korea: Korea fits in with the Hawaiian Treaty because Grant is focusing on opening trade with the Pacific nations. Secretary Seward may have convinced Grant and Fish of opening trade with Korea. The military mission was a success in terms of destroying forts but failed to open trade. A naval officer died in the military engagement as well as hundreds of Korean Tiger Fighters. The Koreans never thought the campaign to open Korea was minor. The subject is interesting because this occurred before Douglas MacArthur landed at Inchon The Korean War: An Encyclopedia edited by Stanley Sandler mentions the Korean expedition of 1871 Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am advocating only a few sentences be written on these subjects, not their own segments. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Doenecke (1981), p. 177 mentions the Hawaiian trade treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You say "No historian has yet written a complete book on Grant's presidency. Brands, McFeely, and Smith focused their biographies on Grant, not his Presidency." If that is so, than it's a very strong argument for not including the Hawaii treaty or the Korean skirmish. Those books are sources here because they're about Grant's whole life, as is this article. The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article is just about his presidency, and is the perfect place for more in-depth study of those eight years. Here, we're writing a more succinct article about the man's whole life. If four biographers combined devote no more than a sentence fragment to these two events, it seems self-evident that we should not bother with them. But I'm interested to hear the opinions of @Rjensen:, @Alanscottwalker:, and any other editors who watch this page. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What about neutrality and balance? The lede specifically states that Grant Santo Domingo treaty failed. Here we have a very successful treaty with the Kingdom of Hawaii and it is being left out of the article. Also missing is Grant's interest in the Pacific, even willing to go to war with Korea, to get a trade agreement. I am not asking for separate sections, rather only mentions. I respectfully disagree that since Brands, Smith, and McFeely did not focus on Grant's Presidency, rather his biography, that is "strong argument for not including the Hawaii treaty or the Korean skirmish" That leaves the question of inclusion open to other editors. The Hawaiian treaty excluded other nations from making trade agreements with Hawaii, therefore, Hawaiians sugar economy was incorporated into the US National economy and eventually led to Hawaiian statehood. This would balance the Santo Domingo fiasco mentioned in the article. In other words Santo Domingo was a failure, but Hawaii was a success. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #1

Grant and Secretary Fish were interested in expanding U.S. trade in the East and Pacific Islands. A successful U.S. Naval expedition took place in Korea in 1871, having reduced Korean forts, however the Koreans refused to open trade. Grant was able to produce a successful trade treaty in 1875 with the Kingdom of Hawaii, incorporating the Pacific islands solely into the United States national economy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a modified version to the above proposal to the article with references. The Korean expedition demonstrated that Grant was willing to fight overseas in an effort to open trade. This was also done to settle Korean hostilities agaisnt the United States during the Andrew Johnson Administration. The Hawaiian trade treaty is important because this brought eventual statehood to the people of Hawaii. Editor opinions are welcome on these additions to the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I object. I was hoping that we'd wait for other editors to weigh in before proceeding. We still haven't addressed the fact that you're adding information that Grant's biographers all deemed too trivial to include in their hundreds-pages-long books. You've cited it to an encyclopedia of the Korean War (which never mentions Grant) and an encyclopedia article about Hamilton Fish. I'm not sure what Doenecke book you're citing, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's the one about the Garfield and Arthur administrations. Again: not about Grant. So, let's see what others have to say, but I'm for dropping it altogether. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Hawaii and Korea business, in my opinion, belong in the Presidency article not this Biography. Rjensen (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The Krieser (2013) article specifically mentions Grant concerning Hawaii. Yes. The Doeneke book is the Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. I do not speak for authors such as McFeely, Brands, or Smith. Just because they do not mention these incidents in their biographies of Grant that does not mean these acts were not important. Grant supported Rogers in his actions against the Koreans in his state of the Union Address putting the best face at not getting trade opened in Korea. Apparently, Grant himself initially did not believe actions were necessary to attack the Koreans. I believe Korea and Hawaii belong in the both the Presidency and Biography articles on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Both? I don't understand your standard for inclusion. If this should be in, what facts from the many Grant biographies shouldn't be in? (For what it's worth, neither Simpson (1998) nor Waugh (2009) discuss Korea and Hawaii, either.) Do you see the problem? We have to leave some things out. The best and most unbiased way to do that is to, at the very least, not add things that go beyond the mainstream consensus of Grant scholarship. To put it another way: when we stick to the mainstream sources, we're writing the consesnus of scholary works on Grant. When we go beyond that, we're creating our own opinion of what Grant scholarship should be, which is not allowed. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A full Wikipedia article has been written on the Korean incident. Kreiser (2013) is modern research and scholarship in American History that does specifically mention Grant and Hawaii even stating that the treaty led to Hawaiian statehood. Receiving the King of Hawaii was a huge event at the White House in December 1874 costing $3,000. Biographies are not meant to cover everything in a person's life. As I mentioned before, the Hawaiian treaty would add neutrality to the article since the article devotes allot of space to the to the failed Santo Domingo treaty, mainly to the controversy that surrounded the issue. The reader may assume that the Great Britain treaty was Grant's only successful treaty. The purpose of the edit was to add balance and neutrality to the article and to acknowledge the Far East and Pacific Islands were of interest to the Grant administration. I do not know why Hawaii and Korea were left out of Brands, Smith, and McFeely nor can I assume why these events were not mentioned in their respected biographies on Grant. In my opinion, these biographies are meant for sale to the general public and are written for the general public to generate sales and profits. I have used reliable sources and references for the edit. Two sources specifically mention Grant concerning Korea and Hawaii, respectively Woong (2005) and Kreiser (2013) . Cmguy777 (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Biographies are not meant to cover everything in a person's life." Exactly.

"In my opinion, these biographies are meant for sale to the general public and are written for the general public...." Who do you think Wikipedia is written for? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That depends who is looking up on Wikipedia. There is allot of technical information to be found on Wikipedia. I would state that students, the general public, and those who are interested in technology, history, and science look up on Wikipedia. Remember Wikipedia is a free website that relies on donations. McFeely, Brands, and Smith get paid by publishers to generate sales for their books. Authors who write books for sale do not have to follow Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality. That is why I believe Wikipedia editors should not have to completely rely on general biographers. The Kreiser (2013) was found in an academic American History journal . The Woong (2005) book is specifically devoted to Korea during a certain time period that includes the Grant Administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we're just talking past each other now. Dr. Jensen has weighed in, and hopefully some other editors will add their opinions and we can arrive at a consensus. I considered inviting some other editors who have written FA and GA biographies, but I don't want it to look like I'm canvassing. What do you think? Should we seek a fourth editor's opinion? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am all for other editor opinions. I have complied with Wikipedia policy haven given five reliable source references in my edit. I don't understand why McFeely, Brands, and Smith have a monopoly on this article. The lede states In foreign policy, Grant revealed an "unexpected capacity for deliberation and consultation" that promoted the national interest. The Hawaiian treaty would be a demonstration of this capability. Grant had desired to open trade or commercial negotiations with Korea, a closed country. Grant put the best face on the Korean military action having stated the honor of the U.S. Flag was protected. There were other countries in the world besides England and Santo Domingo. Yes. These issues need to be expanded in the Presidency article. I am in favor of mentioning these events in the main biography to balance the Santo Domingo fiasco that dominates the first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll invite another editor. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't get very excited about this. It strikes me as the sort of thing that could be defensibly included, or defensibly excluded. That 1874 visit sounds like it was quite the thing at the time, a focus on that would be possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. The December 1874 reception of the King of Hawaii was quite elaborate and I agree that would be a good focus. Another issue about the Korean incident is that the first officer to die in Korea was in 1871, not the 20th century Korean War. I am not sure that most people understand that the first U.S. military action in Korea took place under President Ulysses S. Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I made modifications to the edit per discussion adding more on Grant's elaborate White House dinner for the King of Hawaii in December 1874. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I compromised and took out the information on the U.S. expedition to Korea and left the information on the King of Hawaii formal state dinner and Kingdom of Hawaii treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

good idea: it looks fine now. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks Rjensen! Cmguy777 (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Compromise is good. I fiddled with the prose a bit, but it generally looks fine to me. Let's keep that Hawaii part in there and move on. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus! The edit looks great. I consider this discussion complete. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

1871 Spain / Peru Chili Ecuador Bolivia Armistice

Grant had Secretary Fish negotiate on April 11 1871 armistice or truce between Spain / Peru Chili Ecuador Bolivia in 1871 that took place in Washington D.C. President Grant stopped a war. I believe this is important enough to be in the article. Grant had desire reconciliation between these countries who were at war and he had Secretary Fish negotiate the truce. Any objections to putting this in the Grant bio article? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

it belongs in the presidency article. this bio article is too full of details that belong in that companion article. Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is fine Rjensen. This can be put in the Grant Presidency article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede and Historical reputation

We're nearly through this latest round of edits. The only things I haven't reworked are the lede (except for a little trimming) and the historiography section (haven't touched it.) I anticipate these sections might produce some lively discussions. I hope we'll all keep cool about it.

Starting with the historiography, I think the first paragraph is pretty decent. The second is good, but it skips from pre-McFeely sentiment right to Brands's 2012 book. I feel like we should discuss McFeely more directly there, considering the huge impact his book had, then proceed through Simpson, Smith, and Brands chronologically to chart the changing trends in Grant scholarship. The last two paragraphs are kind of a weird, uncited jumble. And I have no idea what a "neo-abolitionist" is. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, I don't understand the addition you've made to the "Historical legacy" section. That section is supposed to describe how Grant was seen by historians and in the popular mind through the years. The stuff you added is just a summary of his accompishments, things that are already described in the lede and in the body of the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

William_McKinley#Legacy and historical image and Abraham Lincoln#Historical reputation are good examples of what we should be going for. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If no one is going to offer any suggestion, I'll just dig in, I guess. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Election of 1876

I believe the Election of 1876 needs more information. The current article makes it sound as if Grant had nothing to do with the Election when he signed the elections bill that allowed the election to be settled peacefully. Also Grant was not at the Hotel meeting that ended Reconstruction. Rutherford B. Hayes was. The current article in my opinion makes Grant look like he personally overturned Reconstruction. The Southerners and Northerners rejected the 14th Amendment. The Courts overturned Reconstruction measures. Grant was upset on his World Tour that the Courts allowed the suppression of strikes with the military but would not allow the military to enforce Civil Rights. During the Election of 1876 Grant prevented a second Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant used the U.S. military to suppress a second Southern rebellion during the Election of 1876 at the same time he was fighting the Great Souix War. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

That section is already much expanded from what it used to be. It currently says "Grant assured both sides that he would not use the army to force a result, and agreed to the formation of an Electoral Commission to decide the matter." [with a cite to Smith] Grant did not use the army to suppress anything because there was no uprising. The army had already been withdrawn from politics in 8 of the 11 rebel states. The Electoral Commission resolved the election, and the Compromise of 1877 ensured the peace. Reconstruction ended in 1877. There's no other way to say that. As to the Sioux war, it's already discussed and linked in the Indian policy section. Why would we repeat it again here? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant sent troops to South Carolina in 1876 to help Governor Daniel H. Chamberlain. Ex Confederate Wade Hampton was virtually declaring open rebellion against the U.S. government. Grant also warned William T. Sherman to be on his guard and mobilized troops in the Southern District to ensure no rebellion took place. . Rutherford B. Hayes attended the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction. The Courts overturned much of Grant's Reconstruction efforts and laws. There was no uprising because Grant readied the U.S. military to ensure the Southerners would not rebel. I believe this came about between negotiations between Attorney General Alphonso Taft and Democratic leadership. In other words, Grant had an active role in ensuring the country did not break up again. The great Sioux War does not have to be mentioned again. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Dictionary of American Biography (1931), Grant, Ulysses Simpson, p. 500, volume 7 edited by Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone states citing Badeau (1887), Grant in Peace, that the United States may have "blossomed" into a second civil war had not Grant intervened. 74.42.188.247 (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation issues

I have some access to JSTOR, so if there's something you want to cite, let me know and I might be able to find a reliable source. It's better than scouring the internet for whatever transient and mediocre source might popup in a Google search. JSTOR is stable, and full of peer-reviewed articles. The source I just added to replace that website in the Indian affairs section, for example -- that took two minutes to find. And if we try to get this article promoted, reviews will look more favorably on scholarly sources than others (not to mention that they're usually more accurate!) --Coemgenus (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of citations, do you think we should move Badeau's books to the "primary sources" section? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Badeau's book could be considered both primary and secondary. He was one Grant's first biographers, his book being published two years after his death. I am all for scholarly sources. My edits were attempting to put in specifics of what Grant did. I believed the web source reference was valid, but thanks Coemgenus for the replacement of the web source reference with a more scholarly reference. Articles from JSTOR are good. Badeau offers a different demension of Grant as General and President since he knew him personally. Brands, Smith, and McFeely did not know Grant personally. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Badeau is secondary (with some primary) much of it he was not personally present at; he did personally know and work with his subject. Present day biographers who know their subject are considered secondary, in general. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy to leave them where they are. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Next steps

I think we've gotten this article a long way from where it was a few months ago. A peer review would help it along, I think, and point out some things we missed. Does anyone object if I sign up for one? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A peer review would be fine, however, the Election of 1876 needs to be clarified. The article, in my opinion sounds as if Grant purposefully ended Reconstruction rather then save the United States from another Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I will agree the article has come along way! Thanks Coemgenus and all the other editors who have contributed to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No objections. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The peer review has begun: Wikipedia:Peer review/Ulysses S. Grant/archive2. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant's presidential reputation failure?

Why is Grant's presidential reputation deemed as a failure? His Reconstruction policy created a fair election in 1872 and his Indian Policy reduced Indian wars. I don't believe that it is fair to assess Grant's Presidency only for the year 1876. Grant was President from 1869 to 1877. Grant also brought back in four Confederate states into the United States in one year after his 1869 election. Why is that a failure? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Reconstruction and Indian affairs, Brands says on page 2: "He could claim only modest and passing success in these endeavors." Grant had a low regard for generals who lost their campaign and ended in surrender. That's what happened here. Yes, he did protect the blacks for a while, and then he stopped and by 2 weeks after he left office blacks had lost practically all their gains. His Indian wars produced the national humiliation at Little Round Top, with no significant gains for the Indians. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Rjensen. "Modest and passing success" is different then "failure". Grant served eight years in office. The election of 1872 was a fair election for blacks. Whites in the South and North refused to allow blacks equality. How does this make Grant a President a failure? Was he suppose to establish a dictatorship? Was George Washington a failure as President because he allowed slavery to continue in the United States as well as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison? No historians as far as I know call Washington, Jefferson, and Madison failures as President. McFeely suggests that sending more attorneys to the South would have kept blacks secure. That is not true. Attorney General Ackerman had the support of the U.S. Military. That is why the Klan collapsed. In terms of Indian Policy Grant was a success at getting Indian Appropriations in 1869 and creating the Indian Commissioners to oversee spending and corruption. Grant kept Indians from being exterminated by white settlers. Grant has received more negative scrutiny then any other President. I am not sure why. I am all for criticism if there is balance. The Battle of the Little Big Horn was a failure and Grant deserves some responsibility for that failure. He did have success though with Red Cloud and the Apaches. Can balance be put into the reputation section? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidents after Grant until Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson did nothing or virtually little to stop racism in the South compared to Grant. FDR is considered one of the greatest of Presidents. Is there a double standard among historians? Cmguy777 (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

In race relations, he was unable to secure any permanent gains & blacks were MUCH less powerful when he left office in March 1877 than when he entered in March 1869. Rjensen (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacks were at their height of power in 1872 and would not regain their power until the Election of 1968, yet Grant gets blamed for almost a hundred years of segregations and lynchings. Grant had nothing to do with the Supreme Court decisions that defeated his legislation policies. A President does not have power to overturn Supreme Court decisions. Is that what Grant was suppose to do? The Force Acts were overturned in 1875. Also the North cared nothing for blacks after the Panic of 1873. The Panic of 1873 was not caused directly by Grant. A balanced assessment would consider these other factors in terms of African American civil rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you asked blacks as Grant left office (in 1877), "are you better off or worse off than when he came to office (in 1869(?" the answer was "worse." If you asked whites they would say "worse." that's bad. Rjensen (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jensen. If I were writing a biography of Grant (not that there aren't enough already,) it would tell the story of a decent, well-meaning man who was really good at one thing--war. At everything else, he failed. That's not to say he was evil or that anyone else would've easily succeeded (Reconstruction was always going to be a tough sell to a resistant South and an increasingly indifferent North,) but only to say that he did fail. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen, blacks admired Grant after his Presidency and supported his third term candidacy. Why? Because of what he did in 1872. To blame Grant for almost one hundred years of segregation and lynching and to deny that the 1872 Election was the fairest until the election of 1968 as McPherson contends is to let Presidents from Hayes to LBJ off responsibility in terms of Civil Rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus Grant prosecuted white supremacists and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan. That was successful. The whole country forgot about blacks and yet all of this is blamed on one person, Ulysses S. Grant. Interesting how Woodrow Wilson was an extreme racist and he gets better rankings then Grant. All I am asking is to include Grant's successful Election of 1872 in terms of stopping racism in the South an prosecuting the Klan. Simpson believes the the DOJ did not have the man power to continue prosecution of white supremacists. Grant had nothing directly to do with the Compromise of 1877. Hayes attended the Wormley Hotel negotiations. Grant ensured that Hayes took the oath of office and prevented a second Civil War. That was a success that even Dumas Malone recognized in the Dictionary of American Biography. Ironically, Malone has a better assessment of Grant then William S. McFeely. If your going to blame Grant for the failure of Reconstruction please add in the Supreme Court and the apathy of the Northern public after the Panic of 1873. That Panic wiped out concern for blacks in the South by the Northern population. People become more concerned with money issues rather then Jim Crow. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Was Grant a failure? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was patterned off of Grant's Civil Rights Act of 1875. Grant I believe desired Indians to be citizens and self sustaining. Indians were granted citizenship in 1924 by Republican President Calvin Coolidge. Grant did not achieve all he wanted while President but these goals were eventually achieved. Are we living in an America today that Grant envisioned during his Presidency? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal #1

Although Grant succeeded at establishing a fair election in 1872 for African Americans, the Supreme Court struck down the Force Acts in 1875, and the Northern population lost concern for suffrage in the South after the Panic of 1873. The results were that Reconstruction ended in failure and Grant's 1875 Civil Rights Act lasted for only 8 years being overturned in 1883 by another Supreme Court decision. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this a proposal for? The lede? I think that part's looking better than ever after the edits of the past day or two. I'd leave it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind calling Grant a failure, if you include other Presidents as being failures. My objection is that I believe Grant is being singled out as failing blacks. The current version looks good as long as Grant is know to have earlier successes during his first term and the 1872 election. Judging Grant only at the end of his second term, in my opinion, is unbalanced. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference request

I am requesting these sentences be referenced. Who are his supporters? Did these "supporters" actually use the word "failed". How can anyone know if Grant's reputation plunged after the Panic of 1873 if there were no national polls at the time to state so? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"In the long run, however, even his supporters agree his policies effectively failed."

"Grant's reputation fell as the economy plunged into a deep economic depression, called the Panic of 1873."

supporters = Brands & Smith; historians are well accustomed to studying letters, newspapers and speeches to gauge public opinion. Smith says Grant was "wrongheaded" about Santo Domingo (p 18); he was "less successful" in dealing with corruption; (p 18). He did badly in Indian Affairs (p 540) and his assimilation policy was based on "a grave error" ( p 543).. Brands speaks of his "failure on civil service reform" (p 544) Brands (a business historian) says economists have agreed his deflationary policies were "precisely the wrong prescription for curing the depression." (554) (rj comments: Grant was brave & courageous & steadfast in rejecting his cabinet advice & pursuing a bad policy that hurt the economy). Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And those are his supporters! Other historians' judgements are far harsher. I know you like Grant, Cmguy, and I like him, too. But let's face facts: historians believe (rightly, in my opinion) that his presidency was unsuccessful. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Brands also states Grants Indian policy "bore fruit" (p 501). Here is the complete sentence: "The peace policy bore fruit. Violence on the Indian frontier diminished, and leading men of the Sioux and other Plains tribes accepted the reservations apportioned to their peoples." Brands also blames Congress for not renewing Civil Service Reform (p. 544), "Grant had shamed Congress into accepting the principle of civil service reform, but the legislature stubbornly refused to fund the new system." Brands was referring to Grant's failure to fund the civil service commission in his seventh and eighth years in office. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans desired Civil Service Reform. Brands full statement on the Grant and the economy is (p. 554) "Many economists of later generations would consider resumption to have been precisely the wrong prescription for curing the depression of the 1870's. This is not a direct statement that Grant's Resumptions of Specie Act was a failure. Brands states (p. 537), "The Republican majority agreed to a compromise bill that redistributed and lubricated but didn't explicitly expand the money supply. The measure afforded cover for the elections, the Republican leaders hoped, and it suited the president, who signed the bill into law." My objection to the lede is the blanket statement his "supporters" viewed his policies were failures without full context of their respected statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I propose a compromise. Coemgenus used the term "unsuccessful". Rather then use the word "failed", I propose to use the word "unsuccessful" in the lede statement. In my opinion the term "failed" is to harsh a statement for the lede. Unsuccessful would show that Grant tried or at least had the best interest of the country in mind. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

They're synonyms. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Rutherford B. Hayes is not called a failure in his lede. He failed blacks in the South. There is no mention of him being a failure. Only Grant is. I offered a compromise. I believe unsuccessful is less harsh and implies Grant had the best interest of the country. Brands only uses the term failure concerning Civil Service, not Grant's other policies. For that matter Grant's predecessor Andrew Johnson is not listed as a failure. Johnson cared nothing about blacks and did not want them to be citizens. Grant destroys the Ku Klux Klan and he is listed as a failure. Why is Grant being singled out in terms of being a failure? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Ulysses S. Grant the only President listed as a failure when other Presidential articles do not list their Presidencies as failures? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to change "failed" to "was unsuccessful," I don't care. They mean the same thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant's presidential achievements

According to Dictionary of American Biography (1931, p. 500, vol. 7) Grant had some achievements. These included:

• Resolving British-American relations that lasted through his second term.
• Brought the nation through the factional hazards of the Impeachment of President Andrew Johnson
• Brought the nation through a period of financial and moral uneasiness caused by the Panic of 1873 and deflation.
• Brought the nation through the uncertainties of the Election of 1876.

The current lede states Grant's policies were failures. I believe Grant's achievements need to be in the lede. Not all of his policies were failures. The Dictionary of American Biography was edited by Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone. If Dumas Malone, another Pulitzer prize winning author, has a less pessemistic view then Brands, Smith, and McFeely, then why can't these views be put in th lede? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The lede says Grant's Indian policy, Reconstruction, and Dominican annexation were failures. Not all his policies. Three of them. Is that what you're so fired up about? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

James McPherson wrote the entry for the new "American National Biography" and he says:

"The "southern problem" proved intractable during Grant's second administration. In accepting the presidential nomination in 1868, Grant had struck a responsive chord with his plea, "Let us have peace." During his entire adult life there had been no real peace between North and South on the issues of slavery and its aftermath. With ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, millions of Americans, Grant among them, hoped that the strife was over. However, there was no peace. The level of counter-Reconstruction violence escalated again. Northern voters began to turn against Grant's use of troops to enforce black voting rights. In 1874 Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives. It was the handwriting on the wall, signifying the end of Reconstruction. The eruption of several scandals late in Grant's second administration accentuated the impression of presidential failure. The election of 1876 (Grant resisted pressure to run for a third term) resulted in disputed returns from three southern states that raised the specter of political instability. Grant kept the federal government on an even keel while Congress finally resolved the crisis in favor of the Republican nominee Rutherford B. Hayes. Rjensen (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The current lede states: "In the long run, however, even his supporters agree his policies effectively failed. Grant's reputation fell as the economy plunged into a deep economic depression, called the Panic of 1873." This sounds as if all of Grant's policies were failures. I suggest a rewrite. My issue in the lede is with these two sentences. The rest of the lede is in good standing in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

McPherson agrees with the Malone's Dictionary of American Biography and states that Grant pulled the country through the Election of 1876 despite Grant's scandals. That is not in the lede. I would state specifically that Grant's Santo Domingo treaty was defeated in the Senate. Malone counters Brands statement concerning modern economists by stating Grant pulled the country through the moral and finincial crisis of 1873 and deflation. Grant kept the country from collapsing financially. Grant's policies on Reconstruction were those of Congresses. I believe Grant and George H. Williams settled Alabama Reconstruction peacefully without violence in 1872. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Malone doesn't "counter" Brands. He wrote that before Brands was born. And they both say the same thing: the economy was bad. Brands just points out that Grant was unpopular in his second term -- which was true. Why would we favor the interpretations of 1932 over those of 2012, especially when you spent so much time on this page telling us that Brands, as the more recent book, was better than McFeely and others? I'll agree to change one of the instances of "failed" to "did not succeed" if it will make you feel better, but this rant is looking more and more like POV-pushing. Take a step back. Remember our task is to summarize the scholarship, not to pick out the most positive parts. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. Brands never stated he agreed with the modern economists, he only stated that modern economists would disagree with Grant's economic policy. I am all for modern research. I am all for McFeely being in the article. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his book on Grant. Malone won the Pulitzer for his books on Jefferson. I believe Malone is important enough an historian to be put into the article. Brands stated that Grant "failed" at Civil Service Reform. Brands did not state directly that Grant failed at Reconstruction and the Economy. I do not believe I am POV pushing. There seems to be resistance to any positive views on Grant in the article. My last edit was deleted on Smith and his statement that white supremacist historians subverted Grant's reputation for what Grant did to the Ku Klux Klan in 1871. Rjensen considered this view extreme. That is fine. I had deleted Rjensen's edit on that Grant's policies had been failures since Grant reduced Indian Wars (by 1875 Indian Wars were down to 15) and the Election of 1872 was the fairest election for African Americans until 1968. I had used Brands and McPherson for references. I apologize if any of this caused contention in the article. I would prefer "did not succeed" over "failure" because in my opinion that would imply Grant had made an effort on Reconstruction and Indian policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I believe your edits look good. In the long run Reconstruction did not succeed for African Americans. I have looked through presidencial articles after Grant starting with Rutherford B. Hayes. Not one of these Presidents is judged as a failure for defeating the Solid South. Why is only Grant deemed a failure? That question has yet to be answered. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it was during his administration that it went from good to bad. Why would anyone else get the blame for that? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Grant could not change the Southerners hearts. He could only prosecute them and he did. Why should Grant get any blame at all? Rutherford B. Hayes never prosecuted the Southern White Supremacists, just as Andrew Johnson did not. Yet none of these Presidents is deemed a failure. President Hayes allowed racism to continue in the South including every President up until the Election of 1968. Yet none of these Presidents is judged as harshly as Grant. The Election of 1872 was one of the most fairest elections and yet Grant is only judged by his failure to stop Southern and Northern racism as President. All other Presidents are somehow immuned from this excessive judgement and almost a century of racism is blamed on a two term President from 1869 to 1877. Can anyone honestly state that Is that a fair assessement of Grant? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I am done with my "rant". Please continue improving the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Treatment of George A Custer

I believe Grant's treatment of George A Custer needs to be in the article. Grant had a personal animosity with Custer for having testified against Belknap's war department over Indian traderposts in 1876. Grant refused to see Custer and had him arrested in Chicago. Also Grant's criticism of Custer after his death at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. I believe this would balance the article. Grant could be viscous when he wanted to be. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. go for it. Rjensen (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

A sentence of two wouldn't hurt. Where should it go? We could put it in the Indian policy section along with discussion of Little Big Horn, or in the scandal section with the material about Belknap. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Grant's treatment of Custer I believe belongs in the Indian Policy section. Custer can be mentioned in both sections since he did testify of corruption in Department of War under Belknap, bearing in mind that Congress gave Belknap the power to award Indian traderposts. Belknap apparently was forcing soldiers to buy goods at the traderposts, I suppose, to increase profits for the investors. I don't believe investing in traderposts was an actual crime, although I am not completely sure on that one. Belknap and his wives received profits from the Fort Sill traderpost. That is why Belknap was impeached. Grant did not like Custer because of the way he treated his family. After Custer testified before Congress Grant refused to see him at the White House. Then Grant had him arrested at Chicago and refused to have him in charge of the battling the Sioux who refused to go on the Reservation lands, i.e. Crazy Horse. Grant relented and ordered that Custer could participate in the battle under Terry. Apparently Custer did not want to be under Terry and did his own thing at the Battle of the Little Big Horn or he underestimated the power of the Sioux nation. After Custer's death, Grant pretty much castigated Custer in the press. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I added Donovan (2008) A Terrible Glory to the Military sources section. This is good information on the Grant and Custer controversy. The subject is covered in the Belknap's Anaconda chapter. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, looks good to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit

This is only a rough draft edit. Please feel free to make any improvements. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• "During the Great Sioux War, Grant took umbrage to Col. George Armstrong Custer after he testified in 1876 about corruption in the War Department under Secretary William W. Belknap (see below). Grant had Custer arrested for breach of military protocol in Chicago and barred him from leading an upcoming campaign against the Sioux. Grant finally relented and let Custer fight under Brig. Gen. Alfred Terry. Custer was killed at the subsequent Battle of the Little Big Horn, a defeat for the federal army. Two months later, Grant castigated Custer in the press, saying "I regard Custer's massacre as a sacrifice of troops, brought on by Custer himself, that was wholly unnecessary--wholly unnecessary."

I tightened it up a bit. With sufficient citation, I think it can work. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. I would keep Grant's quote since I believe that this particulary represents Grant's disdain for Col. Custer. I would also emphasize that Grant purposely designed Custer's arrest in Chicago for the express purpose to humiliate Custer. At times Grant was more like Andrew Johnson, then Abraham Lincoln. Grant himself had been humiliated by Johnson through the press during the Secretary of War controversy over Edward M. Stanton. Finally one edit we can all agree on! Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I added references. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Photos

I believe there may too many Grant family photos in the article. Also, I believe the Presidential section needs to have photos that fit the section. I believe the photo of Greely is in the Presidential article. The reelection Cartoon is in the first election section. I suggest moving this photo to the Reelection section and replace the Greely photo. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I have made changes to the photos in the article. Any other suggestions or comments? Is there a place for a second Grant family photo while Grant was President? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The changes look good to me. I'd hold off on adding more, just to avoid crowding. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. That is fine. I can add the Grant family photo in the Presidency of Ulysses S Grant presidential article. I was trying to have the photos match the topics in the Presidency section. In the Foriegn affairs section would the King of Hawaii vistiting Grant at the White House be better or is the Virginius affair the best photo for the section? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Are the photos worthy of GA of FA status? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The licenses all look good to me, but I'm no expert on such things. If the picture of Grant and the Hawaiian king is a good one, I'd use that. If not, the picture of the ships is certainly appropriate. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

West Point hazing

Grant was the first President to allow African Americans into West Point. In my opinion McFeely (1981) and Foner (1998) downplay this by stating Grant did nothing or said nothing to stop hazing. True there was terrible hazing against James Albert Smith, even by Grant's son Frederick Dent. But the fact is hazing was reduced at West Point while Grant was President. Other blacks were allowed into West Point under Grant including Henry O. Flipper. Grant appointed Thomas H. Ruger as superintendent of West Point who reformed the academy and the hazing decreased in 1873, and this was even confirmed by Amos T. Akerman, Grant's former Attorney General who prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan. Shouldn't the fact that Grant allowed the first blacks into West Point be in the article? Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see adding anything else unless something is taken out. The article is growing too large again. This is why we created the sub-articles. The biographers don't spend much time on it; neither should we. I'm sure there's a good place for it in the Presidency article. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The subject is in the Presidency article. Seems to me as if Grant is getting hammered for almost a Century of racism in the North and South, when in fact he was the only man who was trying to make a difference. McPherson believes that the U.S. military would have had to remain in the South up until the early 1900's. That would have been a Presidential dictatorship that Grant was trying to avoid. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the article is looking good and much improved. My question is if McFeely and Foner are mistaken concerning Grant and West Point hazing by leaving out reform in 1873, how can their assessments on Grant and Reconstruction be accurate and without bias? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

McFeely and Foner are Pulitzer Prize-winning historians. You and I are anonymous Wikipedia editors. I'll take their "bias," if any, over ours. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Both Foner and McFeely are excellent historians, however, they are paid by publishers to sell books. Winning the Pulitzer can triple book sales; profitable for both the author and the publisher. "And though the extent of the Pulitzer effect may be more difficult to determine for certain books, it's unquestionable that it provides a sales boom for the winning author and publisher..." Just How Much Does a Pulitzer Prize Help a Book's Sales? By Gabe Habash (Apr 19, 2012) I believe Wikipedia editors have a right to keep articles neutral as possible. Grant did not fail in allowing blacks in at West Point and Ruger reduced the hazing so blacks could graduate from the Academy. Additionally African American historians view Grant as antiracist along with Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Harrison. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What about adding that African American historians view Grant as anti-racist to the Historical reputation section? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Size

With all of the recent additions, this article is again getting huge. WP:SIZE recommends that an article with more than 60kB of prose "probably should be divided." Anything over 100kB "almost certainly should be divided." We're at 98.5kB. That doesn't include the bibliography, the table of contents, the citations, the text associated with the images, the infobox, or the wikimarkup that doesn't display on the page. That's just the main text of the article. We've done a good job in creating the subarticles, but it's time to get serious about keeping the prose from metastasizing again. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not mind reducing the size if the article presented Grant in a neutral point of view. Why is there no Domestic affairs in the Presidency section? I think the Reconstruction and Indian Affiars could be reduced since these are covered in the Presidency section. Maybe reducing negative language in the article would help and only present the facts of the Grant administration. Coemgenus. You did add a rather large section on Grant's judicial appointments highlighting the appointment Morrison Waite. I am not sure why Waite gets his own section and photo opportunity, particularly since Waite dismantled Reconstruction rather then Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by a domestic affairs section. The whole presidency section is taken up with domestic affairs, except for that one subsection in foreign affairs. I'd be glad to trim the Indian policy section. I only hadn't done so before because you kept wanting to expand it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidents have Domestic Affairs that usually has to do with the economy. This would cover Grants economy up until the Panic of 1973. I don't mind trimming the Indian affairs section. We can put the Custer section in the Presidency article. I suggest putting the Morrison Waite section in the Presidency article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved information on Judicial appointments, Custer, and the Hawaiian Treaty to the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! I didn't mean to eliminate whole sections! Let's restore the judicial appointment section -- every president's article has one -- and I'll trim it back a bit if you think it's overlength. And we can keep the Hawaii part. After all, we all agreed to put it in. I'm not even completely against the Custer thing, if you think it's important. When I mentioned the size, I just meant let's not go adding new stuff and concentrate on making the language concise. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I put back judiciary and Hawaii, but trimmed the judiciary a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. Reduction requires removal. I don't understand. How do you propose to reduce the article size? That is OK about re adding the sections or paragraphs. The Judicial appointments section needs to be trimmed in my opinion. Information on Waite is important as he contributed to the destruction of Reconstruction. In my opinion Waite had more to do with ending Reconstruction then Grant or Hayes. Remember, after appointment the President has no power over any Supreme Court Justice of Supreme Court Chief Justice. I put the Custer and Hawaii edits in the Presidency article. They really have not been removed, only transferred. I am all for rewrites on further reductions. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I just meant not adding more. I'll be glad to trim that section some more, and the other sections too. I didn't mean "let's take a machete to this thing." I just meant let's not let it get any bigger. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I read I inferred you wanted to reduce the article size. Trimming is fine. I don't mind that. I could re add the Custer segment again. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it's fine with me. I changed the pic of Waite to one of Ward Hunt, who was more in line with the Reconstruction legislation Grant supported. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. I think that is better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Article improvement review

I believe allot has been done to the article for improvement. Is the article ready to be submitted for GA? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The peer review is still open. I want to give the reviewer there a chance to have her say before GA, if that's all right. She's had some helpful suggestions so far. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Peer review is fine. My question is how does this article compare to other Presidential articles? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinon? It's gotten better. Maybe ready for GA review in December or January. The references have been improved, but I'm still not satisfied with the quality of the prose. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the lede looks great, or allot better then used to be. The Civil War section could use some streamlining. Historians, for the most part, treat Grant as another General in the Civil War. His Presidency, in my opinion, is in fluxuation with historians. That may be difficult to get the prose correct since Reconstruction was a complicated time period in American History. The article tends to treat Babcock and Belknap as cartoon characters or clowns. Belknap was college educated and fought bravely under General Sherman. Babcock graduated 3rd in his class at Westpoint and protected Washington D.C. from harm during the Civil War in addition to bravery on the field. No one is denying their culpability in the Whiskey Ring and Traderpost Ring, respectively. There seems to be an underlying tone in the article that anyone who serves in the military will be a crook if that person goes into politics. That is only my assessment. Washington was an expensive place to live. Belknap's wives wanted to live in luxury. The article seems to present military people as crooks. That is only my view on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Grant's military training was to shield associates from attack at the expense of his own reputation..." Are we to assume that the U.S. military trains soldiers to protect corrupt associates, as this phrase implies? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite:Out of his own loyalty and trust of persons he believed were his friends, Grant shielded associates from attack at the expense of his own popularity within the Republican Party. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this "Simon (2002)" you keep citing to? There are two works by John Y. Simon in the references, one from 1982 and one from 1997. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Simon article on Grant's Presidency in the Graff (1997) book was updated in 2002. I used a local library database to get the article online. Source citation:

(MLA 7th Edition) Simon, John Y. "Ulysses S. Grant." The Presidents: A Reference History. Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I updated the Simon (2002) source in the article. I don't know where the Simon (1982) source comes from. Possibly Rjensen would have the Simon (1982) source. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you add page numbers? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Cmguy777 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but there are two more -- the unformatted links that I formatted just now also lacked page numbers. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Redeemers and African American equality

Why was the edit that Redeemers or conservative southern racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, White League, Red Shirts, or White Liners opposed African American equality. This was Brands contention. Grant is blamed for a failed Reconstruction but the Redeemers are not associated with opposition to African American equality. Respectfully, is this fair? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it was obvious and was cluttering up the lede. Not every edit is an attack on Grant. Sometimes, we're just trying to make the article better. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not stating that removal of the edit was an attack on Grant and I agree you Coemgenus have made the article 110% better. Simon (2002) states that Grant's country men share the blame for the fall of Reconstruction. Brands (December 2012) states that these country men did not believe in African American equality. The Reedemers then would share the blame for the fall of Reconstruction along with the Waite court who apparently was an advocated of states rights. The Liberal Republicans were advocates of states rights. Northerners lost interest in black sufferage after the Panic of 1873. The term "Conservative" could mean many things to the reader. Is there anywhere in the article that states Redeemers opposed African American equality? The article leaves the question open, "What more could have Grant done to make Reconstruction successful?" other then establish a dictatorship. These are only my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

My question is should the Grant article state Redeemers opposed African American equality? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I appeared to be complaining. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. I don't know if we need a detailed description in the lede, but if you want to add it, I don't object. We'll find a way to keep the language tight. And I would say "equal rights," not "equality." Many who voted for the former didn't necessarily believe in the latter. Working for equal rights is a thing historians can see an analyse; belief in true equality isn't as obvious. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Redeemers said they did not oppose equal rights for blacks. (It was a later group that took those rights away). They opposed control of the South by the US Army as a violation of the rights of all Southerners. Grant's supporters at the time said the Army was needed because the Civil War was not really over and the ex-Confederates were not loyal to the United States. Emphasis on the status of the blacks was raised by historians after 1950. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus and Rjensen. I started the discussion for clarity on this issue. Brands (December 2012) states that people in the South, including Northerners, opposed the equality of blacks. Brands (December 2012) stated that the KKK extended up to New York City. The election of 1868 cleary showed that the Democratic Party was the party of "white men" and that the Constitution was made for White Men. The fair Election of 1872 came about because Grant prosecuted the Klan and private citizens in New York, including Edwards Pierrepont, shut down the Tweed Ring. Simon (2002) states: "From the start, southerners made clear that the road to reunion lay over the rights of their former slaves." Simon (2002) states that the Redeemers "combined outward compliance with outrageous subversion." Simon (2002) stated that blacks were "illegally disenfranchised" in Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana during the election of 1876. According to Grant's Secretary of War J. Donald Cameron, Grant had to mobilize the U.S. military to prevent a second Civil War. Should the article state that "Redeemers" quietly opposed equal rights for blacks? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence we've been discussing, I believe, is this one from the lede: "In his second term, the conservative white Southerners regained control of Southern state governments and Democrats took control of the federal House of Representatives." I think it's fine as is. Who and what the Redeemers were gets explained well enough in the "Later Reconstruction and civil rights" section, doesn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe an alternative is to mention in addition to the Election Committee, Grant did have to mobilize the U.S. military to keep the Election of 1876 from escalating into a second Civil War. That would show that the Redeemers had "outrageous subversion". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We can keep the edit as is. I do not have a problem with stating "conservative Southerners" or "conservative white Southerners". Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sentence proposal

• In addition to the Election Committee Commission, Grant mobilized troops in North South Carolina and Louisiana whose delicate and prudent actions kept peace in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

General William T. Sherman believed the Southerners were mobilizing militarily immediately after the Election of 1876 and he warned Grant through the War Department under Cameron. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The current Later Reconstruction and civil rights section does not mention the Election Committee. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. What Election Committee? Do you mean the Election Commission? And why are you using a primary source? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The Elections Commission. Grant's biographer Adam Badeau (1887) and Pulitzer Prize winning author Dumas Malone (1931) support Cameron's assertion that Grant saved the United States from a Second Civil War. The primary source is supported by two secondary sources. I am not sure that Cameron is a complete primary source since he made conclusions on the Military was instrumental in keeping peace in the South. Malone is in agreement with Badeau concerning Grant keeping peace during the controversial Election of 1876. Simon (2002) states that Grant's support of the Election Commission curbed an otherwise "explosive situation" in the South. Both Grant's mobilization of the U.S. military and support of the Elections Commission prevented a second Civil War. The current article makes Grant sound as if he had nothing to do with the Election of 1876, especially when he sent Attorney General Alphonso Taft to negotiate a settlement, that produced the Election Commission. That is not in the article either. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: the Dictionary of American Biography (1930s) was edited by Dumas Malone (who many years later won the Pulitzer prize). The Grant article's presidency section was written by not by Malone but by historian Frederick Paxson (who already had his Pulitzer prize for a history of the frontier). Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Rjensen. Paxson then, a Pulitzer Prize winning author, supported Badeau. Malone's name is listed as editor along with Allen Johnson. That means, in my opinion, that both Malone and Johnson are responsible for the content of the book. Here is the link for Cameron's assessement of the Election of 1876. Annual report of the Secretary of War. 1876, v.1. page 5 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Up here, you dismissed the Pulitzer Prize as just a way to sell books. I'm glad to see you've changed your mind.

As to the 1876 election, why not put Grant's role in that in the section that already talks about it? And why not source it to one of the sources we already have? I have McFeely, Smith, and one of the Simpson books. You have Brands, I believe. Between them, I'm sure we can find a citation without resorting to 150-year-old primary sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. People who win Pulitzer's are great authors, however, I was only mentioning there is a potential financial motivation for winning. Are these authors purposely writing to win a Pulitzer for profits and prestige or are they trying to write good history, possibly both? Those are only my opinions. I believe Cameron is a good source and I believe writing in a secondary point of view. Cameron is stating that Grant was ready for a second Civil War in terms of getting the U.S. military ready. Grant put Sheridan in charge and he put two Generals in charge that used tact to keep peace. Grant may have pledged not to use the military, but he certainly was getting ready to fight if the Southern states decided to rebel. Sherman was the one who warned Grant about a potential uprising. Simon (2002) states that Grant's pledge to go by the Electoral Commission diffused an "explosive situtation". I can check the other Brands, McFeely, and Smith sources. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The 1876 Election belongs in the Presidency section, not the Post Presidency, in my opinion. Grant was still President in 1876 and his term ended March 4, 1877. Adding more to that paragraph would be good concerning Grant's role in keeping the peace and resolving the election crisis. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe Patrick (1968), The Reconstruction of the Nation, page 263-264 is the best choice on the 1876 disputed election. Patrick (1968) devotes a whole chapter to the 1876 election crisis from pages 249 to 274. Patrick (1968), a critic of Grant, actually calls Grant a statesman in his response to the national election crisis. Patrick (1968) emphasized that Grant used the military in South Carolina and Louisiana and he sponsored the Electoral Commission Act. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Where you moved it is fine, it makes more sense there. I think you accidentally pasted it twice, so I deleted one copy. Patrick is fine. I have Lloyd Robinson's The Stolen Election: Hayes versus Tilden—1876, if we need more, but I think the section is fine as is. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Patrick (1968) reinforced Cameron's view and report that the U.S. military was used to keep peace during the Election of 1876. Wikipedia has been giving error messages when posting. That is OK concerning deleting the repeat paragraph. Lloyd (2001) is a good book source on the Election of 1876. Grant's veto of the Inflation Bill apparently caused the sweep of Democrats in the House. Grant knew his veto of the bill would be initially unpopular. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant family article proposal

I was thinking since there seem to be many photos of Grant's family an article could be written on his family and his immediate inlaws. The subject of nepotism could be brought up or more in focus. Was Grant the only President who gave family government jobs? Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. Lots of presidents gave their relatives jobs, though. All of FDR's sons worked for him, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. Why do historians go after Grant for giving his family federal jobs and apparently ignore other Presidents who gave their respected families federal jobs? Understandably there was controversy of being given a job and not doing any work, as I believe his brother Orville Grant was involved in terms of getting paid without doing survey work. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where to begin on the article. I would have to find more on Grant's family. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Brands interview 11-16-2013

I thought this was interesting. This is a H.W. Brands interview (11-16-2013) on why he wrote on Grant. Historian gives Grant his due Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Brands stated, "I knew he [Grant] had a reputation as a terrible president with a corrupt administration who had driven the United States into a ditch at the end of the Civil War. In the course of my research, I came to conclude that those were misleading if not downright wrong." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe Brands was trying to go for the Pulitzer Prize with his book finishing in the top five. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant influence on Hayes, Garfield, and Arthur Administrations

Was Grant the leader of the Stalwarts when he returned from his world tour? Grant seems to have meddled in the Cabinet appointments of both Garfield and Arthur. How much influence did Grant have on President Hayes. I have read that Hayes appointed many of Grant's suggestions to office in 1877 because Grant had helped Hayes win the Presidency. Should any of this be mentioned in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read anything of the sort. Conkling was the real head of the Stalwarts, and he and Hayes hated each other. They feuded over appointments constantly. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Lacuna

It seems there is a Hole in our narrative. Grant decided to live in New York City after his presidency. As I recall because his wealthy friends provided for his home, moreover throughout his presidency and for practically the rest of his life, Grant summered in Long Branch, New Jersey (which in part because of him became a famous presidential resort until Wilson) and it was there he started his work on the late in life articles and memoirs. Some mention of these things (a clause or sentence or two would fill these holes). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right. You think we should add it in the "Grant and Ward" section? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, unfortunately I am less clear about the how, when and why of New York City (end of World Tour?) I do have a source for Long Branch. He first summered there the first summer of his presidency (1869) because of his friend George Childs who at some point provided with George Pullman his summer (white) house for the next decades. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Presidency and post Presidency would be best. Grant was critisized, according to Simon (2002), for vacationing at Long Branch. I believe staying at Long Branch initially had more to due with his Presidency. President Garfield staid at Long Branch too, in fact that is where Garfield was taken for attempted recuperation. Grant and Garfield may have had somewhat of a detente at Long Branch, right before Garfield returned to Washington D.C. prior to Garfield's assassination. Garfield and Grant were at odds with each other since Garfield defeated Grant's third term attempt. Another issue is was that Grant was practically telling Garfield and Arthur who to have on their respected Cabinets. Additionally Grant may have been dissappointed for not being appointed Minister to China. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Although Long Branch should be mentioned probably in Presidency; imo, the how, when and why of NYC is actually more of a missing hole. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'll look up a cite for NYC and add it, unless you want to do it. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems you have better source access and wide ranging knowledge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

U S v. Cruikshank

Grant is blamed for the end of Reconstruction, but didn't U S v. Cruikshank give the go ahead for white supremacy in the South, knowing that there would be no remedy from the federal government. Source: Newman (July 04, 2006) Ulysses Grant: Our Greatest President? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)