Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

religion error 2

Grant makes no reference to his religion in his memoirs and his biographers are all silent on the subject. On the morning following Grant's death, the New York World contained the following:

"General Grant, as it would appear, had no settled conviction on the subject of religion. ... Having been interrogated during his illness on the question of religion, he replied that he had not given it any deep study, and was unprepared to express an opinion. He intimated that he saw no use of devoting any special thought to theology at so late a day, and that he was prepared to take his chances with the millions of people who went before him."

the article is full protected so I cannot change his religion at this time.

Tommyxx (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

source request

Ulysses S. Grant by John E. Remsburg

In the preceding pages of the Fathers and Saviors of our Republic I have shown that Paine, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and Lincoln were Freethinkers. In the following pages of this work I shall present some of the evidences of Grant's unbelief.

The Rev, Dr. J.P. Newman (during the last years of his life a Methodist bishop), whose church General Grant with his wife had attended, and who was with Grant during his last illness, gave to the public a statement of his religious opinions the most important of which are the following:

"Reared in the Methodist Episcopal church and baptized in his last illness by one of her ministers, his religious nature was sincere, calm, and steadfast."

"His calm faith in a future state was undisturbed by anxious doubt."

"He said to me, 'I believe in the Holy Scriptures.'"

"His faithful attendance at church was largely inspired by his respect for the Sabbath day."

"It was his custom and habit to call to prayers."

These claims have been given wide publicity, and are generally accepted as a truthful presentation of General Grant's religious views. Yet those who were intimately acquainted with him, those to whom he had confided his religious opinions, know that they are either wholly or in part untrue and intended to deceive.

"Reared in the Methodist Episcopal Church and baptized in his last illness by one of her ministers," etc.

These words were designed to convey the impression that Grant was a member of the Methodist Church. All the truth there is in this statement is that Grant's mother was a Methodist, and when it was supposed that he was dying, a Methodist minister, without his solicitation, sprinkled him with a few drops of water.

But it requires something more than this to be a member of the Methodist Church. It requires the religious experience known as a change of heart. It is not pretended that Grant ever experienced this change. It requires the partaking of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Grant never communed, not even on his death-bed. It requires the sacrament of Baptism. The fact that Newman performed this ceremony when he did shows that it had never been performed before -- that Grant had never been baptized.

Grant's biographers, for the most part, make no mention of this baptizing incident; Newman's friends were ashamed of it, the secular press ridiculed it, and many of the religions papers condemned it. Had this baptism been genuine instead of the farcical mummery that it was; had it been performed with the knowledge and consent of Grant, he would have allied himself with the church. Yet, although he survived three months, he refused to be taken into the church, and died, as he had always lived, outside of it.

The Rev. H.C. Meyers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a man of broad and liberal views, deprecating and protesting against the narrowness of the Orthodox creed, writes:

"Men are not all on their way to the bottomless pit who refuse to bow to the creeds composed by a few claimers of infallibility. Is Abraham Lincoln in the bottomless pit? Where are the greatest men this nation ever saw? Was General Grant ever on the record of the methodist Church?"

Rev. J.L. Cram, chaplain of Grant's regiment, says:

"Grant belonged to no church."

Grant was not a Methodist, he was not a church member, he was not a Christian.

"His calm faith in a future state was undisturbed by anxious doubt."

It was claimed by Grant's intimate friends, General Sherman, Senator Chaffee, and others, that he was not a positive believer in immortality, but simply an Agnostic who hoped for immortality.

In his posthumous letter to his wife, written two weeks before his death, he expresses a hope, if not a belief, in a future life. The letter reads as follows:

"Look after our dear children and direct them in the paths of rectitude. It would distress me far more to think that one of them could depart from an honorable, upright, and virtuous life than it would to know that they were prostrated on a bed of sickness from which they were never to arise alive. They have never given us any cause for alarm on this account, and I trust they never will. With these few injunctions and the knowledge I have of your love and affection, and the dutiful affection of all our children, I bid you a final farewell, until we meet in another and, I trust, better world. You will find this on my person after my demise."

Lincoln, in a letter of consolation to his dying father, expresses a sentiment regarding a future existence almost identical with that expressed by Grant in his parting words to his wife. And yet Lincoln was an Agnostic in regard to immortality. The Agnostic professes to have no knowledge of a future existence. He may be a believer or a disbeliever in it, or he may be neither. Probably a majority of Agnostics hope for immortality. To be separated forever from those we love is the saddest thought that ever occupied the mind of man. When brought face to face with this terrible possibility, the desire to meet again is intensified; this strengthens hope, belief asserts itself, and in the moments of its ascendancy the Agnostic may exclaim, "We shall meet again!"

Even if Dr. Newman's statement be true, it does not prove that Grant was a Christian. The same may be said of Thomas Paine. "His calm faith in a future state was undisturbed by anxious doubt." He says: "I trouble not myself about the manner of future existence. I content myself with believing, even to positive conviction, that the power that gave me existence is able to continue it in any form and manner he pleases" (Age of Reason, p. 71).

"I believe in the Holy Scriptures."

Dr. Newman would have us accept this as a profession of belief in the Bible as the divinely inspired word of God. Yet he and every other friend of Grant knew that he did not believe the Bible to be such a book. If General Grant uttered these words he qualified them at the time. He could have expressed his belief in a hundred books without acknowledging them to be divine or infallible.

Grant, if correctly reported, had on other occasions expressed a certain admiration for the Bible. But never did he express the belief that it was in the evangelical sense the word of God.

Colonel Ingersoll says: "Grant was not a believer in Christianity as a revealed religion, and none of his language applying to the point goes further than to mean that he accepted the moral teachings of Christ and the Bible as beneficial to mankind."

"His faithful attendance at church was largely inspired by his respect for the Sabbath day."

"His faithful attendance at church" was not "inspired by his respect for the Sabbath day," but chiefly, if not wholly, by the respect he had for the feelings and wishes of his wife, who was a church member.

In regard to the alleged piety of the six men whose religious opinions we are considering, the claims made with the greatest assurance by the clergy and accepted with the greatest confidence by the people, are those pertaining to Washington, Lincoln, and Grant.

While it is claimed that Paine died confessing Christ, it is admitted that he lived an Infidel, and there is a vague suspicion in the minds of many that Jefferson and Franklin were not strictly orthodox. And yet Washington, Lincoln and Grant were certainly as unorthodox as Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin. The reason the former have been considered the more pious is because they attended church and contributed to its support; and the reason they did this was because their wives were church members. Mrs. Washington was an Episcopalian, Mrs. Lincoln was a Presbyterian, and Mrs. Grant a Methodist. As dutiful husbands they accompanied their wives to church and paid their church dues. Paine, Jefferson and Franklin, being free to follow their own inclinations, abstained from church going. Lincoln certainly, and Washington and Grant probably, would have done the same thing under similar circumstances.

If a noted man is accustomed to attend a certain church, this, with many biographers and newspaper writers, is considered a valid pretext for setting him down as a member of that church. The pulpit, with the well meant aid of the secular press, continues to keep before the public a statement purporting to give the church membership of the Presidents of the United States. All, with an occasional exception of Jefferson, are represented as members of various orthodox churches. And yet, prior to 1880, no church member had ever been elected to this office.

It has been asserted that Grant was such a zealous advocate of Sabbath observance that he would not, while President, allow his horses to be hitched up on Sunday -- that the family walked to church. This is contradicted by Mr. W.H. Burr, of Washington, who states that he frequently saw the President and his family in their carriage on Sunday.

It has also been asserted that "he would not allow his servants to work on that day." The truth is he did not require his servants to work on Sunday, aside from the necessary duties of the day. Out of consideration for their happiness he allowed them, as far as possible, to devote the day to rest and pleasure. He respected the Sabbath, not because he believed there was any sanctity attached to it, but because he believed in a day of rest.

During the war Grant was not a stickler for Sabbath observance. When the army was in camp the customary regulations regarding Sunday were observed; when engaged in active operations he paid no more respect to it than to any other day. During the last year of his presidential administration he visited the Centennial Exposition on Sunday, and this fact shows that these stories are false.

"It was his custom and habit to call to prayers."

General Grant did not believe in the efficacy of prayer. Newman prayed, but it was not because the sick man desired his prayers. Newman was his wife's pastor; she believed in prayer, and so he was allowed to pray.

Ex-Senator Chaffee of Colorado, whose daughter was married to one of General Grant's sons, and who was with Grant during his illness, says:

"There has been a good deal of nonsense in the papers about Dr. Newman's visits. General Grant does not believe that Dr. Newman's prayers will save him. He allows the doctor to pray simply because he does not want to hurt his feelings. He is indifferent on his own account to everything."

Another, writing at the time of General Grant's death, said:

"His acceptance of the effusive and offensive ministrations of the peripatetic preacher was probably due as much to his regard for the feelings of his family and his tolerance of his ministerial friend as to any faith in religion. All that the press can gather now about his religious belief is filtered through Dr. Newman, and must, therefore, largely be discounted. ... As to his regard for the Sabbath and his love of prayer, Dr. Newman has overdone the matter. His anecdotes to show the General's piety bear very strong internal evidence that they originated with himself."

There is one thing that Newman does not claim, and that is that Grant acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, Had Grant accepted Christ he would have avowed it, and this is the claim above all other claims that Newman would have made if true. Grant did not acknowledge Jesus Christ, and this fact proves that he was not a Christian.

The Christian Statesman says: "It is not on record that he [Grant] spoke at any time of the Savior, or expressed his sense of dependence on his atonement and mediation."

In his published claims Newman went as far as he felt that he could go with safety. To assert that Grant was a Christian in the evangelical sense, that he accepted Jesus Christ as the divinely begotten son of God, would be so manifestly false that he knew it would be denied. In the cunningly devised statements made, which meant one thing to the friends of Grant and another to the world at large he effected as much as he could hope to effect, the general recognition of the claim that Grant was at least a nominal believer in Christianity.

Newman's description of General Grant's entry into Heaven is quite dramatic:

"They came at last. They came to greet him with the kiss of immortality. They came to escort the conqueror over the 'last enemy' to a coronation never seen on thrones of earthly power and glory. Who came? His martyred friend, Lincoln. ... His great predecessor in camp and cabinet, Washington."

From a rhetorical standpoint this may be all right; but from a theological standpoint it is certainly all wrong.' It must require a vivid, if not a perverted imagination, for an orthodox parson to see two Infidels coming from Heaven to convey a third one there.

Adverting to his death, Newman says: "Who does not regret the death of such a man? Heaven may be richer, but earth is poorer."

Why does he express this in the potential mood? Has he doubts as to whether Grant was permitted to enter Heaven or not? Or has he doubts as to the existence of Heaven itself?

Tommyxx (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting (but unsourced) essay, expressing a POV Tedickey (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions to "Life Between Wars" section

Note, there are a couple date errors in this section. Here should be the correct chronology of Grant's life following the Mexican-American War:

"Grant remained in the Army and was moved to several different posts. After a stint at Sackett's Harbor, NY, he was sent to the West coast in 1852. His wife, eight months pregnant with their second child, could not accompany him because his salary could not support a family on the frontier. Grant was assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at Fort Humboldt, California, traveled to the Benicia Arsenal and was impressed by the wealth many were accumulating in the surrounding gold fields. In 1853, he arrived at Fort Vancouver in the Washington Territory, where he served as quartermaster. He was promoted to Captain in 1854."

Please update this section so that it reflects the correct dates. Jhandelmahr (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ryukyu Arbitration

The Post presidency section gives Grant credit for arbitrating a conflict between Japan and China over the Ryukyu islands. The linked wiki article on the Ryukyus says that in the same year it was Great Britain that arbitrated the conflict. Both stories are in 1879, covering the same dispute with the same result for the same reason - with only the arbitrator being changed. Neither has a source footnoted. Chriswelsch (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the thing to do is look for reliable sources. The first likely google-hit I find seems to say it's Great Britain. The details in that look like enough to make some more queries which would lead to better sources, etc. Tedickey (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

-Lindsay D.F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.61.252 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Shanghai

It should be added he also visited Shanghai in 1879. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.33.9.225 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question from inexperienced user

I tried to print this article and page 8 came out blank (the others were OK). Looking at the source I saw a strange (to me) 2:811ff and 2:811 near where it says 'Historian Allan Nevins concludes:'

Were these strange characters causing my problem? And should they be there? Dingo1729 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They are volume/page number citations within footnotes, although I can't say I would have chosen that format. Volume 2, page 811 and following pages, for instance. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant and Jews

During the Civil War, Grant was responsible for oversight of the legal trade in cotton from the Confederacy to the Union. His dispicable GENERAL ORDER 11 exiled the Jews from the South when he felt that Jews were dealing in black market cotton. This Order was rescinded by executive order of President Lincoln. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.205.101.114 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo in the Header Section

Missing subject "He" in the sentence " led Radical Reconstruction and built a powerful patronage-based Republican party...". Hugh16 (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for pointing to that out. In the future, go ahead and fix it yourself. WP:Be bold.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant's Memoirs - testimonials

"Grant's memoirs are also regarded by such writers as Matthew Arnold and Gertrude Stein as among the finest ever written." I agree that Grant's memoirs are a classic work, but the grammar of this sentence suggests that Matthew Arnold and Gertrude Stein were the same kind of writer, which they aren't. If I say "This meal has been regarded by such writers as James Beard and M.F.K. Fisher as one of the most delicious of its kind", that makes sense because Beard and Fisher were not only both food writers, they were also American and contemporary with each other. But Arnold died when Stein was 14. He was a 19th century English critic, she was a 20th century American avant-gardist. I will have a go at a redraft. (Also, there's no source for the assertion.) Lexo (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Grant Relieved before Shiloh

Before Shiloh, Halleck relieved Grant and placed Charles Ferguson Smith in charge of the AotT. Halleck's decision was based on rumor (most of it self created) and innuendo. When confronted by the War Department to produce facts and figures, substantiating the rumors, Halleck relented and reinstated Grant in command. Don Bertsch, 03:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nickname

Civil War Veteran and Author, Wilbut Hinman called Grant "The Great Captain" in his 1892 book, honoring the Civil War soldier called "Si Klegg and His Pard". Don Bertsch, 04:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Scandals

As with the other scandals listed under that title in the article, why is the Credit Mobilier scandal not mentioned? While I realize that it started prior to Grant becoming president, it still figure prominently enough during his time in office (Colfax lost his bid for renomination as Vice-President in 1872 because of the scandal) and involved at least one prominent member of his cabinet (the aforementioned Colfax) that it would seem to qualify for this article. Thoughts? Also, should it be deemed appropriate, is there anyone who could include a detailed description for this article (the article on Credit Mobilier itself seems, to me, to be a bit light)?

Ulysses S. Grant was President during the Whisky Ring Scandal. This Scandal was when the goverment lost about 3 million dollars of taxes. Before 1875 it has been shown that the U.S, in not only St. Louis, lost $1,200,000 of taxes. This was such a huge problem because not only was taxes lost from whisky but 152 liquor men were found guilty along with private parties, 86 goverment officaials, and the shocking the chief clerk of the Treasury Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black234 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there absolutely no mention of his addiction to cocaine after being diagnosed with throat cancer (from habitually smoking cigars)? This is vitally important from a 'drug war' point of view; there are plenty (10,100) of links that google found for '"Ulysses S Grant" cocaine throat cancer http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ulysses+S+Grant%22+cocaine+throat+cancer&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= and while I have not investigated many of them so far, most of them say he 'swabbed his throat with cocaine' and quickly became addicted to it. I understand Wiki frowns upon unverified statements but can someone add something about it with a [citation needed] tag, because I think it's very important for people to know that before the 'war on (some) drugs' all these plants that really, truly do have medicinal qualities should not be hidden; our government went from welcoming medicinal drugs to outlawing them (in my mind, 'to recover the slavery lost when the north won the Civil war by replacing it with prison labor' makes absolutely perfect sense, and to give some credence to this all I ask is for you to read tinyurl.com/1mn if you don't know, tinyurl.com lets you take longer URLs and create tinyurl.com/xyz123 shorter URLs that redirect to the article in question. After much research on the outlaw of 'marijuana,' or cannabis, I found the information leading to the publication of 'The Marijuana Conviction' which is available right now from Half.com and yes I did buy a copy; it was originally published in 1974.

The truth will set us free from this racist drug war meant to imprison millions of nonviolent 'criminals' who use their own natural substances for religious or intoxicant purposes instead of alcohol, which kills dozens of thousands of people every year, yet is legal because we learned the dangers of prohibition, namely that it only creates violence on the streets, increases purity of these naturally growing substances, and is more readily available to minors than alcohol or tobacco, because the latter 2 are tightly regulated by our government, all while removing any taxation to provide money to government coffers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Certain Sections

I intend to remove the Ancestry and Anecdotes from Grant's life section. Both seem to be unnecessary, trivial, and non-consequential. I intend remove the Ancestry section completely, and if possible, move these facts into the ancestor's article. Also, I intend to integrate the facts, if appropriate, into the relevant articles. Any comments? Jd027^talk 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Also moved Family section after Military career. Jd027^talk 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Grant or Grant's family a slave owner

Did Gen. U.S. Grant or his family own slaves at any time?

I don't believe so. Grant's father owned a tannery and ran it with his family (and lived in a Northern State), during his private life Grant would not have been able to afford slaves, and (obviously) during the Civil War Grant did not own any slaves. Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, stating that the family ran a family-run tannery and "lived in a Northern State" is a generalization you might not want to make. "Southern" and "Northern" descriptions do not accurately identify slave owners or sympathizers. Many New England states did abolish slavery (See http://www.slavenorth.com/emancipation.htm). Even so, slavery provided an economic benefit to New England (See http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm). Even if free, it has been argued by McManus that

"Emancipation in some ways strengthened the tyranny of race by imposing on blacks new forms of subordination that better served the economic interests of the whites,” writes McManus. “The historical reality of race relations in the Americas is that whites have never altered their institutions primarily for the benefit of blacks.”

Edgar J. McManus, “A History of Negro Slavery in New York,” Syracuse University Press, 1966, p.197.

While not particularly relevant to Grant, look at city population demograhic data in Massachusetts (See http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ehedterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Economic+Analysis&L2=Executive+Office+of+Housing+and+Economic+Development&L3=Department+of+Housing+and+Community+Development&sid=Ehed&b=terminalcontent&f=dhcd_profiles_profiles&csid=Ehed) This page on Grant appears less accurate and more biased than the posting for General Lee, and I am not sure why...--Manos Lijeros (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant's father-in-law, Frederick Dent, was a plantation and slave owner in Missouri. According to Jean Smith ( Smith, Jean Edward, Grant, Simon and Shuster, 2001, ISBN 0-684-84927-5.), p. 94:

The circumstances are not clear, but sometime during his last year at White Haven he acquired possession of the young slave Colonel Dent left behind, a 35-year-old man named William Jones. Grant's views on slavery were ambivalent and Jones was the only slave he ever owned. When he moved to St. Louis, Grant was initially tempted to rent the man out, but soon decided against it. On March 29, 1859, he went to circuit court and file the manumission papers to emancipate Jones. Grant never discussed his motives, but the action speaks for itself. Able-bodied slaves sold for $1000 or more, and Grant surely could have used the money. Instead, he said Jones free.

Brooks Simpson's biography (pp. 71-72) agrees with this account. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The wife of Union general Ulysses S. Grant, a slave owner herself, kept her slaves until the close of the War (A New American History by W. E. Woodward, Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., On Murry Hill, New York, 1936; p. 518, 543) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.111.30 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

external links

• Emerson, Col. John W., Grant's Life in the West and His Mississippi Valley Campaigns, U.S. Grant Association website. <----link no longer works.

The US Grant Association website is now located at: http://library.msstate.edu/USGrantAssociation/

Thanks Chilliplow (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The who gave him the nomination

'The radicals gave him the nomination" is POV! The radicals in the party were a small faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.194.50 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

article picture

I removed the false picture. Please replace it with a correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.11.53 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Colour blindness?

The documentary 'Civil War' by Ken Burns clearly mentions that Ulysses S. Grant wasn't very fond of music and that he aparently said that he only knew two tunes: one was 'Yankee Doodle' and the other wasn't.. Here, in the trivia section, there is also mention of him being colour blind, that he distinctly disliked colours and that he could only see two colours, one being gray, the other not gray. To me that seems like an entry that is meant to be a funny crack at the earlier entry and not one that's substantiated by facts. Does anyone know if there is some basis in fact? I tried to remove it earlier, but received a message informing me to list the reason and noticed that the removed item had been restored.. If anyone can provide any link or name / pagenumber of a certain book, I'd appreciate it very much.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.137.42 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-Shiloh situation

The Grant article introduction has stated that Grant temporarily lost his command after Shiloh. This is not true. Halleck divided the 100,000 men at Pittsburg Landing into three wings (Grant, Buell, and Pope). Grant initially had command of the right wing, consisting of troops of the Army of the Tennessee. On April 30, by Special Field Order No. 30, Halleck substituted George H. Thomas for Grant in command of the right wing and slotted Grant as second-in-command of the entire army. SFO No. 30 specifically said that Grant retained command of the Army of the Tennessee. Thus, at least as a formal matter, Grant was never removed from the line of command and never lost command of the Army of the Tennessee. It is true, however, that Grant did not like this arrangement and considered steps to find another command. Nonetheless, the facts do not square with the prior content of the introduction. Hartfelt (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are technically correct. As Woodworth says in Nothing But Victory (p. 206), "Although the Army of the Tennessee continued to exist in theory, and although Grant remained nominally its commander ..." All of Grant's divisions were reassigned to other generals during this period. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg

This image is currently up for FPC, and it would appear that the people there have been hit by a brain-sucking virus. I for one think that our only colour image of Grant and our only image covering Grant's early military career is highly useful to this article. Not to mention that it's made by one of the major artists of the American Civil War, whose contemporary lithographs are the lead image for many of our battles, such as Spotsylvania.

However, evidently, contemporary images that use contemporary styles of art - this sort of layout was very common for lithographs and engravings - should never appear in any encyclopedia article. I swear. Three people said that.

This is why I think that FPC is completely and totally broken.

Crossposted to WT:MILHIST. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

physical/anatomical details??

is it alright to find out any of these questions? height? weight? eye color? what size suit he wore? what size uniform he wore? size shoes? hand size? was he right or left handed? did he aim with his right eye or left eye? was he a bully as a kid? was he an introvert? Did he have a favorite gun to use? a favorite horse to ride? did he know how to whistle? play cards? gamble? did he get good grades in school? what did his teachers think about him? just curious. Storm norm (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No more relevant to this article than to Barack Obama, where you asked the same thing.[1] Tvoz/talk 07:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gramatical Change to the Article

{{editsemiprotected}}

Just a minor edit request (don't know if this is where I put this), but under the Western Campaign heading where it discusses the unit Grant was put in charge of initially during the Civil War it states "Yates appointed him a colonel in the Illinois militia and gave him command of undisciplined and rebellious 21st Illinois Infantry in June 1861." where it should be Yates appointed him a colonel in the Illinois militia and gave him command of THE undisciplined and rebellious 21st Illinois Infantry in June 1861." where the capitalized THE would be inserted as to make the grammar more correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MerkavaIV (talk • contribs) 20:58, July 23, 2009

Done -Optigan13 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

The current material provided for this subject seems rather thin. However, I believe this would provide further insight into Grant's point of view:

"I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the special regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officers at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold." -- Letter to C. P. Wolcott, Assistant Secretary of War, Washington, December 17, 1862.

This allegation needs further review. Anti-Semitism, as defined, does not apply. His general order 11 does implicate the jews as a class, but specifically for "violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department order." How does this merit Grant's legacy to be called into question as an anti-semite? He did not expelled them for reasons of prejudice against their lineage as being rooted in an change to their core beliefs and way of life. He expelled them for breaking the laws of trade as established by the Treasury Department. This section needs to be edited, removing the accusation, or completely deleted.~~dudley68 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudley68 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Grant may or may not have been anti-semitic. But that doesn't materially affect his legacy. It is important to keep this in context. Everyone is bigotted or racist to a degree. Most people in 1863 had a poor view of jews- with what they saw as good reason. It is wrong to allow the modern obsessession with jews and the so-called holocaust to distort world history.JohnC (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I still petition for certain revisions to this article. "Grant's legacy has been brought into question by allegations of anti-Semitism." -->"His legacy has been brought into question. . . .??" Please rewrite in accordance to wikipedia standards. At a minimum it lacks "neutrality." Suggest "Grant suffered certain allegations of anti-semitism. The most frequently cited is . . . . " as a neutral revision. B'rgds to all. dudley68 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudley68 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Grant was a very blunt person when he wrote things, to a fault. These insensitive statements in themselves are not Anti-Semitic. He claims that mostly Jews and other unprincipled traders had violated Department of Treasury Rules. It is clear from the writing Grant is upset about people making profits out of the war, thus in Grant's opinion, extending the war. He did write about this to Lincoln. The accusation is based on principle rather then hatred. I am no way defending Grant's statements. Grant did not hate Jewish people. He hated anyone that was extending the War through trading Southern cotton with the North, and making a profit on the War. {66.249.174.235 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)}

boyhood home

Just wanted to note that the picture provided as Grant's boyhood home is the wrong home. I have been there and what is pictured is a home across the street. You can find several pictures of his real boyhood home on the Ohio web site for Grant's boyhood home. Thanks, Arkansasprof (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm using wrong protocol for wikipedia but it's a glaring error as to the "Hardscrabble house" pictured. That green house is actually White Haven, the Frederick Dent home where Julia grew up. It is on the site of the U.S. Grant National Historic Site. Hardscrabble is the log cabin Grant built with his own hands in the 1850s, now surrounded by the Grant's Farm park owned by Anheuser Busch in St. Louis. Hardscrabble is within a few miles of White Haven. TriviaGeek4 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)TriviaGeek4

If there are errors, and the correct account has been published in a reliable, verifiable source, then please be bold and make the necessary corrections yourselves.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

General Order No. 11

quoting from the current wiki page:

Grant's legacy has been brought into question by allegations of anti-Semitism. The most frequently cited example is the infamous General Order No. 11, issued by Grant's headquarters in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862, during the early Vicksburg Campaign. The order stated in part: "The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department (comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky)."

The order was rescinded by President Lincoln on January 3, 1863 and issued on January 7, 1863.[21] Grant maintained that he was unaware that a staff officer issued it in his name.

This last sentence (above) makes no sense as written. How can the order be rescinded by President Lincoln before it has even been issued. Some clarification or correction seems to be required. Kjbloede (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The dates in that sentence actually refer to Lincoln's order to rescind General Order #11, and the date Grant actually did so. I've fixed it. All the dates are clear in the reference cited for that sentence. Agathman (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of this has been removed from the article, but it still has a page. Somehow the entire Anti-Semitism was removed in a magical fell swoop. I found this info on a KKK website and thought they were proud, but I guess some people aren't as enthusiastic.--ApolloFire (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how this happened, but edits of this sort, whether inspired by KK sites or no, will not be tolerated. IronDuke 04:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read through the passage. I do not find any issues. I am not in favor of anyone on Wiki to just wipe out language without any justification. From what I have read about Grant in Bruce Catton's works on the Civil War, Grant was against the South selling cotton to Northerners, thus funding the Southern War efforts. Grant claimed a staff member wrote the order. My gut instinct is that Grant was upset about anybody trying to make a profit on the war while he was fighting the war, including his father. In a fit of rage, Grant may have said something antisemitic, or in a racial sterotype equated businessmen as being Jewish, or his staff officer misinterpreted his orders. All of this is unknown. Grant wanted to initially stop trade with the South while the war effort was going on. Lincoln did the correct thing by rescinding the order. Grant complied with Lincoln's order on January 7th, 1863.

It is also important to know the relationship between Grant and Lincoln. In essence they were partners. Lincoln admired Grant because he was successful in most of his Western Campaigns and he liked Grant because he had "fight" in him like a bulldog. I believe Lincoln rescinded Order #11 because he did not want to offend Jewish people and also to keep it from becoming a political issue. In some ways Lincoln was trying to protect Grant’s indefensible blunder from getting out of hand.

As far as Grant being an antisemite, himself, I don't know. I would suggest finding anything in Grant's writings or any other Orders that possibly mention Jewish persons. If the source is reliable, then one can put it in the Article.{Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)}

I added the sentence, "The order ,given in response to the illegal Southern cotton trade, was directed against Jewish civilians in areas of the South and has been described by one modern historian as "the most blatant official episode of anti-Semitism in nineteenth-century American history." to give synthesis with Michael Feldberg's book, Blessings of freedom: chapters in American Jewish history. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)}

I'd like to see a few things happen here: 1) Keep the section brief, while remaining informative. 2) Focus on the Order, and Grant's relationship to Jews (to that end, the section is about more than just the Order). What I'd like to do in a bit is gather together all of the info that recently been in the article, present it here on the talk page, and have people say what they think should or shouldn't be in the section. I think as it stands, there's too much volatility in it; I'd like to see a general agreement on this so that stability can be restored. (Personal note: All opinions are welcome, though I'd appreciate people who have stalked me to this article staying mum.). IronDuke 21:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, took me a bit to get organized. To wit:

Grant's legacy has been brought into question by allegations of antisemitism. The most frequently cited example is the infamous General Order No. 11, issued by Grant's headquarters in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862, during the early Vicksburg Campaign. The order stated in part: "The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department (comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky)."

The order was rescinded by President Lincoln on January 3, 1863. Grant maintained that he was unaware that a staff officer issued it in his name. Grant's father Jesse Grant was involved; General James H. Wilson later explained, "There was a mean nasty streak in old Jesse Grant. He was close and greedy. He came down into Tennessee with a Jew trader that he wanted his son to help, and with whom he was going to share the profits. Grant refused to issue a permit and sent the Jew flying, prohibiting Jews from entering the line." Grant, Wilson felt, could not strike back directly at the "lot of relatives who were always trying to use him" and perhaps struck instead at what he maliciously saw as their counterpart — opportunistic traders who were Jewish. Bertram Korn has suggested that the order was part of a consistent pattern. "This was not the first discriminatory order [Grant] had signed [...] he was firmly convinced of the Jews' guilt and was eager to use any means of ridding himself of them."

And also:

Grant's legacy has been marred by charges of anti-Semitism. The most frequently cited example is the infamous General Order No. 11, issued by Grant's headquarters in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862, during the early Vicksburg Campaign. The order stated in part:

The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department (comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky).

The order was almost immediately rescinded by President Lincoln. Grant maintained that he was unaware that a staff officer issued it in his name. Grant's father Jesse Grant was involved; General James H. Wilson later explained, "There was a mean nasty streak in old Jesse Grant. He was close and greedy. He came down into Tennessee with a Jew trader that he wanted his son to help, and with whom he was going to share the profits. Grant refused to issue a permit and sent the Jew flying, prohibiting Jews from entering the line." Grant, Wilson felt, could not strike back directly at the "lot of relatives who were always trying to use him" and perhaps struck instead at what he maliciously saw as their counterpart — opportunistic traders who were Jewish. Although it was portrayed as being outside the normal inclinations and character of Grant, it has been suggested by Bertram Korn that the order was part of a consistent pattern. "This was not the first discriminatory order [Grant] had signed [...] he was firmly convinced of the Jews' guilt and was eager to use any means of ridding himself of them."

The issue of anti-Semitism was raised during the 1868 presidential campaign, and Grant consulted with several Jewish community leaders, all of whom said they were convinced that Order 11 was an anomaly, and he was not an anti-Semite. He maintained good relations with the community throughout his administration, on both political and social levels.

And, further, we have the daughter article General Order No. 11, from which some (or no) information could be brought in. Thoughts? IronDuke 00:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

People, please. Let's not have everyone shouting at once ;). Anyway, I've taken a stab at a versio myself:

Allegations of antisemitism -- "a blot on Grant's reputation" -- arose in the wake of the infamous General Order No. 11, issued by Grant in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862, during the Vicksburg Campaign. The order stated in part:

The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department (comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky).

The New York Times denounced the order as "humiliating" and a "revival of the spirit of the medieval ages." Its editorial column called for the "utter reprobation" of Grant's order. After protest from Jewish leaders, the order was rescinded by President Lincoln on January 3, 1863. Though Grant initially maintained that a staff officer issued it in his name, it was suggested by General James H. Wilson suggested that Grant may have issued the order in order to strike indirectly at the "lot of relatives who were always trying to use him" (for example his father Jesse Grant who was in business with Jewish traders), and perhaps struck instead at what he maliciously saw as their counterpart — opportunistic traders who were Jewish. Bertram Korn suggests the order was part of a consistent pattern. "This was not the first discriminatory order [Grant] had signed [...] he was firmly convinced of the Jews' guilt and was eager to use any means of ridding himself of them." During the campaign of 1868, Grant admitted the order was his, but maintained, "It would never have been issued if it had not been telegraphed the moment it were penned, and without reflection."

The issue of anti-Semitism was raised during the 1868 presidential campaign. Though Jewish opinion was mixed, Grant's determination to "woo" Jewish voters ultimately resulted in his capturing the majority of that vote, though "Grant did lose some Jewish votes as a result of" the order.

Thoughts? IronDuke 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My thought, apparently too late to do anyt good is that hthis is terrible!! The opening statement "Allegations of antisemitism ... arose" appears to lack any reliable source from the time of G.O. 11. This edit tilts the whole section in a "allegations of antisemitism" direction without either summarizing the supposed "main article" or really focusing on the order and Grant's response to it. I would change this if I could but it is shameful that wikipedia allows this kind of biased editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.248.70 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You should have another look at the article, perhaps. IronDuke 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times also reported that cotton traders were making weapons deals with the Confederate army. That puts the anti semitism argument in context. This was the Civil War and Grant was under pressure to stop the trade. The Times even went on to advocate that these traders along with Union Officers stop trading inside the Union army districts and only be aloud to buy food and forage for the Union Army. It is important to put this into the article, and not just have a one sided, although appropriate, New York Times editorial. {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)}

Inserting that here is OR, though. Unless you can find a source saying Grant specifically feared Jews were making weapons deals... IronDuke 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to view this issue historically unbiased. I put in a reliable source how other Jewish persons had a positive view of Grant. That was deleted. Grant went to a Jewish Synagogue dedication was also from a reliable source. I am not sure the justification for such deletions. Grant did make an anti Jewish order, that is not an arguement, however, Grant was not anti semitic during his Presidency. User:Cmguy777|Cmguy777]] (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)}

I appreciate what you're trying to do, but there's a slant to your edits here. That Grant went to a Jewish synagogue is interesting, but not notable enough for this section. It could and should definitely go in the main article on the order, though, if it isn't already. And we can't say he was not an antisemite during his persidency, any more than we can say he was during his generalship. It's up to scholars, and the general consensus is that the order as hugely antisemitic, but Grant made measurable strides to repair the damage with the Jewish community as he strove to get elected. IronDuke 02:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way trying to show bias in the matter. Grant was who he was as a person. I agree that Grant made efforts to repair the damage. He strove to make efforts with the Jewish community while he was President, also. Grant succeeded in defeating the Confederacy, persons who denied citizenship to African Americans, made them slaves, and whipped them. I am all for pointing faults in people, even Civil War Heroes. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)}

Well... perhaps we agree, then. IronDuke 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Reconciliation

I would like to put in this section:

Grant's anti-Semitic General Order #11, a failed attempt to stop the illegal cotton trade, resulted in the involuntary deportation of Jewish Americans from military zones and severely damaged Grant's reputation among many Jewish leaders. It took some time to heal the hard feelings between Grant and the Jewish community and Grant did his best to maintain good relations. In an effort of reconciliation, 12 years after the order, Grant and all the members in his Cabinet attended a dedication of the Adas Israel Congregation in Washington D.C. The dedication ceremony took place in 1874. This was the first time an American President attended a synagogue.

OK. Please feel free to edit or if you do not believe this section should inserted please let me know. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)}

I don't think this is a) very well-written or b) adds necessary info. IronDuke 01:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is important because this was the First time a President went to a synagogue service in the U.S. and it demonstrated a possibility that Grant had signifigantly changed from when he wrote the anti semitic General Order #11. This was a new America free from slavery and where Civil Rights became a prominent part of American History. Please feel free to rewrite the section. I can't stop you from deleting. However, if you can rewrite the section for better understanding, please feel free to do so. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)}

Well, you're right that it's significant, but too small a detail for the Grant article. It would be welcome in the main Gen. Order 11 article. IronDuke 20:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be good in that article. I put it in the main article only because it gives more information about Grant's "friendship" with Jewish people. Did he change? Was the change sincere? How did Grant get the Jewish vote after the anti semitic order in 1862? People claim he was a terrible politition, but to seemingly change attitudes 6 years after the order is signifigant. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)}

Civil Rights

I made a few structure changes to the Civil Rights section making it chronological in terms of the legislation passed. It flows better now. I also added more information and dates. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)}

Black Friday

I edited the Black Friday segment. It is such an enticing peice of history. I did not cut and past anything from Jean Edward Smith, only summarized, and that was difficult to do in only three paragraphs. It contains essential information and in my opinion the whole incident is captivating to the reader. If one can reduce the size without reducing historical content, please go ahead. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)}

Whiskey ring

I made changes to the whiskey ring and used a book by Josiah Bunting III as a source. There was no cutting and pasting. I just used information from the book and incorporated it into the article. Babcock was not pardoned by Grant and was not found guilty in court. Why Grant kept him on instead of firing him, only Grant knows. (Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

Blog or Encyclopedia

I have recently made edits to this website with valid sources. It appears one or two persons is controlling this website. Wikipedia states that you are allowed to put in edits with valid sources. The edits get deleted by some invisible editor without a trace. Is this a blog or encylcopedia? {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

Well, first off it would help if you got an account -- that makes it easier to communicate with you and see what you're talking about and what you've done. Can you say what edits you are specifically talking about? IronDuke 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have an account. I have started a web page Thomas Jefferson and slavery. There have been numorous additions and revisions. I believe additions and revisions, yes, sometimes deletions help an article. The Grant page is good. The areas I believe that need improvement are Economic issues and the Civil Rights. If you do research about Grant, most of the proactive things he did while in office was Civil Rights. It gets a minor segement, in my opinion. It would be kind of like talking about the Lincoln Presidency while briefly mentioning the Civil War. This was a new America. No more slave plantations and Fugitive slave Laws. African Americans were now citizens and slavery was illegal. This caused tremendous upheaval. Grant did many significant Actions towards Civil Rights. That basically was what his whole Presidency was about. As far as economics, Grants policies, were based on the Gold Standard. It is interesting because there was a struggle between greenbacks and gold. I am not sure this is getting addressed. There have been no sources cited for that segment since 2008. I was only trying to expand those two subject areas. Other then that the site is good. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)}

So that IP edit is you? IronDuke 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just wanted to know why edit's mysteriously get deleted. Is there someone who controls this Article? I recently edited the Civil Rights with this Edit:

<clipped>

• It was removed, because it contains a copyvio of this website. Please do not reinsert it. UnitAnode 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I checked out the website. There remain simularities with that web site and this article, yet it was left in the article. Why were the other edits that had nothing to do with that article deleted? {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

Wikipedia article:

Grant's 1868 campaign slogan, "Let us have peace," defined his motivation and assured his success. As president for two terms, Grant made many advances in both civil and human rights. He won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave the freedman the vote, and the Ku Klux Klan Act, which empowered the president "to arrest and break up disguised night marauders". He pressed for the former slaves to be "possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it."

Website article:

Grant's 1868 campaign slogan, "Let us have peace," defined his motivation and assured his success. As president for two terms, Grant made many advances in human rights. He won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave the freedman the vote, and the Ku Klux Klan Act, which empowered the president "to arrest and break up disguised night marauders." He pressed for the former slaves to be "possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it."

Tone deafness

I would like to put this in the article under the Scandals section. Since Grant was tone deaf he may have not been able to tell if someone was lying to him, since he could not differentiate a person's pitch. Every person may have just sounded the same whether the person was lying or telling the truth. I am putting this here to get feedback. Should it go in the article? It might explain, in part, why he could not understand when someone was lying or hiding the truth. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}

It is known that Grant was tone deaf and could not at all distinguish pitch in music. It is very probable he could not differentiate pitches in a person's voice either. If this is true Grant may have had difficulty with understanding a person's tonal inflections or lack of inflections, as when a person is lying. According to one source when a person lies or is not telling the truth about the facts the speech sounds a person gives are upward inflections or a rise in pitch. It may explain, in part, why Grant was apt to believe people, if he could not differenciate upward inflections a tone in a voice. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)}

No. Unless you can find a secondary source for this judgment, it is an example of original research. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt answer. I agree it needs a secondary source. I believe it is a valid theory, unless there were other tone deaf Presidents with a spotless scandal record. We really don't know how much Grant was tone deaf, however, it appears it was severe because he could not stand listening to music. What he probably heard was just noise. I will look for a secondary source. He might not even heard what his own voice sounded like accurately. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}

According to Wikipedia article, his tone deafness cannot be relevant. "However, tone deaf people seem to be only disabled when it comes to music, and they can fully interpret the prosody or intonation of human speech." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_deafness

OK. Good to know, however, is there a source to go with that research? {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)}

Reforming cabinet

It would be good for this article to have a segment on Grant's above average to very competent appointments on his cabinet. Persons such as Fish, Boutwell, and Bristow. There may have been others. The Scandal section possibly could be expanded, if there were anymore details to expand in the section. I believe that details in the Scandal section help the reader understand what the "Guilded Age" was all about. Any suggestions? Also, did the "Guilded Age" start with the Grant Administration? {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)}

Economic policy

His veto of the Inflation Bill in 1874 saved the aftermath of the Panic of 1873 to get worse and the veto was praised by the financial community and many newspapers.

The Resumption of Specie Act of 1875 which was signed by Grant helped to end the crisis in 1879 when the law came into effect

I'm not sure exactly what saved is intended to mean here.

Both sentences are judgments of Grant's fiscal program, which was controversial then and now; we should attribute the opinion (much more clearly than many newspapers; every Administration has had many newspapers supporting its action, no matter how competent or otherwise). Whose thoughts are we borrowing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been recently editing the Grant "Economic policy" and they have been cut. I sited sources and yet it got deleted. The section is in need of organization. In fact, I was using a text book in one article with such noted authors as Blum, Catton, Morgan, Schlesinger, Jr. Stampp and Woodward. I guess those sources are not quite good enough for the editors who do not approve. This is outrageous. The other sources were reliable and noted. As it is now the policy has unsited sources and it really does not answer Grant's fiscal policy. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)}

By the way Wikipedia has been critized about controlling editors. The contributions have gone down. This is a prime example. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)}

• Was just reading this section myself; I agree with your issues.

While I'm no expert on this subject, if Catton and Schlesinger aren't good enough, then whom do you trust? Hushpuckena (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am removing this section:

On other economic fronts Grant administration had several other accomplishments. Under Grant the nation's credit was substantially raised. Taxes were reduced by $300 million. Annual interest rates were reduced by approximately $30 million. The U.S. balance of trade was changed from $130 million against the United States to $120 million in favor of the United States. He also reduced inflation and to 1873 bolstered economic recovery. He also promoted economy in federal expenditures. His veto of the Inflation Bill in 1874 saved the aftermath of the Panic of 1873 to get worse and the veto was praised by the financial community and many newspapers.

I have looked for the source or sources for this information and have found none. I am keeping this in the discussion unless anyone else can find the source. I am also removing the

prompt. I have cleaned up the article with reliable sources. If there are other economic issues then please add with reliable sources. {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)}

I removed this section:

He also pressed for internal improvements coupled with increased shipbuilding and foreign trade. He also wanted to enhance and improve the commercial marine.

There are no sources cited and is just a general statement. "Internal improvements" is not defined. The focus of economic affairs is to describe actual bills or legislation. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)}

Bad investments

Ferdinad Ward was the reason why Grant went "bankrupt" and the fact that he spent most of his money from a good investment in a silver mine to fund his world tour. Ward stole allot of money from many investors, not just Grant. I am changing the term "bad investments" to "a fraudulent investor". {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)}

Alabamba claims

I am changing the Alabamba Claims to the Treaty of Washington. I am giving more details and sighting a source. The Alabama Claims was one part of the Treaty of Washington. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)}

Presidential legacy

The following is a proposed Presidential legacy for Grant.

The legacy of President Grant is one of American civil rights, international arbitration, and scandals. In terms of civil rights Grant had urged the passing of the 15th Amendment and signed into law the Civil Rights Bill of 1875 that gave all citizens access to places of public enterprise. Grant defeated the Ku Klux Klan by sending in the military in order to vigorously enforce civil rights legislation passed by Congress. Also, while Grant was President the term he coined in the 1868 Presidential campaign “Let us have peace” did not ring hollow during Grant’s two terms as President. Two wars had been averted with England and Spain under the leadership of Grant’s Secretary of State Hamilton Fish with the new concept of “Arbitration”.

Finally, historians have been apt to point out in History texts and biographies of Grant’s associations with persons alleged to have committed extortion, bribery, and tax evasion. Although Grant did not directly cause any of these scandals he never was able to establish a strong ethical code within his cabinet members. Outside of the battlefield Grant did not have the ability to discern who his "real" enemies were and was very reluctant to prosecute those viewed as friends or personal associates. There is also no record of personal guilt or contrition with any of his associates that betrayed Grant's trust and friendship. The associations with the many scandals during Grant’s Presidency has tarnished Grant’s personal reputation while he was President and ever afterwards. One historian has also noted that at the end of Grant's second term in office the Republicans shifted from pursuing civil rights to becoming a party representing conservative fiscal policies.

Although Grant did not display the eloquent genius of Abraham Lincoln, he managed to stabilize the country by enforcing civil rights legislation and by keeping the United States out of war with England and Spain through international arbitration. Grant’s economic struggles during his times in Missouri actually helped him achieve a common touch with the people and his treatment of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox helped give him popularity in the South.

Any comments? {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)}

Panic of 1873

This section needs to be rewritten. The Government at this time was incapable of handling a general panic and limited by its very nature. The Treasury did make actions with the economy, however, the savings banks hoarded the money and did not put it out in the general market. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)}

I changed the Panic of 1873 that reflects both the failures and limited successes the Grant Administration had in attempting to resolve the crisis. The section focuses on the Panic of 1873 rather then unfounded opinions.{Cmguy777 (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)}

Scandals

I changed a sentence to read: "Although Grant himself was not personally responsible for and did not profit from the corruption among his subordinates, he did not take a direct stance against malefactors and failed to react strongly even after their guilt was established." The changes are noted in italics. Grant did not do anything directly to encourage his friends to be corrupt. That is why I added Grant was not personally responsible for the corruption of others. I also changed the word firm to direct, since Grant did not directly attack friends. The word firm implied that Grant did nothing to stop corruption. Grant appointed Bristow to fight corruption. Also, Grant started the first Civil Service Commission. It should also be noted that all of the corruptions in the Grant Administration was caught and corrected. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)}

I have been continuing to fine tune the sentence about Grant. I changed: Although Grant himself was not personally responsible for and did not profit from the corruption among his subordinates, he did not take a direct stance against malefactors and failed to react strongly even after their guilt was established. And replaced with: Although Grant himself was not personally responsible for and did not profit from the corruption among his subordinates, Grant was extremely reluctant to take any direct action against accused malefactors who Grant believed were his personal friends or rarely react strongly after their guilt was established. I believe this reflects more accurately Grants "extreme reluctance" to believe his "friends" could do criminal behavior. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)}

I made a separate paragraph:

Although Grant himself was not personally responsible for and did not profit from the corruption among subordinates, Grant was stubbornly reluctant to believe personal friends could commit criminal activities. As a result, Grant failed to take any direct action against accused malefactors that were Grant’s personal associates or rarely react strongly after their guilt was established. This stubborn tenacity to protect his friends was a reflection of Grant's attitude never to give up on the battlefield.

Grant was not a criminal, but he just could not believe his friends were. This is really important in understanding Grant. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)}

Some of this looks okay, though I don't like the bolding so much, and there's an editorial tone here -- can you make sure you've got good cites for this? IronDuke 16:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There are sites for his fighting spirit. It can only be speculated that the fighting spirit in Grant carried over into the Presidency. He just had a will to fight in him. In a sense when persons made allegations about his friends, it may have sparked Grant's character. Lincoln and Fremont sensed that will to fight in Grant. Stubborn tenacity is the best wording or discription I have for Grant in the English language. However, Grant, was unable to distiguish between persons who wanted to use him and persons who wanted to protect him. It is possible that he just blocked out the truth about people. It is all speculations. I believe that sometimes speculations are part of History. It is hard to say what Grant's true motivations were for protecting his friends.{Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)}

I added photos and subtitles to the Scandals section. I believe showing the people involved with the scandals gives the article more personal appeal and involves the user. (Cmguy777 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC))

I put the Scandals in a chronological order and added more information. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)}

If anyone can find anymore Grant Scandals please put them in the article with reliable source(s). The article looks good! {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)}

Should the scandals be in a separate article? I am willing to put the scandals in a separate article and put a summary of the scandals in this article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)}

The topic is getting rather long Tedickey (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would like this article to get a good rating. I can transfer the scandal information to it's own page. To understand the scandals there is so much background information needed to get the full effect on the Grant Administration. I am going to summarize and date when each scandal broke out and make another article. I just need a title for the article. How about Ulysses S. Grant (Scandals) or President Grant Scandals? {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)}

More Scandals

I have found there are more scandals with Grant. I already put in the part about nepotism. There also was James Watson Webb minister to Brazil, who extorted more than £14,000 for a claim later ruled invalid and apparently diverted more than a third of the money to his own account. The there was General T.B. Van Buren, a noisy politician with no competence for the job, and associates promptly disgraced the country abroad by selling concessions for the American exhibits at an international fair to be held in 1873 at Vienna. There was also Robert C. Schenck, minister to England. Soon after his arrival in London he fell under criticism for permitting his name to appear as a director of the Emma Silver-Mining Company of Utah in advertisements seeking to sell shares. These should be put in the article. Any suggestions? {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)}

Renomination for good article

Ulysses S. Grant is a good article nominee.

Here are my reasons:

1. The flow is good as far as reading.

2. The sources have been cleaned up and validated.

3. It has the most complete source of information on the Grant presidential administration scandals.

4. The Grant Administration has for the most part been ignored and seems to be making a comeback in terms of interest by both historians and the public.

5. The article is balanced showing Grant as he actually was, rather then a mythical figure or a drunken General and President. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)}

General-in-Chief and strategy for victory

I added that Lincoln and Grant were involved in the Civil War's overall strategy. Lincoln was very influencial with Grant and supervised him constantly during the War. The overall strategy did not originate with Grant, rather Lincoln. {Cmguy777 (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)}

Grant had the luck that he received far more latitude than previous commanders as Lincoln had on his appointment resolved to interfere less in the military affairs, which he did, even when on occasion his better judgement told him otherwise (for instance regarding relieving Thomas at Nashville).

The article also lacks some insight in Grant's more dishonest side. He and Sherman and their cabal later tried to falsify history in their memoires, in order to make themselves look "brighter", hide their own - often dreadful - mistakes and put down more able generals like George H. Thomas, who threatened to outshine them. See for instance Benson Bobrick's Master of War. -- fdewaele, 3 March 2010, 10:10 CET.

Policies or affairs

Should the Domestic and Foreign Policies section be labeled Domestic and Foreign Affairs? {66.81.217.150 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)} SEX IS GUDD

Linking

• The Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it."
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
• Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.

WP:OVERLINK specifically says:

"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:

• plain English words;
• terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
• items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided);
• dates."

Ground Zero | t 03:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) After reading through the article, I can tell that it is well on its way to GA status. That being said, I am quick-failing it for the following reasons:

• Citations: There should be at least one cite per paragraph; many of his pre-presidency ones do not. Plus, few book sources are used in comparison to online. For someone such as Grant there's no reason not to make books for the majority of citing.
• Length: At 76kb of prose, the article is just too long to be readable. Length isn't bad necessarily, but when the size includes many paragraphs on his reforming of cabinet members (the Bristow one if 4 paragraphs, and for the Grant article could easily be one at most). That section's prose would be better suited in the respective articles of the cabinet members. Also, a couple of the scandals (salary grab) don't mention why they belong in Grant's article (for example, the salary grab doubled the president's wage, yet that's not mentioned).
  • Noting that, I think that Grant's presidency can be tapered off into its own article, with only the more major pieces and parts of his presidency left in the main article. (As an example, Bill Clinton's presidency article is 21kb, while the main one is 50kb. Long, but not overly so. See Category:Presidencies_of_the_United_States for examples of how to go about doing that)

I appreciate the work you've done so far on the article, though it is not at GA status just yet. Cite what needs to be cited and trim anything that's only tangentially related to Grant, and we should have ourselves a real nice article soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Yes. I can look for the site notes. I know the article needs to be compressed. The difficulty is making the article less words without giving away impact and meaning. The reader needs to have enough information to make decisions on Grant. I thought about having the Scandals put in a few Paragraphs including the Reforming Cabinet members. Making a seperate Cabinet page would be good. I put the reforming cabinent members in their because not all of Grant's appointments were unqualified crooks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)}

The article reads like it was written by a Year 7 student eg There were approximately 11 scandals (- either there were eleven or not) and the spellos. The text is often quite convoluted so as be quite meaningless at times eg. the section Panic of 1873. I do not know much about this fellow so I am loathe to start trying to edit the bits which are particularly egregious in case I misstate the facts. Silent Billy (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was using the sources when I wrote this. I would rather put facts in rather then eloquent prose without the facts. Of course, it would be best to have both. The attempt at the Panic of 1873 was to show what the Administration did to curb the Panic. The policy was basically to inflate the market with money in order for farmers to be able to pay for long term debts. The article states that Secretary Richardson release $26,000,000 in greenbacks to inflate the economy. That should not be too hard to understand. I can delete the word "approximately" in the Scandals section. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)}

I rewrote the Panic of 1873 to make it more fluid reading. If more changes are neccessary please make them. I also took out the word "approximately" from the Scandal section. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)}

Creating presidential segement

I am in favor of making a separate Ulysses S. Grant presidenial administration article. I appreciate any input on the matter. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Removing presidential cabinet and appointees

I propose replacing Adminstration and Cabinet section with

Further information: Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration

This is done to trim down the main Ulysses S. Grant page in order to get a GA review.{Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)}

I removed the Administration and Cabinet section to the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)}

Third Nomination for GA

I made changes to the article. I added dates and Civil War casualty information. I found that not all sources agree on casualty information, particularly Cold Harbor. Some of the narrative I changed to fit the facts, particularly about Grant at Fort Donelson and Shiloh, when Grant was caught unprepared in both battles. I also noticed that Bruce Catton as a source is good with the prose, however, dates and battle figures seem to be scarce. That is why I went to www.civilwarhome.com to get battle statistics and alternative narratives.

If there are anymore changes or if the citation sources need to be cleaned up, please either make the changes or inform that the changes need to be made. I appreciate any help. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

I am attempting to get USG, USGPA, and USGPAS articles to a GA status. I believe that the three articles are necessary to cover the information and historical resources currently available. Any input is welcome and sought out. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)}

A general tip that I can offer about writing Civil War biographies is that all of the battles that these guys fought are represented by articles in Wikipedia and most have considerably better sources than www.civilwarhome.com. You can simply copy the citations. And certainly for U.S. Grant, there are numerous fine biographies written that are superior references to a website. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assertations and recommendations. However, I do not believe that a website, in itself means that the source is unreliable, especially with battle causualty statistics. Respectfully, a source is only superior in terms of accuracy. Unless www.civilwarhome.com is proven to be inaccurate compared to other sources, I do not have an issue with the website. However, in terms of getting this article to pass GA then it would be good to use book sources. I had made changes in terms of adding more Generals and President Lincoln. I have tried to simplify the battles as much as possible while retaining accuracy. I really appreciate your comments. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)}

Although some websites can be considered reliable sources, they frequently do not include the author or citations necessary to determine whether they are or not. For this particular site, they are essentially repackaging portions of the Official Records of the American Civil War, which is a primary source from the 1880s. All Civil War battles have been the subject of more recent, more inclusive scholarship in the form of secondary sources, which is the preferred way to source Wikipedia articles. But the more general point that I should have made is that it is useful to have some consistency across Wikipedia articles. If a biography of a soldier says that a battle has 10,000 casualties and then the reader clicks on the link to the battle article and finds that the number is 7,800, our credibility will be diminished. The editors of the Wikipedia articles on battles have obviously done more research into their subjects than you will do by looking at a single website, so why not take advantage of their previous work? Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if the different sources have the same statistics. With the Cold Harbor article there are 6 sources with 5 different causalty lists. I will use the Bonekemper statitics to match with this article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)}

On further notice, The Bonekemper statitics seem to be over inflated round numbers and in the article about Cold Harbor the Bonekemper statitics do not match the book source. I prefer to use another source then Bonekemper. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)}

In the Appendix II in Bonkemper's book there are multiple lists of sources for Civil War casualties. I plan on getting a copy of this book to find out these sources. I will keep the Bonkemper statistics until I find out more on the matter.{Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)}

For those articles in the Overland Campaign series that have tables of casualties and Bonekemper summaries, the table gives you an adequate set of references without having to buy the book. Or drop me a line if you want something specific not in the article. I have all the references. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but due to the volume of references in this article it might be helpful to break out the "Notes" from the references. If you want to do this and need help please let me know. Also, reference 39 has a citation needed tag. --Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of checking a few things out that would have undoubtedly come up in the review. If you need help please let me know.

1. There are a number of disambiguous links that will need to be fixed. Here is a link to help you out with identifying those.[2] Fixed
2. There are some issues with several of the references. Here is a link for that.[3] Fixed
3. None of the images appear to have alt text and here is a to that.[4]  Fixed Three photos have been added alts. (Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
4. Also, it is typically frowned upon to use inline citations in the lede or the infobox because that information should also be in the article itself somwhere and cited. If its not it should be. --Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)  Fixed

1. Grant wrote several books and papers and there should be a writings section and I think they should be listed.

I am inclined add the writings, however, only briefly in order to save space in the arcticle. His Inagural addresses and speeches to Congress are good resources. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)}

1. There are a couple of references from .org domains and these are typically discourages as sources, there ok for External links or Further reading though.

Wikipedia is a .org. If .org is frowned upon, then Wikipedia.org would be considered an unreliable source. I can look into getting rid of the .org sites, though.(Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

1. Refs 52 and 53 look identical and should be combined. Fixed
2. Some of the references lack spaces after commas or periods
3. there are several references that need to be expanded including 1, 8, 16, 17, 40, 86, 95, 96, 101, 111 and 112. --Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the Civil War casaulty lists to match the lists on the different battle articles.  Fixed {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)}

All references from Civil War dot Com have been removed!  Fixed :) {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)}

Per your request the only dab links that are left are Battle of Chattanooga Fixed and 2 redirects

Charles A. Dana (redirect page) Fixed

Charles Dana

Treaty of Washington (redirect page) Fixed

Washington Treaty --Kumioko (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

I added a segment on Grant' religious affiliation. He was not an official member of the Methodist church. I am also using a book source. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)}

Online video links

Was there any reason why the online video links were taken out? {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)}

Opening summary presidency

The paragraph on Grant's presidency is good as it is. My only suggestion is to put in something about Grant putting reformers on his cabinet. Not all of the appointments were crooks or unqualified. Take George M. Robeson for example. He was put on the cabinet for geographical and political reasons. The term "unqualified" is subjective since the Constitution does not state any qualifications are neccessary to hold a position. Were there better people for the positions, yes. It is potentially true that Admiral David D. Porter would have been more qualified. Robeson was an educated attorney. He did have criminal investigations from the House Naval Investigation committee over bribery on construction contracts. The term unqualified is an oversimplification although corrupt is correct. Grant also put reformers on his cabinet and qualified men into positions including Hamilton Fish, Alphonso Taft, and others. The reformers on his cabinet are not mentioned in the opening paragraph. In my opinion it does not give an accurate assessment to Grant's overall Presidency. The economy sentence is accurate. Reformers need to be mentioned, especially Benjamin Bristow, who actually uncovered and prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. The statement about Grant's civil rights agenda is very good. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)}

Proposed sentence change:

From: "Grant often appointed corrupt or unqualified men to political positions and did little to hold them accountable."

To: "Grant did little to hold corrupt cabinet members accountable and put on reformers to clean up department graft."

{Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)}

Revized to: "Grant, who did little to hold corrupt appointees accountable, relied on reformers to clean up graft in federal departments."

{Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)}

The Presidency paragraph looks good. Who ever did the language editing, thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)}

Proposed $50 bill controversy segment

I propose putting in a segment on the $50 bill controversy. Congressman Patrick T. McHenry from North Carolina wants to replace Grant with Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill. Any objections? {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)}

Strong objection! Where's the controversy? This is just a bill being put forth, I don't see how this equates to controversy. There are also similar movements to have Reagan added to Mount Rushmore, but that hasn't made the Mount Rushmore article. I think this sections should be removed, or at least changed to downplay the false sense of controversy. Uberzensch (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Grant was never a member of any church. why does this page continuously state he was a methodist. His wfie was a methodist and she took her preist to his deathbed. Even then Grant refused to take part in the prayers. Anyone ? Tommyxx (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I grew up being taught that Grant had converted to the Catholic Church in his last years.Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Small typo

The word "treaty" in the last paragraph concerning the treaty of washinton was written as "treay". Just thought I'd mention, since this is block against my editing.--Consealed (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done thanks for catching this ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I see another possible one. Was it in 1958, as the article states, or in 1858 that Congress voted him a pension? Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is too long and more than 4 paragraphs. It should be reduced per lead guidelines. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I am a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I just popped by to say that I have completed a thorough copy-edit of this article. The following are issues that I encountered:

• The most common issue was a spacing issue. Normally, words have one space between them; the same goes for punctuation. What I found, though, was two spaces after certain words or punctuations. I have fixed these.
• Another common issue was with grammar. Several words in the article were either misspelled or used incorrectly. I have corrected those, too.
• Less common were issues with citation templates. I have fixed these, as well.

Thank you for taking the time to read this! Best wishes, The Utahraptor (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

In terms of spelling, the section "50 Dollar Bill Controversy" has the quoted word "heroes" misspelled.114.146.160.195 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The Utahraptor (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Improved narration

I have been going through the narration and attempting to improve the flow and context. Any opinions, suggestions, or edits to improve the narration would be most helpful and appreciated. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)}

I modified the opening summary to fit Wikipedia standards. I attempted to capture interest with the opening sentence and briefly outline the bio of USG. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)}

Dot org

CSPAN is a "dot org". Can I use the CPSPAN presidential ranking poll as a legitimate source? {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)}

yes, it's a poll of experts. Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Format issue has returned

I noticed a misspelled word in the lead section, and as I was correcting it, I noticed there were two spaces in between certain words and punctuations again instead of one. I don't know why these have been reintroduced in the article; although they don't show up on the actual article, it makes for a messy-looking article in the edit screen. The Utahraptor (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That could have been myself. I usually put two spaces between sentences. I will be careful not to continue the habit. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)}

Per Wikipedia:MOS#Terminal_punctuation, it actually doesn't make any difference how many spaces follow the terminal punctuation marks.

The number of spaces following the terminal punctuation of a sentence makes no difference on Wikipedia because web browsers condense any number of spaces to just one. (See Sentence spacing#Web browsers.) However, editors may use any spacing style they are comfortable with in Wikipedia. Multiple spacing styles may coexist in the same article, and adding or removing a double space is sometimes used as a dummy edit.

— MrDolomite • Talk 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)