Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Lede section neutrality

I added that Grant thwarted the Gold Ring, successfully prosecuted the Whiskey Ring, and that he established the Civil Service Commission. Brands (2012) and Patrick (1967) were used as references. The article lede states his policies were unsuccessful. Grant established the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General. The treaty with Hawaii led to Hawaiian statehood. Brands (2012) believes that thwarting the Gold Ring and prosecuting the Whiskey Ring are important aspects of the Grant Administration. Is the article lede as currently written neutral? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's neutral, accurate, and succinct. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say parts of the lede are not neutral. The lede currently mentions corrupt appointees or associates and the Panic of 1873 twice. Is that neccessary? Mentioning this once would be neutral. Grant is mentioned defending corrupt appointees. Who were these corrupt associates that Grant defended? Babcock was the only person Grant gave a deposition before. Secretary Columbus Delano was never impeached or charged by Congress. Public pressure forced Delano out of office and Grant replaced him with a reformer Secretary Zachariah Chandler. Grant did not give any deposition for Secretary Belknap. I would state that Grant defended or shielded three associates, Babcock, Secretary Belknap, and Secretary Delano. Grant did ask the judge not to prosecute Belknap in federal court, believing Belknap had gone through enough by the Sentate trial. The lede mentions his policies were unsuccessful. This in my opinion is a broad sweep of his entire two administrations. No responsibility is put on his country men for the fall of Reconstruction. The Department of Justice and the Office of Solicitor General are still active today and have prosecuted possibly thousands of cases a year. The Office of Attorney General is no longer the Presidents personal attorney. Grant's Civil Service Commission had not been overturned by any Supreme Court Case. Grant's Attorney General Amos T. Akerman upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Service Commission. Hawaii is part of the United States and the process of statehood was made by President Grant and Hamilton Fish. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I made changes to the lede section. Moved reputation to last paragraph. Filled in first paragraph with Panic of 1873 and scandals of corrupt appointees. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Sumner went after Grant for Santo Domingo: Sumner, Charles (May 31, 1872). "Republicanism vs. Grantism".

Look at the article on the 1872 election. Read the Liberal Republicans' platform. It's not about Santo Domingo. I've never seen anything in the Grant biographies that suggests that, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sumner was a Liberal Republican. His speech was in an election year 1872. The speech decries "Grantism". Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sumner speaks in detail of Grant's attempt to annex Santo Domingo. Sumner goes after Babcock. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe the article narration is neutral. Grant created the Civil Service Commission and he is not recognized for this in the lede. In my opinion this was important legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in your opinion. What about the consensus of scholarly opinion? Do historians find the creation of a two-year advisory commission among Grant's most important achievements? --Coemgenus (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current changes to the lede narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Civil Service Commission

Patrick (1967) pages 172-173 writes on Grant's Civil Service Commission and Reform. Ari Hoogenboom (1970) supports Grant's Civil Service Commission, Civil Service Reform and Public Morality pages 77-75. Smith (2001), Grant pages 587-590 writes on Civil Service Reform and the Civil Service Commission. Simon (2002) The Presidents: A Reference History page 250 acknowledges Grant implemented the Civil Service Commission. McFeely (1981) Grant: A Biography interestingly ignores Civil Service Reform in his biography on Grant. That would be 4 authors to 1 who write on Grant and Civil Service Reform. Interestingly McFeely (1974) knew that Grant implemented the Civil Service Commission but he ignored this in his biography on Grant. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral and use reliable sourcing. Civil Service was implemented by several of Grant's cabinet Cox, Hoar, Fish, and Marshall Jewell. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Including Hoogenboom's book is disingenuous. It's a book about civil service reform so, yes, it discusses civil service reform. But you didn't answer my question: Do historians find the creation of a two-year advisory commission among Grant's most important achievements? That's what the lede is for: highlighting the most important things in a brief summary. It seems like you're trying to add a bunch of "good things" to balance out what you think are "bad things," even when historians have not made the same judgement. If you think that's appropriate, you should re-read WP:NPOV.--Coemgenus (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. You are asking an impossible question to answer and has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy on neutrality and reliable sources. As far as I know there is no source that has interviewed historians to find if the creation of a two-year advisory commission was among Grant's most important achievements. Hoogenboom is not disingenuous since McFeely (1974) used Hoogenboom as a source reference. Remember, this was the first time there was a Civil Service Commission in United States history. The positive affects of Grant's Civil Service Commission can be found in James Penny Boyd (1885) Military and civil life of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant pages 471-473 Secretary Delano was the exception having exempted competative examinations. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: Dorman B. Eaton (1881) The Attempt of President Grant to Reform the Spoils System at New York Chapter 2 of the book The "spoils" System and Civil Service Reform in the Custom-house and Post-Office at New York Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Eaton (1881) page 29 states that under Grants Civil Service Reform more women and young men were hired in Washington D.C. This was more then recommendations. Grant actually implemented the reforms starting January 1, 1872. Simon (2002) confirms this two year implementation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, I don't know why you've chosen to undo the work we've done on making the lede better, but I'm tired of arguing about it. Add the Civil Service Commission. Or don't add it. I don't care. I don't have an agenda, other than trying to get this thing to GA (a diminishing possibility) or FA (impossible). So, whatever. Go for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Coemgenus. Without this discussion I would not have found sources on Grant and Civil Service reform. I don't have an agenda. Brand (2013) made a strong point on information written on Grant is misleading or wrong. I agree with that assessement. Grant started Civil Service reform and I believe he deserves credit for doing so as President. I would add this information in the Gilded Age corruption and reform section. I am satisfied with the changes I already made in the lede. The lede looks great! Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed sentence Civil Service Commission not in lede

These sentences are not meant for the lede, rather the Gilded Age corruption and reform section.

"Grant's Civil Service reform had limited success, as his Cabinet relied less on Senatorial patronage, more women and younger men were highered in Washington D.C., and the New York Customs House Commissioner Chester A Arthur reduced graft. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I am done with Grant and Civil Service Reform. Again, I don't have an agenda. The article is looking really good. I do not see for now any major changes that are needed for the article. I believe the article is very fair and neutral on Grant. I added information on the limited success of Grant's Civil Service reform initiative. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That stuff you added is fine. I copyedited it a bit. My only objection is to the line about Chester Arthur. It's true that he did less hiring and firing on patronage grounds, but it's not because he was a reformer. He and the previous collector, Murphy, were of the same faction (Conkling's). Murphy replaced many many workers with Conkling men. When Arthur replaced Murphy, the customhouse crew was already loyal to his faction, so there was no reason to fire anyone. His biographer, Thomas C. Reeves, gives the whole story, if you're interested. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Coemgenus. I know Arthur was not trained to be a reformer, however, compared to previous collectors he was a reformer and he really did reduce the number of firings on patronage grounds. Possibly the ones he did not fire were kept on because they were qualified to hold their jobs. I believe Hayes wanted a more aggressive reformer then Arthur. The system was not perfect, in some respects, according to Eaton because this was the first time Civil Service was implemented at federal custom houses in the United States and I believe Grant deserves credit for doing so. Eaton admits this however he does state Grant's Civil Service was successful and should not be under rated. Conkling may have had a hand in not getting Civil Service legislation permanently passed. I believe Conkling was out of office when Civil Service Reform under Arthur passed Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe mentioning that Conkling oppossed Civil Service reform, even under Grant, would be good to add to the article. He seems to have been the one who led the effort to defeat Grant's Civil Service Commission. The Commission only cost around $25,000 a year to run. This was clearly a partisan issue. The Democrats too I believe were not in favor of Civil Service Reform either. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that adding Conkling is particularly relevant to Grant. I'd take that and the Arthur part out. They're both more about those men than about Grant. And there's a big problem with saying Arthur was reform-minded because he didn't fire people for patronage reasons: when he took office, the place was already packed with Conklingites. There was no one left to fire! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There were Conkling men at the New York Customs House. Nothing in the article states Arthur was a reformer. Grant believed he would implement Civil Service Reform. In the interest of cooperation, that is fine about removing Arthur and Conkling. Arthur beleived he was following the Civil Service Commissions recommendations. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hard money/weak presidency

Not suggesting that these things are connected, except they both seem to be missing from our narrative. Hard money and weak presidency are insightful of Grant's politics and had a lasting effect for the rest of the 19th century and beyond (weak presidency probably also plays into the 'ineffective president' analysis). These things also give some contextual overview for Grant. For what I mean, see Fiscal Policy and Impact and Legacy . So, some mention would be helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That depends if one considers Grant a weak President. He often vetoed Congress. He used and established international diplomacy. He took on and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan. Grant was elected twice by a popular majority in the country. He established Civil Service Reform. According to Miller Center Fiscal Policy the "economic depression in Europe, rapid industrial and agricultural growth, overexpansion of the railroads, and the effects of the Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War in Europe. The panic began when various Wall Street firms started going under and led to failing banks, increased bankruptcies, rising unemployment, and lost farms." The Miller Center stated Grant's "weakness" as President was due to a strong Congress, especially the Senate Impact and Legacy. The tenor of office act had not been fully repealed. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. It does not "depend" on that any of those things you discuss because that is not what was being referred to. There was a longtime governmental theory in America, that the Presidential office should be weak; and the peoples branch (the legislature) should be strong. Lincoln ironically subscribed to this but theory was obviously overtaken by events there. As the source notes: Grant's presidency confirmed the weak president model for rest of the century. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant, partially repealed the Tenure of Office Act, that empowered such Senators as Roscoe Conkling and Charles Sumner. President Abraham Lincoln did not operated under the Tenure of Office Act. President Grover Cleveland was the first President since Lincoln to run the government freely as the law was fully repealed. Grant was a fighting President who took on the Klan as Brands (December 2013) states. As for Gold Standard here is a unique link Brief History of the Gold Standard in the United States PDF Nothing is mentioned concerning Presidential power and the Gold Standard. Both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson operated under the Gold Standard. Grant's Presidency was weakenend by the House controlled by the Democrats in 1875 and by the Supreme Court that effectively underminded the Force Acts. War and military technology tends to increase Presidential power. How does the Gold standard weaken a presidents power and who is promoting this theory? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is very difficult (and I have noticed this in your discussions that you often do not respond to or appear to understand what people write. You have done it twice now in this discussion - I linked to sources to explain the issues but you then go on irrelevant disquisitions that are not even responsive to the point). As for your latest, reread and understand: "Not suggesting that these things are connected . . ." So, NO ONE is promoting that theory -- they are two different things. This also discusses Grant and the Gold Standard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe you called Grant a weak President Alanscottwalker. I gave you a link to the Gold Standard. I am not sure what your point is in this discussion. You accuse me of appearing not to understand other conversations. That is not fair. I am not sure why you brought up the Gold Standard in the first place. I was trying to have a good faith discussion on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What don't you understand? We have a high quality source (of the kind we use for NPOV judgements) that discusses Grant and weak presidency (that is not an attack or criticism of Grant that is a systemic issue of context and legacy). On the OTHER issue, we have high quality sourcing that discusses Grant and hard money/gold standard (also a systemic context issue and legacy issue). The reason the two separate issues were brought up (as I said at the beginning) was to get them reflected in this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC) If I came on too strong above then sorry, but you actually did it again, I did not dispute your good faith, I criticized your responses to the limited points being made by the sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That is OK. I was reading through the sources you have given. The Miller Center source did state: "He was a natural leader on the battlefield but was not an especially effective leader of his country." I suppose that could be interpreted to be a "weak Presidency", however, the article does not specifically state Grant had a "weak Presidency". If he was such an ineffective leader why did he get Civil Service Reform passed, settle the Alabama Claims, sign a treaty with the Hawaii that brought eventual statehood. Grant's leadership during the Election of 1876 kept the U.S. from a second Civil War. Don't you think that as Badeau suggested that the people felt comfortable with Grant in office because he was an effective military leader. What would have made Grant an effective leader? Here are links Southeastern Historian Writes of Grant's Leadership Qualities and Grant the World Leader Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You did not read the source: "He came into office wanting to serve all the American people and was determined to avoid party politics. At the same time, he did not really understand politics, which hindered his effectiveness as President, and he believed in the supremacy of the legislative branch. The Grant years finished what the Johnson years had begun: a significant weakening of the American presidency. Congress, especially the Senate, had seized the reins of power, and the presidency would not regain its stature until the turn of the twentieth century." (emphasis added) You also, have again not addressed it, instead you talk about "leadership qualities." That has nothing to do with an institutionally/systematically weak presidency -- which is a theory and practice that has occured in American history. According to the source, Grant beleived in that theory of government. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The late nineteenth-century presidency was weak, including Grant. I didn't realize this was a controversial statement. They were all weak until Wilson's day, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Grant presidency was weakened because of the Tenure of Office Act. I will agree to that. However, President Grant strenghened the Presidency by modifying the law and getting to choose his own Cabinet. Hayes is a prime example. Conkling was empowered by this law and Hayes, a strong administrator, could not outright get rid of Arthur, a Grant appointment because of the Tenure of Office law. However, this law was repealed during Grover Cleveland Administration in 1887. From Andrew Johnson through Chester A Arthur Presidents had to contend with the TOOA. Grant took on the Klan in 1871 and was known as a fighting President. Grant had Charles Sumner deposed from power in the Senate. Yellowstone National Park was established by President Grant. Grant's Indian policy was pro active and reduced Indian wars. Grant devoted much energy to Santo Domingo and even personally lobbied Senators. Grant was able to get an Investigation Committee to make recommendations on Santo Domingo. Since when is submitting to the will of Congress a sign of weakness. The President is to enforce the laws and Grant created the Department of Justice, one if not the most powerful legal entities in the world. I think that it is unfair to call Presidents who kept America out of war weak. McKinely was a strong President. He started the Spanish American War and used five battleships authorized by Grant's Secretary of Navy George M. Robeson in 1875. Chester A Arthur had just as much veto power as any modern President. I would state that Presidents between Johnson and Arthur were weakened due to the TOOA. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilded Age corruption and reform section improvement suggestions

Most of the "wide spread" corruption took place in the Department of Treasury and the Department of Interior. These two Departments were cleaned up by Bristow and Chandler respectively. There was corruption of the Star Route contracts in the Postal Department. Marshall Jewell was investigating and curbing this practice. Had Jewell remained in office he probably would have cleaned up that Department completely. Grant does have responsibility for getting rid of Jewell and Bristow. Interesting both Jewell and Bristow both ran for President in 1876. Tyner, I believe, Jewell's replacement, was a close friend of Rutherford B Hayes. The section mainly focuses on Grant and Babcock while briefly mentioning corruption in the Department of Interior. Again. I am not pushing any agenda. I recommend the following improvement suggestions: Cmguy777 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Focus on corruption and reform in the Departments of Interior and Departments of Treasury. This was where most of the corruption and profiteering took place.
• Mention Jewell cleaning up the Star Route contracts in the Postal Department.
• Somewhat deemphasize Grant protecting Babcock and Belknap, that really had no effect on the outcome of the Election of 1876. The Whiskey Ring was shut down and there were over 100 convictions. Babcock got away due to Grant's testimony. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the stuff you added today. It just adds a lot of detail that should properly be in the subarticles. And why do you add more and more sources? If it can't be found in any of the fifty or so books in the bibliography, is it really germane? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Balance. Bristow, having Grant's permission, shut down the Whiskey Ring that resulted in 110 persons were convicted. Kohn is a good source that specifically deals with corruption in the U.S. I was attemtping to show that there were prosecutions, rather then just Grant defending Babcock. There is so much weight on Babcock. Most of the corruption and reform efforts were in the Department of Treasury and the Department of Interior. Grant did protect both Babcock and Belknap from prosecutions. I even added more detail that Grant stopped making immunity deals that would benefit Babcock. There was corruption and reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware that the section can change when undergoing GA evalutations. The rest of the article looks great. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're misunderstanding what NPOV means. We can't balance what was, in fact, unbalanced. All of the historical scholarship emphasizes the administration's corruption, not its reform efforts. As we've discussed many, many times already, we can't add our own opinions in place of the scholarly consensus. Trying to make Grant's administration look like it was equally remembered for its reform and its corruption is your opinion, not that of any scholar, not even Grant's most outspoken apologists. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Brands Interview (November 16, 2013) "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) 05:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

McFeely (1974). pages 133-134 "Historians H. Wayne Morgan, Ari Hoogenboom, and others reevaluating the Grant administration find its reputation for unbridled, unprecedented, and unsurpassed corruption exaggerated. Hoogenboom suggests that one of the reasons there was so much talk about corruption at the time was that at last some people, including Ulysses S. Grant, wanted to do something about it. He stresses for example the abolition of the Moiety system during Grant's administration...he credits Grant with appointing the first Civil Service Commission rather then blaming him for abuses that made later civil service reform essential." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

To emphasize unbridled corruption would be an exaggeration. That is why the article needs to add the reforms of the Grant administration. Brands (2012), page 636 credits Grant for defeating the Gold Ring and prosecuting the Whiskey Ring. Putting in the article that Bristow had 110 convictions definitely shows Grant could reform when he desired. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am siding with Hoogenboom, Morgan, and Brands. These are not my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am using Hoogenboom, Morgan, and Brands to support my edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I am not defending Grant's actions in regards to the Whiskey Ring or his protection of Babcock and Belknap. Feel free to make any changes to the text. I do believe that at least there needs to be a sentence that Bristow shut down the Whiskey Ring and convictions were obtained. Grant was shutting down an apparent Republican corruption ring and some of the Republican leaders did not like Bristow's reform efforts. This may have put pressure on Grant to become more defensive. Babcock most likeley influenced Grant to stop the immunity charges in the Mid-West. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Equal Pay for Women

Did Grant sign legislation that gave equal pay for women federal workers in 1871? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There was the Spencer-Webster 1871 case on suffrage. Equal rights for women was starting to take root during Grant's Presidency. Here is the source: Jill Norgren (2007) Belva Lockwood: The Woman Who Would Be President page 37 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe something on equal pay and womens suffrage should be mentioned in the Election of 1872. Susan B. Anthony cast her "vote" for Grant. Julia Grant may have been in favor of female suffrage. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

We have thousands of pages of biographies about Grant. Can we please stick to what's in there and not reach for extraneous information that every Grant biographer has found irrelevant? This article is supposed to summarize mainstream Grant scholarship. I feel like I have to write words to this effect about twice a week on this talk page. I know you mean well, but this is easily the most frustrating article I've ever worked on. There's enough in it. It's time to stop adding. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I am all for the Grant article to get nominated for GA article. Who knows? Maybe the GA process might bring out issues yet unnoticed by wikipedia editors. What wikipedia policy states that all information on bio articles must come from biographers? This is only meant to be a discussion. Morrison Waite, Grant's choice for Chief Justice, could have ruled on womens suffrage but nobody decided to show up for to argue for or against the case. I thought that was interesting. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're not going by what the biographers say, what other standard should there be? Is every event that concerns Grant eligible for inclusion in the article, no matter how many reliable sources ignore it? If that's the case, what limit is there? I'm honestly trying to understand you. What bit of information would be too obscure to include? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If a source is reliable then I believe that source can be used as a reference. I am not for ballooning the article out of proportion. I believe suffrage and equal pay is a valid concern since the 1872 Republican Convention thought about suffrage for women. There was a case brought to the Supreme Court and in essense suffrage could have been a Supreme Court ruling. We don't know how Waite would have ruled. He seemed to be interested in the case. Did Grant write and executive order to give women equal pay? That is why I put this in discussion to find out if this is worth putting in the article. I don't find suffrage and equal pay for women and obscure item. Possibly Grant receiving gifts might be obscure item. Apparently Grant recieved some sort of gift at the White House everyday. His cigar smoking might be obscure although he apparently smoked 20 a day. Again, I am trying to find out if womans suffrage and equal pay are worth mentioning. Grant was also the "ruler" of Washington D.C. This was a time when Washington D.C. was dependent on the Executive Branch. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

1872 Republican Convention: "#14 Fourteenth. The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom. Their admission to wider fields of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction, and the honest demand of any class of citizens for additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration." Source: Republican Party Platform of 1872 (June 5, 1872) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about an article that would be longer than the longest Grant biography. I don't even know how to answer anymore. Is anyone else reading this? I feel like I'm going insane. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Coemgenus -- in terms of legislation & resolutions we need solid evidence that Grant was the main player AND that the issue has been evaluated as important by Grant's biographers, or else the stuff does not belong in this biography. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Comegenus. Please don't go insane. This was only meant to be a discussion. I was wondering if there was more information on this. I am not sure if Grant did anything in terms of equal pay. I was not planning on putting anything in the article unless there was "solid evidence" as Rjensen mentioned. This was part of the Republican Platform and Grant was the Presidential candidate. Did Grant support womans suffrage? From the book I source obviously equal pay and suffrage was the agenda. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for everyones input. There is no further need for this discussion. I am ready to go onto get Grant to GA. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer review and next steps

The peer review looks to have run its course. It will close automatically by about December 5, unless a reviewer adds more comments. When that's done, assuming the article remains stable, I think we're ready for a GA submission. Fifth time's the charm! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am all for a GA submission. My concern is balance in the Guilded Age corruption and reform section. There are many paragraphs on corruption and yet one on reforms. I am not sure why the Grant outlawing the Franking privilege was deleted for that paragraph. There were over 100 convictions in the Whiskey Ring that was shut down and yet the article only emphasizes Grant's defense of Babcock and pardoning of two individuals. Grant did not pardon McDonald. Even General Sherman defended Babcock. I don't want to sound like I am quibbling and there has been allot of improvement in the article. Belknap was tried in the a Democratic controlled house during and election year. Belknap was instrumental in implementing later Reconstruction including Grant's shut down of the Klan in 1871. Were the Democrats going after Belkap for political or Reconstruction reasons? Hyster Clymer was adamently opposed to Reconstruction of both Lincoln and Grant. According to Simon (2002) the corruption charges had no influence on the Election of 1876. The rest of the article looks good and there have been vast improvements in narration and context. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

There's more about corruption than reform because Grant's biographers write more about corruption than reform. None of them mention the franking privilege at all, probably because getting rid of it was a Congressional initiative and it was mostly reversed two years later. NPOV doesn't mean balancing things that were, in truth, not balanced. If Grant scholars write more about corruption than reform, so must we. Do we have to have this discussion for the umpteenth time? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I am bringing this up because Brands (2013) in an interview stated that when he wrote his book Ulysses S. Grant The Man Who Saved The Union (2012) he found that past information on Grant was misleading or wrong. For a notable historian to make such a bold statement is historic. That is why I believe there needs to be balance in the article. To be honest I believe the current information reads like an indictment of Grant. Brands gives Grant credit for stopping the Whiskey Ring. Grant defended Babcock who graduated 3rd in his class at West Point, protected Washington D.C. from harm, and helped defeat Robert E. Lee. Belknap was breveted for his bravery fighting under Sherman. The article does not mention Belknap's wives were involved in the matter nor that Belknap was instrumental in Grant's Reconstruction policy, defeating the Klan in 1871. Only two of Grant's military associates Belknap and Babcock went to trial. Grant defended Babcock during his trial in St. Louis. Grant did interfere with Belknap's indictment after the Senate trial. Grant did not have to sign the bill to outlaw the Franking privilege, but he did. In fact Grant defended Postmaster Creswell when Congress wanted to replace him with a Pennsylvanian over the Franking privilege. Grant actually defended a capable cabinet member such as Creswell. I am not asking for any major changes to the section, but rather, a balanced neutral approach, that incorporates corruption and reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the article looks good if that helps. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the Grant bio article ready to be nominated for GA? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think we should let the peer review run its course first. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, the peer review is closed. How about if I give it one last read-through, then start the GA nomination tonight? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. Yes. That would be fine. I have been working on the Gilded age corruption and reform section narrative. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, GA nomination is open. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. We have to wait now for an editor to give a GA review. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Republicans and federal intervention

Were the Liberal Republicans opposed to federal intervention to protect African Americans and favored state rights, somewhat as the Democratic Party favored state rights during Reconstruction? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

the Liberal Republicans said federal intervention was needed to make sure that slavery was dead and the Confederacy was dead. They said that had been accomplished and the troops were no longer needed. They had a strong bias against military rule of civilian affairs. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. How is that any different then state rights? Did the Liberal Republicans want whites to rule in the state governments? Neither Sumner nor Schurz supported Grant's prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's Republicanism in the United States to argue that the people should rule America, not the military. (it's not states rights) The Liberal Reps thought the voters should rule, including both the blacks and white voters. Rjensen (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Grant attempting to give African Americans the right to live in a Republican government and yet the Liberal Republicans rejected Grant's federal intervention that stopped the Ku Klux Klan. Brands (2012) on page 489 critizized both Sumner and Schurz for not supporting the Force Acts. Did the Liberal Republicans expect state governments run by white supremacists to ensure African American suffrage and citizenship? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

How did the Liberal Republicans expect to ensure a Republican form of government when the Ku Klux Klan terrorized African Americans in the South? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Was Grant? Grant wanted more perhaps but he also wanted a united country and believed in States rights himself -- not intervening in a host of states. [1] On the other hand, the Liberal Republicans did wind up in league with the Democrats, but probably reasoned their way there differently. [2] But really, the whole "white republic" (The entire US: Northerners, Southerners, Grant, Liberal Republicans, Democrats) failed the blacks. [3] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker. I agree with that assessment. I would not state that Grant was a complete failure. The Election of 1872 was a success. He was the first President to use federal intervention to ensure equality of citizenship. He got the Indians moving towards citizenship and his party was open to the discussion of female suffrage and equal pay. Grant could have given equal pay to women in Washington D.C., but I am not sure on that one. His Civil Rights Act of 1875 was a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet Grant was a man of his times too by not allowing Frederick Douglas at the White House. I am not sure what Historians expected of Grant in terms of Reconstruction. He established Civil Service Reform, a first in American history. His reform initiative actually got more women in the work force before women had a right to vote. I think the Liberal Republicans were upset with Grant because he did not consult with any Republican leaders concerning his Cabinet. That is where the rift originally began. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thus the historians question: could Grant have been a better leader/politician/president, thus making intention reality. What they know is how it ended up, after eight years of his administration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Coemgenus

Greetings, Coemgenus. Grant is a fascinating character, and I'm glad to learn more about him as I review this article. I am pleased to see that nearly every objection raised at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/GA3 is either resolved or is now moot. I believe the organization of this article is appropriate, and at first blush I do not see any missing aspects that should be covered, nor any areas where the article goes into unnecessary detail. The lead effectively summarizes the main points of the article, which is a challenging thing to do for an article of this length. I have noticed a few places where the prose could be improved, and have begun to copy-edit the article. If you disagree with any of my edits, please feel free to revert and discuss.

Resolved issues

Can I assume you will eventually want to nominate this article for FA status? If so, here are some opportunities for improvement that are not necessary for GA status, but should probably be fixed eventually. American Civil War and Ku Klux Klan are each linked twice in the lead, and Panic of 1873 is linked thrice. There are instances of overlinking throughout the article. The User:Ucucha/duplinks script can help you find these. I got rid of the more egregious ones. I left a few duplicate links where they're widely separated in the text. That tool is useful! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Leaving some is fine. And yeah, the tool is great. The only thing is doesn't show is when the article links to a separate article, and then also links to a redirect of that separate article. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) This article uses the serial comma in some places (e.g. "generals William Tecumseh Sherman, Philip Sheridan, and George Henry Thomas"), but omits it in others (e.g. "based on black voters, Northern newcomers ('Carpetbaggers') and native white supporters ('Scalawags')"). It's fine to either use or omit the serial comma, so long as it's consistent within the article. Which would you prefer? I use it in parts I've written. I'll try to comform the rest to that style. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Me too. I too will insert it when I see that it's missing. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Per MOS:COMMA, commas are needed after parenthetics when they do not end a sentence. For instance, consider "Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio on April 27, 1822 to Jesse Root Grant...". "Ohio" is acting as a parenthetic, specifying which Point Pleasant you mean, and 1822 is also acting a parenthetic, describing which April 27 you mean. As such, commas are needed after both, which I fixed in this edit. This should be done throughout the article, to conform to the intricacies of our manual of style. – Quadell (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I only found one other example of this, and fixed it. I'll keep an eye out for any others. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I've found a few others, and fixed them. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Clarity: When the lead refers to "native white supporters ('Scalawags')", I know that you mean supporters of Republicans who are white and native to the south, but it sounds like you could mean native supporters of whites, or supporters of native whites. Would "other southern supporters of Republicans ('Scalawags')" work? If not, some other wording will be needed.  Fixed Added "Southern" Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Casual writing: "These failures, along with the separation from his family, made for quite an unhappy soldier, husband and son." This should be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone. Quite right. I revised it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Well stated. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Undue weight: As described in the last paragraph of "Military career, 1843–1854", Grant drank to excess, and was asked to resign, which he did. But the text devotes nine sentences to this, dancing around the did-he-or-didn't-he-drink issue as if it were one of the most important aspects of his career. Instead, the facts should be summarized fairly and a bit more briefly. Yes, that level of detail is better suited to the sub-article. I trimmed it up a good amount. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC) It now feels fluid and appropriate. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Captions: I have fixed several minor problems with image captions, but the caption for File:Whiskeyring.jpg has some problems that I don't know how to fix. First, I don't see the words "Let know guilty man escape" in the cartoon. Direct quotes need a cite. And I'm not sure what the quote is doing logically or grammatically in the sentence at all. Is it needed? I would change the caption to "Grant authorized Bristow to shut down and prosecute the Whiskey Ring."  Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Great. I removed the period—captions should only end in periods (full stops) when the caption is a complete sentence. – Quadell (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Abbreviations: Ranks such as "Maj. Gen" or "Brig. Gen." should not be abbreviated. I think Cmguy and I have fixed all of these. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Spelling: Sometimes the text spells John C. Fremont with an acute e, "Frémont", and sometimes just as "Fremont". Either is fine, but the article should be consistent. These are all fixed now (with the accent, which Fremont preferred.) --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Clarity: I don't understand what this means: "and 'promoted' Grant to the hollow position of second-in-command of all the armies of the west". The article doesn't understand why this position was hollow, or what that means. And why the quote marks around "promoted"? If it's a direct quote, it needs a citation, but I suspect they are scare quotes, which are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. They were scare quotes. I removed them and gave a better explanation of the problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Perfect! That's very clear now. – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Clarity: "During the second attempt to capture Vicksburg, Grant made a series of unsuccessful and criticized movements along bayou and canal water routes." Were they criticized at the time, or only later? Criticized by whom? That's just bad writing that I should've deleted long ago. Fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Allegations: "an unknown assailant allegedly failed in an attempt to break into Grant's railroad car". To give a doubted claim like that, you'll have to say who alleged it, per WP:ALLEGED. I deleted that clause. The sentence works fine without it, and I prefer brevity where possible in this long, long article. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Sometimes that's the most appropriate way to undo a Gordian knot. – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Clarity: "For security purposes, a scapegoat engine preceded Grant's train on the return trip." What does this mean? I deleted this, too. It's unnecessary detail. What was meant, I think, was that an engine preceded Grant's on the line in case someone had placed on the tracks what they would have called a torpedo or an "infernal device" (a land mine, basically). --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Hatnote: You should probably have a section hatnote for Ulysses S. Grant as peacetime general, 1865–1869. Yes. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Missing information: The caption to File:Virginius Incident 1873 Harper's Weekly.jpg states that "After the Virginius incident, Grant's Secretary of Navy George M. Robeson authorized the construction of five new naval battleships." This fact is not mentioned in the article body. It should be added and sourced, or else removed from the caption.  Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Clarity: The article says "Grant was given charge of the southern Illinois, District of Cairo". I don't know much about the way districts were worded back then, but that comma looks spurious. Should it be "of the southern Illinois district of Cairo"? Or perhaps "of the District of Cairo in southern Illinois"? Cleaned this one up. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Links: The battles Grant was involved in should be linked. (Battle of Belmont, Battle of Fort Henry, Battle of Fort Donelson, etc.) Got them all, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC) I think you got all of them. – Quadell (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC) WP:ALLEGED: Again, with "in an election in which the police commissioners had allegedly turned Conservative voters away from the polls". Should read better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC) That's great. – Quadell (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Tone: Self-references like "(see below)" are not appropriate. Removed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Clarity: "Grant came into conflict with Colonel George Armstrong Custer after he testified in 1876 about corruption..." Who testified? Grant or Custer? Custer. Fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Clarity: "With the exception of Grant's personal secretary, Orville E. Babcock, who indirectly controlled many cabinet departments and delayed investigations, the scandals were unrelated to each other." I'm not sure what this means. Is it saying tha Babcock was the only thread tying the multiple scandals together? If so, it should be reworded for clarity. Reworded Cmguy777 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC) McFeely (1974) page 133 stated that Babcock was possible person who linked the scandals together. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Recommendation: I think the section called "Grant & Ward" should instead be called "Business ventures" (or something similar), since only the second paragraph is actually about Grant & Ward. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Puffery: "Twain called the Memoirs a 'literary masterpiece', and others including Matthew Arnold and Edmund Wilson agreed; it may be the "single most important" and influential work of American non-fiction." I believe everything after the semicolon should be omitted. The "may be" part is unprovable speculation, and it's not clear who is doing the speculating. Calling it a literary masterpiece should really be enough. OK, I cut that back. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC) The current "Mark Perry calls the memoirs" wording is also acceptable. – Quadell (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Prose: "After private services in Mount McGregor and lying in state in the New York State Capitol at Albany, Grant's body was placed on a funeral train and traveled via West Point to New York City, where a quarter of a million people viewed it in the two days prior to the funeral." I'm not sure what "lying in state" is, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't match well with "private services". (The body was lying in state, but the boy wasn't "private services"—see what I mean?) In my opinion, the section on his funeral is detailed enough; consider simplifying to "After private services, Grant's body was..." Agreed and done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Prose/Trivia: The sentence about Ohio's vote for Statuary Hall inclusion uses the phrase "in a statewide vote" twice. But really, it isn't clear what was being voted on, and I'm not sure a second-place finish in an Ohio poll merits mention alongside being depicted on a $50 bill. Omit? I agree. Omitted. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Balance: Similarly, it's an honor both for Grant and for MSU that the Grant library is in MSU. But does it deserve it's own 3-sentence paragraph, when the D.C. Grant Memorial and Grant's Tomb have to share a single sentence? Yes, I agree. I trimmed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Cites: Grant's "My efforts in the future will be directed..." quote needs a specific cite. Cite 143 comes a sentence later, and lists two separate books. Which book does this quote come from? It's from his second inaugural address, but I'm not sure which book we drew it from. @Cmguy777: is it from Brands? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Well, now that the original source is clearly specified in text, I don't think it's still an issue. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Coemgenus. Hamlin Garland (1898), Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character, pages 425-426 Clarity: "Although Grant was upset over Canby's death, he ordered restraint from seeking revenge or exterminating the tribe, as Sherman wished." Does this mean Sherman wished that Grant would order restraint? Or that Sherman wished that Grant would exterminate the tribe? Sherman wanted to kill them all. I clarified it in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Alleged: "then, in an apparently agreed-upon arrangement, he resigned due to 'sickness' and was appointed Minister to France." Those look like scare quotes. Also, why was it apparent that an arrangement was agreed-upon? Reworded for clarity. The arrangement was to give an ailing Washburne clout upon being appointed Minister to France by Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) The reason for the careful wording is that most historians think the "ailing" part was fake. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I think the most recent wording has alleviated the problem. – Quadell (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Prose: The "Third term attempt" section contains the following two problematic sentences: "Grant received 306 votes on the final ballot, his supporters staying committed to their man to the bitter end. Logan moved that the nomination be made unanimous, and it was, but those 306 Stalwarts were immortalized in Republican myth." First off, I don't think they stayed committed "to the bitter end" if the final nomination was unanimous. Second, "to the bitter end" is casual metaphor. Thirdly, I don't think this counts as "myth", and I don't think it's "immortalized" any more than any other encyclopedic fact, and I'm not convinced it's even important enough to mention. Would this work? "Grant received 306 votes on the final ballot, but was unable to achieve a majority. The nomination was made unanimous in a procedural motion" (or whatever is accurate). Yes, your wording is good. It conforms to the source material, so I substituted it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I will continue to study and review this article over the next several days, and will add issues here as I find them. – Quadell (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Quadell, thanks for undertaking this review. Please, by all means copyedit. This thing is so big, we could use all the help we can get! I'll be pretty busy over the next week, but I'll be able to spare at least a few minutes a day, as will my co-editors. Thanks again, --Coemgenus (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   All issues have been resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations are excellent.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All these issues have been resolved.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is an excellent article, and I've had a great time reading and reviewing it. It passes all our GA criteria with flying colors, and I'm delighted to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Grant & Ward

I note that there is no Grant & Ward article. It seems to me that the content here would make it pretty easy to create such an article, which could have a rather intriguing DYK hook: "...that when the firm Grant & Ward went bankrupt in 1884, it left former U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant essentially penniless?" Just a thought, if anyone wants to take it on. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Good call. I'd planned to do one in the Mexican Southern Railroad some time next month. Could do Grant & Ward after that if no one else gets to it. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Good article contributor thanks

Thanks for everyone who contributed to getting the Ulysses S Grant article to good article status! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations to you and all who helped. It took User:Cmguy777 almost 3000 edits over the last 4 1/2 years... From the beginning it looked like a long climb, so congratulations are well deserved. BusterD (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks BusterD. Several editors helped get this article to GA. I am happy with the result of the GA review! Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Grant and rights of women

I found concrete information on Grant and the rights of women. Grant signed two laws, one to allow women in Washington D.C. full protection of their private property in 1869. Grant in 1872 signed the Arnell bill into law that gave women in Washington D.C. equal pay with men. Karlyn K. Campbell (1993)Women Public Speakers In the United States 1800-1925 page 40 The bill H.R. 1571 introduced in March 21, 1870 was not passed until two years later. President Grant also personally intervened so Bennett Lockwood received her law degree from National University Law School in Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not even what the source says. Instead of telling you the rules of summary style, undue weight, and original research for the umpteenth time, I'll just direct you to my earlier remarks. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I gave a reliable source Karlyn K. Cambell (1993) as a reference to the Arnell law. The source says that Lockwood wrote a letter to Grant and a few weeks later she received the dimploma infering that Grant gave her the diploma. Grant was president of the National University. The Arnell bill was passed by Congress in 1872. Grant signed the bill into law. There is no mention that Grant vetoed the bill. The law protecting the property of women in Washington D.C. was passed on April 10, 1869. Source Statues at Large (1871) An Act Regulating the Rights of Property of Married Women in the District of Columbia The 1872 Republicican Party Platform specifically addressed womens rights. Ida Husted Harper (1886) History of Woman Suffrage, Volume 3 found on page 278. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the Arnell law worth mentioning in the Grant article or the Presidency of Ulysses S Grant article? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the best place for this information is in the Election of 1872 article. I am not trying to POV this issue. I have given sources. If there are no more comments I consider this subject closed. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Presidency article in a while. I don't know that it's appropriate there, either, but I won't object. It's not on my watchlist. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. That sounds good. Possibly womens rights could be considered reform too. I think obviously the early suffragettes liked or respected Grant. The Republicans needed to get Republican women, who could not legally vote, to campaign for Grant. My view is that the suffragette movement should get mentioned in every Presidential article from Grant to Harding. That is only an opinion. I will try to find more academic articles written on this subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I found more source references on on Women suffrage during the Presidency of Ulysses S Grant. I can add a section in the Grant presidency article on early womens suffrage. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Berg, Linda S. "Go ahead, arrest me!" Cobblestone Mar. 2009: 11+. General Reference Center GOLD. Web. 13 Dec. 2013
• Elkins, Elizabeth. "Susan B. Anthony." Cobblestone Jan. 2010: 8+. General Reference Center GOLD. Web. 13 Dec. 2013
• "Susan B. Anthony: 'tt was we, the people; not we, the white males': a suffragist's bold argument that women deserve to be citizens." American History 45.4 (2010): 36+. General Reference Center GOLD. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.
• Jeffrey D. Schultz, Laura A. Van Assendelft (1999)Encyclopedia of Women in American Politics Belva Ann Bennett McNall Lockwood page 131 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Suffragette section added to the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I think it's a bad idea, but I can't bring myself to keep arguing about it. As long as we keep the main article within the rules, I'll close my eyes to the rest. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. The American History (2010) journal found Susan B Anthony voting for Grant historical enough for an article. Grant is also mentioned in then Encyclopedia of Women in America Politics (1999) and the Karlyn K. Cambell (1993), Women Public Speakers In the United States 1800-1925 books. I do not understand why there is any controversy in mentioning the early womens suffrage movement in the Presidency of Ulysses Grant article since Grant signed equal pay (1872) and property protection (1869) laws for women. Anthony "illegally" voted for Grant in the 1872 election. I will concede there is not enough historical weight for this information to be put in the main Grant bio article at this time. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Foreign policy

Should the Dominican Republic annexation treaty be in the first paragraph? I believe the Cuban revolt and settling the Alabama claims was the most pressing policies when Grant took office in 1869. The Cuban Revolt is not even mentioned in the Foriegn affairs section nor is Grant's neutrality proclamation in 1869 concerning the Cuban revolt. In my opinion the Cuban revolt needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph along with the Alabama claims since this was Grant's most pressing need when he entered office in 1869. Source: Robert C. Kennedy (2001) Under a Palm-Tree--Waiting for a Sail Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I put them in chronological order. The annexation treaty was drafted in 1869. The Alabama claims were resolved in 1871. Cuba wasn't a big concern until the second term. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What about Grant's executive order on July 14, 1869 prohibiting private American ventures from supporting the Cuban Revolution? In July-August Grant and Fish were attempting to negotiate Cuban independence from Spain. Grant also issued a statement the United States was willing to mediate between Cuba and Spain, yet remain neutral. Source:Smith (2001), Grant, pp 495-497. Smith also stated that the Cuban revolt and Santo Domingo annextion "moved in tandem" with each other on page 499. The Cuban issue is not even mentioned in the article. In my opinion the reader is left only to believe that Grant's only foriegn policy agenda at that time was the Dominican Annexation treaty. Recognizing the Cuban beligerancy could have affected the Fish's Alabama Claims negotiations since that was a matter of England recognizing the Confederacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The country was rallying for war in 1869 selling Cuban War bonds. Congress was ready to recognize the Cuban belligerency. Rawlins was heavily advocating Cuban rebel recognition, in part because Rawlins had purchased $20,000 Cuban War bonds. Cuba was the top priorty of the Grant administration in August 1869, not Santo Domingo. Rather then war Grant was trying to broker an armistice. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess this is where I mention the limited space, that this article is already very long, that there are sub-articles, etc., etc., etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand the space issue. However the article only focuses on one Caribbean controversy. At least there needs to be mention of the Cuban Revolution and that Grant kept the U.S. out of getting involved in a war in Cuba. Both Smith (2001) and Brands (2012) discuss both the Dominican Republic treaty and the Cuban revolution. The Cuban issue continued to be a problem in the Grant Administration that led up to the Virginus incident. I believe that mentioning that Grant did not intervene in Cuba or side with the interventionists would add balance to the Dominican Republic annexation information. There is in a sense a Caribbean triangle: Grant would not intervene in Cuba; Fish would support the Dominican Republic Annexation; Grant would support Fish and the Treaty of Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I added two sentences to give context to the Alabama claims concerning Cuban belligerency. Grants message to Congress that averted recognition of Cuban belligerency enabled Fish to conclude negotiations with Britain over the Alabama claims. Also, I linked the Cuban belligerency to the Ten Years War article that would give the reader understanding of the Virginius incident. Source: Simon (2002) page 249. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Shiloh

The statement "Aware of the impending Confederate attack, Union troops sounded the alarm and readied for battle" is misleading for two reasons. First, the bulk of the army was not aware. Second, it omits the fact that Grant was unaware.

From Larry Daniel's *Shiloh* on page 141:

The day before the Confederate attack, "Sherman assured Grant that, with the exception of cavalry patrols, two infantry regiments, and a battery about six miles out, his division front was clear. That evening, Grant returned to Cherry Mansion [8 miles from Shiloh on the opposite side of the Tennessee River]…He penned two notes to [his superior] Halleck, informing him that the main enemy force was at Corinth [26 miles away]." Grant also wrote Halleck that same night "I have scarcely the faintest idea of an attack (general one) being made upon us."

Although neutrality is an important Wikipedia principle, this article is a hugely biased hagiography. It should be unlocked so that objective editors can correct the one-sided commentary of those who have been permitted to contribute to it so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.59.83.127 (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

When was Grant aware of the impending attack at Shiloh is a signifigant question. Grant's lack of entrenchment is probably more signifigant and remember, Grant's authority was reduced by Halleck after Shiloh, where Grant wanted to resign from the military. Also signifigant was that Shiloh was not a victory for the Confederates. On the second day of Battle the Confederate army retreated back to Corinth. The Confederates put everything their military had into defeating Grant, however, Grant and Sherman held total victory off in time for Buell's reinforcements. I suggest adding that Grant underestimated the Confederate attack at Shiloh and was initially unprepared for battle along with any reliable sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Grant and Sherman

I think there needs to be mention of Grant and his relationship or friendship with William T. Sherman. Apparently there was a break in their close friendship in 1869 when Grant's Secretary of War John Rawlins over turned much of Sherman's authority in the U.S. Military after (Sherman was) being promoted to General of the Armies by Grant. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I could see adding a sentence to the Shiloh section, when they began working together on a regular basis, and maybe one in 1869, if what you say is true, and mainstream sources back it up. Let's get our facts straight first, though: Rawlins was never promoted to General of the Armies. He was Secretary of War, a cabinet post. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest Coemgenus. I fixed the context to the above paragraph. Sherman was of course promoted General of the Armies by President Grant in 1869. I am all for getting the facts straight. There is a modern source. Rawlins was an industrious leader although he was very ill from tuberculosis. Sherman met Grant and was upset at Grant for not reversing Rawlins instructions that reduced Sherman's authority. Sherman stopped calling Grant "Grant" rather he called Grant "Mr. President". Sherman walked out of the meeting and apparently the two were not as close as they were during the Civil War. The rift between Grant and Sherman started in 1869. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Source: Flood, Charles Bracelen (2005). Grant and Sherman The Friendship That Won The Civil War. Harper Perennial. p. 394. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of the book, though I've not read it. As I said, a sentence when they met and a sentence about their break in 1869 makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Since there was a whole book on Grant and Sherman's friendship winning the war, I suppose that needs to be mentioned in the article. You mentioned adding this information in the Shiloh section. I think that would be a good place. That would give context concerning their break up in the Presidency section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly Flood (2005) has a whole chapter 5 titled The Bond Formed At Shiloh. I have the book and am reading the chapter. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a potential edit for Shiloh section:

""During and after the battle of Shiloh, Grant and Sherman bonded in a close military friendship and developed a similar terrible and efficient philosophy of war that affected both Southern civilian populations and the Confederate armies." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a potential edit for the Presidency section:

" In 1869, Grant promoted his close friend William T. Sherman to Commanding General when Grant assumed the Presidency initially giving Sherman broad powers. Grant's appointed Secretary of War John A. Rawlins, however, issued orders that reduced Sherman's authority. After Grant refused to overturn Rawlins orders upon Sherman's request, Sherman was upset and their friendship became estranged. William W. Belknap, Rawlin's replacement, and Congress continued to restrict Sherman's military authority. " Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll answer more fully when I get home from work, but the first thing that jumps out at me in terms of the facts at issue is that Sherman was not General of the Armies. Nobody was back then. He was Commanding General of the United States Army . It's important to nail down distinctions like that if we're to keep this article up to the standard we've set for it. Again, I'll do a fuller rewrite later. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with you Coemgenus. That is why these are initial edits and I appreciate your input. Drafts if you will. I made changes to the drafts. The second paragraph possibly could be reduced in words. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reduced the paragraph to four sentences. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, here's the first sentence, which I think could go after the last sentence in the Shiloh section:

Shiloh also marked the beginning of Grant's friendship with Sherman; the two would go on to develop a similar philosophy of total war against the Confederate armies and population.{{citation}}

Here's the second, which might fit after the sentence "Fish would be Grant's most successful appointment.[128]":

Grant promoted Sherman to his own former post as Commanding General. Rawlins, however, issued orders that reduced Sherman's authority.{{citation}} After Grant refused to overturn Rawlins's orders, Sherman was upset and their relationship became strained.{{citation}}

After the next sentence ("Rawlins later died of tuberculosis and was replaced by William W. Belknap.[130]"), we could add:

Belknap and Congress continued to restrict Sherman's military authority.{{citation}}'

What do you think? If you supply the citations from the Flood book (assuming what I wrote matches what Flood says) I'd be happy with this draft. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Coemgenus. I like the drafts and I think adds allot to the article. I suppose one unanswered question was whether Grant was behind any of this. He did sign the legislation taking away Sherman's power in the military that empowered Belknap. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

citation #1: Flood, Charles Bracelen (2005). Grant and Sherman The Friendship That Won The Civil War. Harper Perennial. pp. 128–129. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

citations #2 #3 Flood, Charles Bracelen (2005). Grant and Sherman The Friendship That Won The Civil War. Harper Perennial. p. 394. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

citation #4: Flood, Charles Bracelen (2005). Grant and Sherman The Friendship That Won The Civil War. Harper Perennial. pp. 394–395. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll add this this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks Coemgenus. One question I have is whether Grant should be mentioned along with Congress and Belknap since Grant signed the 1870 legislation that reduced Sherman's authority, i.e. .......Belknap, Congress, and Grant........ Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Cmguy, I added the source to the bibliography, but could you add the isbn number to it? I wasn't sure which addition you're working from. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. The ISBN # for the Flood (2005) book is 0-06-114871-7. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Coemgenus (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Good work Coemgenus. I think the edits add allot to the article. Thanks! Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

In my opinion, the Ulysses S. Grant article could and/or should be nominated for Feature Article. I am sure there needs to be more improvements. I would state his military carreer and Presidency look good. Also, Grant's historical reputation section is the best I have seen since I have edited on the article. Any thoughts, suggestions, or objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

yes it's pretty good! My (small) objection is to the format of the footnotes which leave off the short title (I recommend: Jones, Grant's Favorite Tomb (2015) p 123) Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree Rjensen! Thanks. These are only my suggestions or concerns:

• Does the article capture the times in terms of women's suffrage? The Republican Party for the first time mentioned talking about the rights of women at the 1872 Convention. Susan B. Anthony voted for Grant and was willing to go to prison for doing so but her attorney prevented her from going to jail. Grant did make into law equal pay for Washington female clerks. One modern history book does give Grant credit for this.
• The other issue is expanding the reform paragraph somewhat to include more on Hamilton Fish, George S. Boutwell, and John A.J. Creswell. Grant and Creswell stopped the franking privilege fully for at least one or two years.
• My reservation with the lede is the sentence that states historians believe his policies were failures. Were the Justice Department, the Board of Indian Commissioners and his appointment of the first Native American head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, ending the treaty system, the fair election of 1872 for African Americans and destruction of the Ku Klux Klan, and defeating the Whiskey Ring failures?

I understand the importance of solid reliable sourcing and I am all for editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would pass. The bibliography section is bloated and disorganized, and many stretches of prose fall far short of "brilliant". If you want to nominate it, that is certainly your right, but I think it needs work. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. I suppose the bibliography section could be fixed. Can an article titled Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant be created? My suggestion would be to use sources that are only used as references in the article and then put the extra sources into the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant article. I agree the prose can be improved. What stretches of prose need work in the article? Please feel free to make any improvements in prose of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cmguy: I proposed that solution to the bibliography problem a while ago, and I'm happy to agree to it now. As to your other changes: the language about "failure" was an elaborately negotiated compromise that you, I, and other editors agreed to in good faith. To reopen it now would be unwise, I think. We should let sleeping dogs lie. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Miller Center (2013) source

Yes. I am all for the bibliography article solution you had brought up before. I am not trying to reopen any issues and there were failures in the Grant Administration, possibly, every President has some failures while in office. My issue is not whether the Grant Administration had failures. The Miller Center states the following on Grant "...in the areas of Native American policy, civil service reform, and African American rights, he took steps that few had attempted. He also executed a successful foreign policy and was responsible for improving Anglo-American relations." I think this information would improve the article and add neutrality to the article lede. Source: Miller Center (2013), Impact and Legacy, viewed on March 20, 2014 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You say you're not reopening anything, but that's exactly what you're doing. Check out the archives. We've discussed this before. You wanted more laudatory language. I, and others, wanted the opposite. The language there now is the consensus compromise. I'm not thrilled with it, but it works. Why blow it all up, especially when more one-sided language will make this article less likely to pass at FAC? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I am sensative and respectful of the language compromise reached. The article lede concerning Grant and failures of his policies is neutral and does not have to be changed. I don't want any one sided and biased laudatory language in the article nor do I want negative language that is one sided and biased in the article. Second, I would not make any edits in the article on this matter unless there was editor consensus. Third, I only brought up this issue because the Miller (2013) source is modern, reliable, and reflects current scholarly views on Grant and his Presidency. Is there any opposition to adding the Miller (2013) assessment of Grant to the Historical Reputation section? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd add that when we have so many scholarly sources already. Does it even have footnotes? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Miller Center is a nonpartisan affiliate of the University of Virginia. Will Hitchcock, Director of Research and Scholarship and Randolph P. Compton Professor of History at U.Va are part of the Research and Scholarship. There are no footnotes in the Impact and Legacy section or possibly the article. In my opinion the information is reliabe since the website is a Presidencial assessment website and both Hitchcock and Compton are Professors of History at the University of Virginia. I would say that Miller Center represents the modern research on the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant and is worthy of being in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources: About the Miller Center and Miller Center Scholars and Staff Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Coemgenus on this point. The Miller statement "in the areas of Native American policy, civil service reform, and African American rights, he took steps that few had attempted." is true enough but it's not a statement of success (he failed on these efforts). As for foreign policy his record was mixed-- the Santo Domingo annexation plan was a fiasco, while the Alabama claims were well handled. just like every other president before 1898, he avoided war with Spain. Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully I do not want to get into arguements over Grant's domestic policy or his foriegn policy. My view is that Miller (2013) reflects the modern research on Grant that is stated at the end of the lede section of the article, but the Miller Center includes his Native American policy and Civil Service Reform. When implemented by Hamilton Fish his foriegn policy was successful. As I stated I will go by editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Going by editor consensus and opinion I take then that both Rjensen and Coemgenus are opposed to the inclusion of the Miller Center (2013) source in the Historical reputation section of the Grant article. However, to make sure I am politely requesting a volunteer Yeah or Nay. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah. The Miller Center (2013) is a non partisan reliable source that focuses soley on Presidential history. If I am reading the Miller Center (2013) correctly the historical assessment represents modern scholarly research, possibly the most current, on Grant's Presidency. I have already stated most of my reasons above for inclusion. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Naay. Two problems: the very brief summary is unsigned --it's the sort of work sometimes assigned to undergraduate students and that's a fatal flaw. Second, the summary goes something like: BAD, BAD, good, BAD, BAD, good, BAD, BAD, good. To cherry pick out the "good" is misleading. on the whole it is quite negative on the presidency. Rjensen (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not quite: 1) That piece is edited by Joan Waugh, Professor of History at UCLA, author/editor of books on Grant and the CW but 2) your 2nd point is spot on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the full paragraph from Miller Center (2013):

Ultimately, President Grant remains somewhat of an enigma in American history. He was such a successful general that his failings as President seem hard to comprehend. He was a natural leader on the battlefield but was not an especially effective leader of his country. Still, in the areas of Native American policy, civil service reform, and African American rights, he took steps that few had attempted. He also executed a successful foreign policy and was responsible for improving Anglo-American relations.

Source: Impact and Legacy, viewed on March 22, 2014 Cmguy777 Cmguy777 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The source is a high quality tertiary source, but this discussion seems a bit off because when I proposed several months ago that this source be used to explicate the "weak presidency" a thing that had a profound influence on post Grant history (but which is not mentioned in our article, unlike the things you mention), you were against it, which lends credence to Rjensen's suggestion that you are misrepresenting the full import of the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@ Alanscottwalker. The above Miller Center (2013) source paragraph did not specifically state Grant was a weak President. The paragraph specifically states Grant was an "enigma", that Grant had "failings as President", and Grant as President "was not an especially effective leader". The paragraph also states the Grant took steps where few had gone before "in the areas of Native American policy, civil service reform, and African American rights" and that Grant "executed a successful foreign policy". I hope we can keep the focus on the Miller (2013) for a source to be used in the article. I was not against the Miller (2013) source but rather the use of the source to specifically state Grant was a weak President. If I were to use the source in the article I would use the direct quotes. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Weak president??? The issue was and is "weak presidency": "The Grant years finished what the Johnson years had begun: a significant weakening of the American presidency. Congress, especially the Senate, had seized the reins of power, and the presidency would not regain its stature until the turn of the twentieth century." That is how the source treats it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph you quoted also states that the Senate took over the reigns of power. The sentence does not specifically state Grant was a "weak president" or "weak presidency", but rather "weakening of the American presidency". I am in favor of using verbatim quotes in the article from the Miller (2013) source. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you're side stepping. Grant was not a "weak presidency" because he was not a "presidency", at all. The "presidency" is an institution of government. Nonetheless, as the source states, his administration resulted in a weak presidency, which the presidency did not soon recover. The strength or weakness of the presidency is central to how historians analyze presidential administrations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Miller Center (2013) source specifically stated that Congress or the Senate weakened the American Presidency and that Grant's presidency ended as Andrew Johnson's presidency. "Congress, especially the Senate, had seized the reins of power..." The Miller Center (2013) does not state specifically that Grant weakened the American presidency. We are going around in circles here. If the Miller Center (2013) is to be used at all in the article then verbatim quotes are neccessary. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Grant's years as president resulted in a weakened presidency because Congress was able to seize the reigns form a largely unsuccessful and confessed political novice according to the source. As has been stated you cannot chop it up the way you do by saying you want only this quote or that, you either summarize or you quote in context but you do not just cherry-pick that which you like and then quote out of context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not being productive to the article. We are going around in circles and I don't like to be accused of cherry-picking. The American presidency was weakended during the Andrew Johnson administration, subsequently the Grant administration, and all presidents who followed up and until the beginning of the 20th Century, according to the Miller Center (2013) source. How did Congress sieze power? Constitutionally by over riding the President Johnson's veto passing the Tenor of Office Act. 18:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the source is weighted on Grant's failures but you would use it to focus on Grant's successes, and that is what has been objected to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to accuse me of weighting the Miller Center (2013) article on Grant's successes. This discussion is proving to be unproductive. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So far there is one yeah and one nay. There appears to be no concensus on allowing the Miller (2013) source in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Any part of the Miller Center (2013) Impact and Legacy can be used. The reason for the use of the Miller Center was that the Miller Center focuses only on the Presidencies. Only trying to conclude this discussion civily and go on to any other issues in the article. Repectfully, is the Miller Center (2013) a go or a no go? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"No go" in my opinion. if the editors here cannot agree on what it means then inclusion will certainly confuse readers. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. It adds nothing to the article. Let's leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen and Coemgenus. Unless Alanscottwalker or any other editors responds to this disussion the Miller Center (2013) will not be used as a source in the article at this time. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography article proposal

I believe that the article would be improved by having a seperate bibliography article on Ulysses S. Grant. I know this has been discussed before. I believe this would reduce the size of the current Source section in the article and allow more books or article on Ulysses S. Grant to be put into a potential seperate bibliography article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

ok if we have about 25 major annotated books/articles here, and the rest in the new article Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good Rjensen. In terms of biography should authors or books be divided up into pro or anti Grant? John Y. Simon seems to have started a pro and anti-group of writers, such and McFeely & Woodward unfavorable while Brooks D. Simpson is favorable to Grant. One can add Catton, Smith, and Brands as favorable. Woodward is labeled a neo-Confederate by Simon. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

we can annotate each title. "Woodward is labeled a neo-Confederate by Simon." -- that's hilarious. Woodward was the #1 leader of the anti-Confederate southern historians. Rjensen (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would Simon state Woodward was a neo Confederate? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Did Woodward or McFeely ever acknowledge the main cause of the Civil War was slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The labeling idea was optional. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dividing scholars into pro- and anti-Grant is facile. Adding annotations would just lead to an argument over every source, and is also probably original research. Let's just list them like we do on every other article. Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln is a good place to start. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon was the one who started the labeling of historians as pro or anti Grant. Like I stated before the labeling is optional and subjective as Rjensen stated Woodward was not a neo-Confederate. I do believe there are pro and anti Grant authors, but for now a label free Bibliography article will work. I believe the current Ulysses S. Grant article labels McFeely being negative to Grant. Should that remain in the article? If McFeely is labeled negative then should Woodward be labeled negative according to Simon. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Woodward was very anti-Grant. (he was my teacher in grad school) I suggest that being pro or anti grant (re his presidency) is not at all controversial and is factual info of value to readers. It is usually mentioned in the reviews of the books, which you can usually get by a search on author-title at http://scholar.google.com/ Rjensen (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I created the Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What are the 25 annotated book articles that should be left in the Ulysses S. Grant article? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote that McFeely's book was negative, but it wasn't there when I wrote that section. We should certainly remove it, it's not NPOV and not even accurate. It's stuff like that that makes me think this article would fail at FAC. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon stated that both McFeely and Woodward did not like Grant. I believe Simon links McFeely's negative or critical view of Grant to counter Bruce Catton's positive view of Grant. McFeely is rarely positive towards Grant, his family, or his administration in his books. With that stated I am not against the removal of the word negative from McFeely since that would require a list of negative or positive statements toward other authors and would get into POV. McFeely stated Grant was guilty of perjury at Grant's deposition of Babcock. I understand being critical of Grant but to make such a charge, in my opinion, was unneccessary and unfounded. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find in the article the McFeely source stating that McFeely was negative towards Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

all books can be annotated regarding their content. That is not POV it a factual statement about the book. McFeeley is "negative" is stated in the literature (Joan Waugh says on p 326 that Korda "shared McFeely's negative assessment") Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Rjensen. I am not contesting McFeely is negative. What then about the other authors? Would other authors have to be labeled pro or anti Grant? Would a compromise be to put whether an author is pro or anti Grant in the Bibliography article that was recently created rather then the main article? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If an editor thinks it is a fact that an author is pro/anti Grant then the book in questions should be so annotated. If the editor is unsure then don't say anything. It's the job of an editor to provide facts based on these books. The POV rule says that Wiki editors should try to be neutral, and does not apply to reliable authors (who seldom are neutral). The annotations should be in both the main & longer bibliography, I think, because they help the reader. For example, students may decide to compare a pro and an anti-Grant book, and telling them which is which is a big help to them. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My own opinion is that biographers have yet to thoroughly evaluate Grant as President. This seems to be the opinion of Simpson who recommends that readers look at Grant's Inaugural Addresses, communications with Congress, and his State of the Union Addresses. Primary and contemporary sources are also recommended. In that sense all biographers have in some ways been anti-Grant. I thought Simpson was coming out with a book that thoroughly researches Grant's Presidency. So far Bunting (2004) seems to be the only historian who concentrated on his Presidency, yet, that book does not go into into great depth or detail. I would say a thorough book on Grant's Presidency could cover around 250 to 350 pages. I believe Coemgenus is against the labeling of authors. I was trying to reach some sort of compromise on the labeling of authors in order for Grant to get FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I added allot of primary sources to the Bibliography article from the The American Presidency Project Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any progress towards reducing the sources in the Ulysess S. Grant article? I believe this needs to get done in order to get Grant to the FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

short bibliog on BIO-Political section for this article

I would recommend putting these 17 cites in this article (and thwe others in the new Bibliog page): Rjensen (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Brands H.W. The Man Who Saved The Union
  • Brands , H. W. Presidents in Crisis Grant: Takes on the Klan
  • Bunting III , Josiah Ulysses S. Grant |
  • Hesseltine , William B. |Ulysses S. Grant: Politician
  • Mantell , Martin E. |Johnson, Grant, and the Politics of Reconstruction |
  • McFeely , William S. title=Grant: A Biography
  • McFeely , William S. |editor =Woodward |Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct
  • Nevins , Allan Hamilton Fish: The Inner History of the Grant Administration
  • Rhodes , James Ford History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the McKinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896 |volume=6 & 7 |year=1920|ref=
  • Scaturro , Frank J. President Grant Reconsidered
  • Simpson , Brooks D. Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction, 1861–1868 |
  • Simpson , Brooks D. The Reconstruction Presidents
  • Simpson , Brooks D. Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822–1865
  • Simon , John Y. chapter=Ulysses S. Grant pages=245–260
  • Smith , Jean Edward | Grant
  • Waugh , Joan U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth
  • Woodward , C. Vann The Lowest Ebb

add one more: ** James M. McPherson. "Grant, Ulysses S."; http://www.anb.org/articles/05/05-00291.html; American National Biography Online Feb. 2000.

? We need to keep only/all the sources cited in the reference section, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

this "Further Reading: Biography and Politics" can include for the great majority of cites. Books in the footnotes that are not really about Grant (such as Patrick on Reconstruction or Donovan on Custer) should not he here. Instead let's put the full cite for Patrick, Donovan etc in the appropriate footnotes. In my opinion the first time a footnote mentions a book like Brands or Smith, it should have a full cite so people do not have to look about for that full cite. Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Does the Michael Korda (2004) book Ulysses S. Grant The Unlikey Hero deserve consideration? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Korda did not make my cutoff--it's mostly military. and on seconf thought that should exclude Bunting from this section. Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just so we are clear, there appears to be significant work to create a whole new citation system, which is currently in SFN templates that relies on having an anchor reference for each cited work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion he sfn template is clumsy --and is not well suited to this kind of article which is oriented to books not short articles. The current system is ok except that the first footnote to book X should give the basic details. That means a person who prints out the article can easily see what each footnote means -- that is the method used in most scholarly history books. Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

All I am noting is that work would have to be done by someone, if references no longer have an anchor -- moving all the info to the citation section, changing templates, etc. Whether users find it easier or not probably depends on the user: The 24th reference to Doe, may or may not be able to be easily located with all the intervening cites information in the cite list, and if it's Doe 1990 and not Doe 1995, all the more difficult -- (but won't really know until after all the kinks are worked out and editing done. So, cost/benefit). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My view is for now only exclude sources that are not even referenced in the article. Then work on how to reference sources in the article. We need to keep Donovan in the article because he brings out the Grant and Custer feud. In my opinion Korda (2004) has some good insight into Grant's Presidency even stating Grant deserved the Nobel Peace prize for keeping America out of war in France and Mexico. That was because Grant sent Washburne to Paris. That is another subject. I would keep the SFN as much as possible to get to the Featured Article status. I agree with Rjensen the first footnote should give the basic details. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

in my opinion the worst problem right now is too many footnotes of the ibid variety--two or more in the same paragraph to the same chapter of the same book. One is enough. Publishers keep telling authors that readers DO NOT LIKE footnotes (that's why they are put in the back). Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would reduce the ibids to a maximum of 3 ibids per paragraph and minimum 1 ibid per paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or fortunately), per WP:Burden there is little one can do to avoid editors in Wikipedia demanding a footnote, wherever they contend one is needed. So, again, just think of what the future may hold before you do too much that is not really necessary. Also, whatever future review is done, it's a pretty sure thing, they will demand consistency. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Coemgenus might have some answers. We need to start to reduce the amount of sources in the article. Can editors compile a list of sources to be removed from the Ulysses S. Grant article? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

First step: move all unused references to the bottom section of the article - then go from there. (Also, I don't really get "reduce the number": there is no real number cap on footnotes -- and certainly no cap on sources - what matters is the substance, not the number).Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I know there is no cap on references or sources. Reduce the amount of sources in the article that are not used in the article. What sources are not used in the article? The Bibliography would cover any sources on Grant not used in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As to the format: I think the sfn style works best, but of course it's not the only one available to us. The idea of mixing full cites and short cites, though, as scholars do in published works, is a bad idea. In a static work, and one where space is limited and hyperlinks do not exist, it makes sense. Here, we have an ever-changing document. Someone may add a cite to a book earlier than what is currently its first mention, which would then require another editor to rearrange everything. As it stands now, the cites are all of the same type and can't, therefore, ever end up out of order. The hyperlink in each cite allows the reader to go with one mouse-click to the full cite below so that every cite, in effect, serves as a full cite for those so interested.

Multiple cites in the same paragraph would seem odd in a peer-reviewed secondary source, but that's not what we have here. Scholars with reputations can be trusted (usually) and taken at their word that each fact in a given paragraph is cited in one of the several works listed in the paragraph's one and only citation. On Wikipedia, we have two problems. First, we are anonymous editors with no verifiable real-life reputations and no peer review process other than by such anonymous persons. In short: we can't be trusted. Second, the work is ever-changing. A cite at the end of the paragraph may look like it includes verification of information that another editor inserts later when, in fact, it does not. Going sentence-by-sentence ensures that it is always clear which cite applies to which facts.

As to the sources listed: since we're talking about FA, let's talk about source lists we see in other FAs. We typically list the sources actually used int he article in the "sources" section. If there are other works that are important but not used for some reason, these may be listed in a "further reading" section. Where there are hundreds or thousands of works on the subject, like in the Lincoln article, it often makes sense to split uncited works into a subarticle, as we've done here. That article, I suppose, can contain any number of works, cited and uncited in the main article. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Two points more: 1) There seems to be consensus to remove unused works; 2) If there is concern, that Wikipedia is not in the works cited, citing an important work (probably by happenstance), there are several ways we can then address that after the parring down is done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I would hope the goal of all editors would be to get the Ulysses S. Grant article to FA status. My view is that Wikipedia allows each editor an "equal opportunity environment" that permits edits to be done in good faith supported by reliable sources. In other words an editor with a PHD and an editor with only a High School Diploma both have equal editing rights on Wikipedia. That is a good thing. Anonymous editors can offer suggestions that give insight into sources used in the article. I am not sure why there needs to be a reference after every sentence if the same reference is repeated over and over again for each of the sentences in the paragraph. That would be redundant in my opinion. I agree with Coemgenus that the SFN is the most practical approach for this article since the article is large and ever changing. The other method, although meritorious, would require continued maitenance of the article to ensure the first edit with reference information was always the first edit. Maybe some compromise can be reached on the SFN style. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Carpetbagger as standard term

One editor does not want users to see the word carpetbagger because it was used by people he does not like. The dictionary does not flag it as "derogatory": Here's a recent dictionary: Carpetbagger = "U.S. History . a Northerner who went to the South after the Civil War and became active in Republican politics, especially so as to profiteer from the unsettled social and political conditions of the area during Reconstruction." from Random House Dictionary, 2014 online] Likewise Scalawag = "U.S. History . a native white Southerner who collaborated with the occupying forces during Reconstruction, often for personal gain." from Random House Dictionary, 2014 online] Webster's 3rd Unabridged: Scalawag = " a white Southerner who supported reconstruction policies after the Civil War." The personal POV opinions of an editor are not a good reason for deleting standard terms. Rjensen (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)