Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Lede revisions, continued

In the spirit of what we've been discussing above, I'd propose that the last paragraph of the lede go from this:

In 1880, Grant was unsuccessful in obtaining a Republican presidential nomination for a third term. Facing severe investment reversals and dying of throat cancer, he completed his memoirs, which proved to be a major literary work and financial success. His death in 1885 prompted an outpouring of national unity. 20th century historical evaluations were negative about his presidency before recovering somewhat beginning in the 1980s. Scholars rank his presidency below the average of other presidents. Grant's management of Reconstruction is still considered controversial today. His critics take a negative view of his defense of corrupt associates, deflationary financial policies, and his failed Dominican Republic annexation treaty, while admirers emphasize his concern for Native Americans, his enforcement of civil and voting rights for African-Americans and his administration's successful Treaty of Washington.

to this:

In 1880, Grant was unsuccessful in obtaining a Republican presidential nomination for a third term. Facing investment reversals and dying of throat cancer, he completed his memoirs, which proved to be a major literary work and financial success. His death in 1885 prompted an outpouring of national unity. Early historical evaluations were negative about Grant's presidency, but began to recover somewhat beginning in the 1980s. Scholars rank his presidency below the average of other presidents, but that ranking has risen as new scholarship reevaluates his administration more positively.

Obviously, this is just my first take on it, and I'm open to suggestions about how it can be improved on the way to a consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph is written better. Its more straight forward and I believe more neutral. But my concern is when Grant's reputation began to improve. Obviously during the Jim Crow era Grant was not viewed well by historians. McFeely wrote his book in 1981 past the Jim Crow era. It was very negative book on Grant and did much to damage his reputation, added to the fact that the book won a Pulitzer. To me Grant's reputation was restored under Smith 2001 book, twenty years later, that was in essense a response to the McFeely biography. Smith, Brands, and now White have presented Grant in a more neutral reasonable context. I don't see his reputation improving until the Smith book in 2001. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite: In 1880, Grant was unsuccessful in obtaining a Republican presidential nomination for a third term. Facing investment reversals and dying of throat cancer, he completed his memoirs, which proved to be a major literary work and financial success. His death in 1885 prompted an outpouring of popular national unity. Twentieth century evaluations supporting racist ideology during the Jim Crow era were negative about Grant's presidency. Scholars rank his presidency below the average of other presidents, but recently his reputation has risen as new scholarship reevaluates his administration and Reconstruction more positively. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, Coemgenus has put us on the right track. However, instead of all the details his rewrite now mentions several historians, by name, in the lede of Grant's biography. Seems McFeely, along with the others are better mentioned by name and covered in the Historical reputation section. On that note it seems Cm's version is a bit better. Imo, we should just make the general statement about changing historical opinion and explain the 'why' of it all in ' reputation section. Also, we might want to include a link to the ' reputation section in the rewrite/proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Grant's reputation primarily suffered from lack of historical research in the early 20th century where the Dunning School dominated Reconstruction history. Grant was viewed as an incompetant drunk President and the civil rights of blacks was viewed as corruption. Also President Woodrow Wilson, a democratic president, established segregation in Washington D.C. Additionally in the 1920's the Klu Klux Klan was at its height in making a comeback that included both Democratic and Republican party members. Lynching of blacks was very common after Reconstruction. Jim Crow was the law of the land. The South was fully segregated. All of this did not help Grant's reputation. Lee was viewed as a Southern God while Grant was a drunk general who used attrition to win battles. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Since it was brought up, Lynching of blacks was not "common" and was an issue blown way out of proportion by newspapers and those trying to win support for their campaigns against the south. As a rule, controversial topics are always blown way out of proportion in an effort to gain the attention and support that would not occur otherwise. They did it with Clinton, Bush, and now Trump. In the 1800's more whites were hanged and lynched by other whites by far. Ditto with Indians who killed other Indians 10-1 over whites. The Apache and Navajo nations were notorious for genocide. Same goes for the Aztecs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I even remember in the mid 1980's Lincoln and Johnson were viewed as heroes who wanted the former Confederate states to be quickly admitted and that Congress was "punishing" the South by allowing carpetbaggers, blacks, and scalawags to run the state governments. McFeely (1981) rarely criticizes Johnson in his book on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

All very interesting, but we still have a lede whose coverage of historians, and their assessment of numerous topics, takes up more prose than most other topics concerning Grant's actual life. Strongly feel this needs to be remedied and the topic of historians given a sentence or two, free of the numerous lesser details, where this can and should be covered in the body of the text, as is the convention that's almost always used in articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

From 1868 to 1871 the KKK lynched 500 blacks. I would say that was common. Grant had believed the Southerners had lost their morality because the KKK was not being prosecuted and the people of the South accepted lynching. This was also a betrayal of Grant's Appomatox 1865 order for former Confederates to go home and not take up arms agaisnt the U.S. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, 500 is a lot of lynchings, if indeed that is an accurate number. What source are you basing this on? Newspaper accounts? Anyway, don't mean to sound insensitive, but 500 doesn't compare to the deaths that occurred at the hand of other peoples. It's indeed a cruel world, but we do a disservice to blacks if we make them believe they were alone in this advent, which is too often the spin that's put on history. Esp with young and impressionable blacks who go out into the world and are lead to believe they have a bulls-eye painted on their backs and that most whites hate them for no other reason than the color of their skin. That is a crime against humanity as well. It's wrong to say the people throughout the entire south "accepted" this. Most were Christians. Bitter over the Civil War, no doubt many looked they other way, but be careful of the broad brush you just used. Grant was right to go down there and kick ass and take names. Unfortunately he was only one man on a slippery slope. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• It is essential that it be discussed in the lede. The body of our article demonstrates why Grant as an historical subject is unique: "No presidential reputations have changed as dramatically as Grant's." The proposal appears off in its last sentence, it seems the historical consensus arc is wildly positive at death - extremely negative in 20th century - more positive in late 20th and 21st. Regardless, to educationally introduce Grant, you do have to somehow explain the whipsaw - (perhaps some details can go but I would be conservative about that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a more general statement of the historiography is better for the lede. We cover it in depth in the appropriate section, as we should, but explaining everything in the lede bogs things down. I chose the 1980s as the point where Grant's reputation begins to emerge from its nadir because that's when McFeely's book came out. Cmguy sees it as negative for some reason, but that is not the judgment of scholars, who correctly view McFeely's work as the first revision and rehabilitation of Grant. Compared to, say, Hesseltine, McFeely is ground-breaking in his praise of Grant's administration and of Reconstruction generally, just as Catton was ground-breakiong in his praise of Grant as a general two decades earlier. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this will work:

In 1880, Grant was unsuccessful in obtaining a Republican presidential nomination for a third term. Facing investment reversals and dying of throat cancer, he completed his memoirs, which proved to be a major literary work and financial success. His death in 1885 prompted an outpouring of national unity. Early historical evaluations were negative about Grant's presidency and about Reconstruction generally, but the trend began to change beginning in the 1980s. Scholars rank his presidency below the average of other presidents, but that ranking has risen as new scholarship reevaluates his administration and Reconstruction more positively.

--Coemgenus (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind a more general historiography. The explanation for the whipsaw is obvious: racism, Jim Crow; and the Dunning School of thought. That explains the negative or neglected view of Grant. Woodrow Wilson, a democratic president and historian, also did not have a high view of Grant. As for McFeely, there is little praise of Grant in his book. He calls Julia and Fish ugly. He adds two stories of gossip; the first that Grant was personaly involved in the Whisky Ring without any evidence from a convicted criminal McDonald; and second that Grant was drunk and raped a woman on his world tour. McFeely does not criticize Johnson or Lee in his book. McFeely does not acknowledge that the Civil War was caused by slavery. I would say McFeely's book is more in line with a pro Southern view of the Civil War. McFeely sides with Sumner and Schurz, the liberal Republicans, rather then defends Grant. In my opinion McFeely does more to destroy Grant's reputation then help it. I would say at best McFeely's book brought renewed interest in Grant, but was intented to counter Catton's positive view of Grant as a general. Grant's reputation began to improve by Catton in the 1960's. McFeely's book countered this view. Smith in 2001 was the first book that had a positive view of Grant as a general and president. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is a compromise edit: "...Renewed interest began in Grant as a general in the 1960's and in his biography and presidency in the 1980's..." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative version: "...Renewed scholar interest in Grant took place in the 1960's, the Civil War's centennial, and in the 1980's..." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is McFeely's (1981) caustic view of Grant found on page 522: "Grant did not make war for reasons or in ways that ennobled the Civil War. He did not rise above limited talents or inspire others to do so in ways that make his administration a credit to American politics. If Ulysses Grant was, in any measure, "the concentration of all that is American" and we still believe in democracy, his story is troubling." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree for a more general statement, or two, in the lede for introducing the wavering and often partisan historical consensus on Grant. We have appropriate sections to outline the various topics (e.g.reconstruction, Treaty of Washington, etc) and a Historical reputation section to treat them accordingly. Moreover, if the lede simply says in so many words that Grant was a controversial figure during the Civil War and as President and that historical accounts vary, this will create curiosity and prompt the reader to venture into the article to read about the 'why' of it all. Trying to outline this in the lede, with the all lesser details/topics is not the best way to go and is unconventional for a lede imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Compare Cmguy's POV to that of a Grant scholar, John Y. Simon. In the review of McFeely's book that we cite in this article, Simon writes that "McFeely makes a greater contribution to the study of the Grant presidency, an area where his research has more depth and his analysis has more balance. Grant's failure as a president, he argues, lies in the failure of the Indian peace policy and the collapse of Reconstruction efforts to achieve civil rights for blacks. [...] McFeely withholds full satisfaction to both Grant admirers and detractors, though the book should please the latter more."

So what does Simon tell us? First, that McFeely's account was balanced, although not as pro-Grant as Simon believes it should have been. Second, that far from being "pro-Southern," as you say, McFeely's criticism of Grant was that Reconstruction did not change the South enough. He criticizes Grant from the left, not the right! That's why I call it the first truly revisionist biography of Grant, because instead of condemning Reconstruction and Grant's role in it, as earlier historians did, McFeely praises Reconstruction and criticizes Grant only insofar as he was unable to lead his party into continuing that process. (Rjensen made this point, too, the last time you accused McFeely of being a neo-Confederate.) This, again, is why we cite the opinions of scholars, not Wikipedia editors. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Coemgenus. Grant's bad reputation in the 20th century was based on corruption not racism. For example C Vann Woodwards the leader on the new civil rights approach was also the leader in attacking Grant. McFeeley was Woodward's student (and for the record so was I). Rjensen (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree to an extent, the civil rights and post era scholarship does repeatedly say, most recently in White, that Grant's earlier reputation was tied --in part -- to the anti-black/pro-southern view - in short it was both corruption and racism - but yes he has been criticized for both doing too little (and failing) and doing too much, taking it from both sides. I do agree that it is entirely wrong to lump McFeely in with the earlier 20th century critics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree any opinions I personally have of McFeely should be kept out of the article. No arguement there. Its not my POV. Here is another caustic statement from McFeely recorded in White's 2016 book on page xxiv in the Prologue: "I am convinced that Ulysses Grant had no organic, artistic, or intellectual specialness." I find this interesting. If this is true and Grant was just average, then why did McFeely win the Pulitzer prize on Grant's life ? I would say both corruption and racism had an impact on Grant's negative view by historians. Can it be denied that Jim Crow or the "Lost Cause" had any influence on historical analysis, or lack of analysis, of Grant or Reconstruction? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

the question: Can it be denied that Jim Crow or the "Lost Cause" had any influence on historical analysis, or lack of analysis, of Grant or Reconstruction? my answer. Yes. Scholars paid very little attention to those issues before the 1960s, by which time they were totally rejected by the academic community. They paid much more attention to corruption – and still do. Note that the 2016 presidential election was to a remarkable extent a debate over the corruption of the two candidates and corruption in national politics generally. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, an interesting thing about "corruption" and Grant is that a great deal of such criticism was leveled at Reconstruction - indeed it was a main argument to tear Reconstruction down - so, it has been linked, blacks and corruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is what White (2016) said in the prologue on page xxiii: "Although he was renowned at the time of his death in 1885, it was not long before Grant began to fall from favor. Historians writing under the influence of the Southern "Lost Cause" lifted up Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy in "the War of Northern Aggression." In their retelling, Grant became the "butcher" who supposedly countenanced the merciless slaughter of his soldiers to overwhelm by sheer numbers the courageous Southern Army. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nothing there puts McFeely in that camp, and it's plainly not the case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Eric Foner said: "The traditional or Dunning School of Reconstruction was not just an interpretation of history. It was part of the edifice of the Jim Crow System. It was an explanation for and justification of taking the right to vote away from black people on the grounds that they completely abused it during Reconstruction. It was a justification for the white South resisting outside efforts in changing race relation because of the worry of having another Reconstruction." Source: Mike Konczal (February 3, 2015) The Nation How Radical Change Occurs: An Interview With Historian Eric Foner Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede revisions, continued 2

• Yes, the idea of corruption in Grant's administration seems to have played a major role in the way his legacy has been assessed by some historians. I've no problem with mentioning McFeely and his view, along with a few other notable biographers and their views, in the Historical reputation section. Meanwhile we should simplify the lede statement and link to the Historical reputation section there. -- Gwillhickers

(talk) 19:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• As opinions have varied over time we should also mention the opinion of at least one older source from the turn of the century era. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

We already do in discussing the National Biography book. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently National biography doesn't occur anywhere in the text. Is it referred to as something else? In any case it would be best if we could name a prominent turn of the century (+ -) biographer and his or her assessment of Grant to help demonstrate varying opinions over the years. In the Bibliography we have Badeau (1887), but he was a military man and while primary sources are allowed I don't think his opinion of Grant would be best. There is also Nevins, (1936) but I'm not sure how representative of opinion in that era he would be. Then there is Young, (1879), who accompanied Grant on his world tour but this also is a primary source. All the others are late 20th and 21st century accounts. Suggestions? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, Dictionary of American Biography - standard reference work of the early 20th century. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. On page 495 it claims that Grant was largely criticized in the newspapers in the months before he became president, but these are (sigh) newspapers. Are they representative of historians' opinions at that time and shortly thereafter? Given the penchant of newspapers to exaggerate and outright distort the truth I would suspect not. i.e.Grant was favorably received around the world during his tour. When he returned to the U.S., he was met with celebrations and salutations all the way from San Francisco to Philadelphia, esp in Chicago. Can we assume biographers of the time were generally on the same page? It would seem so, save those in the south as Southern opinion then was clearly partisan. Still looking for opinions on Grant and the names of prominent biographers who outline opinion of the time between the time Grant left the Whitehouse into the early 20th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

. There were no serious southern biographies of Grant that I know of. --who does White say were the hostile biographers?? The #1 southern historian was Douglas Southall Freeman, who treated Grant fairly in his great bio of Lee (1935) Here are some excerpts from Dictionary Am Biopgraphy (1934) by Frederick Logan Paxson -- a top of the line Northern scholar: . Lincoln liked him, believed in him, and remained his steadfast friend. When Grant became general-in-chief, the Union forces stood in need of nothing so much as unity of plan and coordination of effort. The new leader supplied both. For the first time since the beginning of the war a plan of action was prepared that covered the concerted movements of all the Union forces....In conception and execution, the withdrawal from Lee's front and the movement across the James was a brilliant military achievement.....>Grant's greatness lay in his ability to visualize the war in its essentials. He saw that as long as the Confederacy was an undivided unit its military forces and resources could be shifted to any point where they were needed. He saw, furthermore, that no great success could result from the capture of localities, that success could come only by the destruction of armies. As general-in-chief his strategy was sound: to cut the Confederacy into fragments; to engage all its armies at the same time so that one could not reënforce another; to destroy those armies by following them wherever they might go and by pounding them to pieces. To these principles he adhered and by them he won. to take a popular biography by Louis Arthur Coolidge (1922)-- it was VERY favorable --he says of his presidency "If we except the baneful Southern problem which was bequeathed to him, and where his fault, if fault there was, lay in the rigid execution of the law, it would be hard to place the finger now on an executive policy approved by him which subsequent experience has condemned." [many reviewers repeated that line] see pp 532 and 533 https://books.google.com/books?id=ggEpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA532 Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

White does not specifically name authors. However, historian Max J. Skidmore (2008) referred to McFeely as hostile to Grant: "the hostile William McFeely" The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: A Reconsideration p 228 from the book White House Studies Compendium Volume 5 edited by Robert W. Watson Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

McFeeley is indeed very hostile to Grant. McFeeley is a leading pro-civil rights historian. Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Skidmore says McFeeley is unfair because he criticizes Grant for not doing more to protect African American civil rights and in fact Skidmore says Grant was critisized during his time for doing too much to protect civil rights of African Americans. Skidmore also drops more names: Jubal Early; William N. Pendleton; and Reverand John William Jones as working to undermine Grant's legacy and the impact of slavery as the cause of the Civil War. Skidmore says these men were precursors to the Dunning School. He says that William A. Dunning personally trained historians to propagate Southern vindication. ( pages 233-234 ) Skidmore on page 228 says it was Andrew Johnson who destroyed much of Reconstruction, not Grant. McFeely does not critisize Johnson as destroying Reconstruction; he only critisizes Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Skidmore does not link Jubal Early; William N. Pendleton; and Reverand John William Jones specifically to Grant. (He links them to southern Lost Cause histories in the South--those books had very little influence: biographers did not cite them). Skidmore does not specify any Dunning students who attacked Grant and after browsing about six of them I don't find any examples. Dunning in one 1907 book did criticize Grant for lots of reasons, mostly using the army to defeat democracy. I rechecked D S Freeman on Lee (4 vol 1935) and he clearly praises Grant for his generalship. So far we really have almost no support for Skidmore's notion that Grant's negative reputation rested on his efforts to promote civil rights. Rjensen (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Very impressed with the research and depth of knowledge here. Between what we have in the article and what the two of you have outlined here it seems we have enough material for a Historiography of Ulysses S. Grant article. Salute. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Skidmore (2008) directly links the Dunning School, The Lost Cause, and the people named to launching a negative campaign against Grant's presidency. On page 233 is found: Manufacturing the Myth: The Campaign Against President Grant. This is an attack on his presidency, not specifically his generalship and I assume has more to do with Reconstruction then Grant as a general. However, Lee is treated like a god in the South after the Civil War. Jebal Early could be considered the founder of this Lost Cause movement. Skidmore cites Waugh and Smith to support his conclusion. Ironically Lee had nothing to do with the Lost Cause movement and would not have supported it. Skidmore also says this Lost Cause myth lasted up until World War II. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The level of discussion here suggests that the exact causes of Grant's reputation are perhaps too complex to boil down for the lede. Maybe something more concise?

In 1880, Grant was unsuccessful in obtaining a Republican presidential nomination for a third term. Facing financial reversals and dying of throat cancer, he completed his memoirs, which proved to be a major literary work and financial success. His death in 1885 prompted an outpouring of national unity. Early historical evaluations were negative about Grant's presidency, but the trend began to change beginning in the 1980s. Scholars rank his presidency below the average of other presidents, but that ranking has risen as new scholarship reevaluates his administration more positively with a greater focus on civil rights.

--Coemgenus (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Good, suggest in bold:

In 1880, Grant was unsuccessful in obtaining a Republican presidential nomination for a third term. Facing financial reversals and dying of throat cancer, he completed his memoirs, which proved to be a major literary work and financial success. His death in 1885 prompted an outpouring of national unity. Early historical evaluations were negative about Grant's presidency, often discussing the corruption of his associates. This trend began to change in the later 20th century. Scholars rank his presidency below the average of other presidents, but that ranking has risen as new scholarship reevaluates his administration more positively and with a greater focus on civil rights.

If we can find a focused link for civil rights (African American) that would be good, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

latest version = ok by me. Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Those changes look fine to me, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I can accept the second addition version. The sentence section, "in the later 20th century" is more inclusive rather then just the 1980's. I would say "corruption charges" rather then just "corruption". In my opinion that is more neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Since corruption seems to be the lynch-pin of criticism towards Grant the proposal looks good, and I agree with Cm' -- we should say "corruption charges". We might also want to provide an introductory phrase and a link to the Historical reputation section.

• Historical assessment of Grant's legacy has varied considerably over the years. Early historical evaluations were negative about Grant's presidency, often discussing the charges of corruption of his associates. This trend began to change in the later 20th century. Scholars rank his presidency below the average... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Revision: Historical assessment of Grant's legacy has varied considerably over the years. Early historical evaluations were negative about Grant's presidency, often discussing the corruption charges of his associates. This trend began to change in the later 20th century. Although scholars rank his presidency below the average; new 21st century research focused more on civil rights has reevaluted his administration more positively. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean that Grant's efforts in advancing civil rights is primarily the reason for his more positive rating? If that's the case then the revision reads well. -- Btw, we don't have to say "new 21st century research". After all, there's no ' old 21st century research'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Smith (2001), Brands (2012), and White (2016) are 21st century. New research is fine. Grant actually is getting better reviews because of civil rights, Yellowstone, better understanding of Santo Domingo, civil service reform, prosecution of the Whiskey Ring and Klu Klux Klan. His cabinet is getting more respect too, especially Bristow, Pierrepont, and Chandler. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Might want to give brief mention to that in the Historical reputation section. I'll go ahead and add the latest revision to the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I added the revision and made some changes. I thought it best to mention to the reader why Grant's reputation has been improved; credit for civil rights and concern for Native Americans. I put in biographers, since it seems many historians still have not raised his level of reputation signifigantly. The Siena College 2010 rankings list does not include civil rights as a category for presidents. Why ? Skidmore (2014) included Grant in his book about maligned presidents: Maligned Presidents: The Late 19th Century Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

McFeely as source

Brooks D. Simpson (1987) critisizes McFeely's research in his biography on Grant : Butcher? Racist? An Examination of William S. Mcfeely's Grant: A Biography. I don't have access to the article, but for anyone who does, this might be helpful to the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Having read through the article, the question then is why does McFeely not condemn Andrew Johnson for his handling of Reconstruction, but only Grant ? Johnson was a southerner from Tennessee. Grant was a northerner from Illinois. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

According to his biography he and his colleague were/are largely involved in racial issues. ... His biography says "he sought to employ history in the service of civil rights." You'd think he'd be something of a fan of Grant. His apparent inconsistent treatment between Johnson and Grant is curious however this doesn't seem to relate to the Grant biography much. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind if McFeely critisized Grant, but his inconsistency concerning Andrew Johnson is very troubling. If McFeely is actually concerned about civil rights as he claimed to be in his book, then why was Johnson given such a light touch, especially that man who sought to defeat Congressional Reconstruction at every turn ? Why would McFeely purposely leave out information to destroy Grant and fault him for the end of Reconstruction ? Is that neutral history or just plain fiction ? Simpson is an authority on Grant I believe his article would be good for the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

honest, McFeeley is a leader in civil rights-oriented history. He says Grant dropped the ball too many times. If you want his take on Johnson read Yankee Stepfather: General O. O. Howard and the Freedmens Bureau by William S. McFeely -- long excerpt at amazon. Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

McFeely is entitled to his opinion, ill inspired or otherwise, but he's one source. I think it's enough that we just mention his criticism of Grant. Doing a cross examination of his treatment of others seems a bit tangential. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Something like 1500 blacks officeholders in 1868 - zero in 1877. So, perhaps, something went wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Zero?? Now that's' not only interesting, but amazing. Was Grant directly involved? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The Democratic Party took over the House. Vetoing the Inflation bill Grant can be faulted for. But Alanscottwalker, are you saying Andrew Johnson was for Congressional Reconstruction and never vetoed any of the bills and enforced all Reconstruction laws? Did not his obstructionism embolden the South ? Did not Grant send in his toughest General Phil Sheridan to Louisiana and both the South and North strongly objected ?

(e/c) Well, there are many books to read on it.:) I think I have said this before, at times, it seems like modern scholarship is rebuttal and then re-rebuttal from the fulcrum that is Pulitzer Prize winning McFeely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that all post-McFeely scholarship revolves around his landmark work. Whatever we think of it, though, is probably not fit for inclusion in the article. As Gwillhickers said, a deep discussion of McFeely is tangential. We mention his book and we mention Simon's review of it with the criticisms he raised. It's enough, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not just Simpson. Skidmore (2008), page 228, says Andrew Johnson did much to destroy Reconstruction. Also Skidmore (2008), page 232, critisizes the Liberal Republican "reformers" movement for ending Reconstruction. Both Sumner and Schurz favored ending federal intervention in the South. Sumner and Schurz opposed having an African American Santo Domingo state. The Liberal Republican platform opposed federal intervention of the South. Any misinformation from McFeely needs to be eliminated from the article. Winning a Pulitzer does not mean that McFeely's writing is infallible. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Gah! What it means and the Parkman Prize is it's serious scholarship no matter your desires - we just relate we it, we don't approve or disapprove. Coemgenus has done well, with this as in other things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I am using the Simpson article on McFeely as a source. Simpson is not kind to McFeely. It's not about my opinions, but Wikipedia should have reliable neutral sourcing. No one is denying McFeely wrote a great book on Grant, but is it historically accurate? Simpson questioned McFeely. I may be incorrect but I don't believe the people who award the Pulitzer are historians, but rather journalists. Simpson is a historian. I don't know the motivations of McFeely and I really don't care. Misinformation, if found, should be removed from the article. I will be honest. I was disturbed after reading the Simpson article how McFeely left so much postive information on Grant out of his book. It is not coming from me. I will agree that McFeely in 1981 put Grant back on the map, just as Catton had done in the 1960's. To that I give him credit. He is a good author and his book has many insights on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This has gone about far enough, I think. Yes, McFeeley is an historian. He has a Ph.D. from Yale, which you could've learned in five seconds by reading his biography or the statements of his colleague, Dr. Jensen on this very page. This article already presents a balanced treatment of his book (and yes, historians get the Pulitzer, as do people in other professions besides journalism). As Alan said, we just relate we it, we don't approve or disapprove. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Your question 'is it historically accurate' is much too vague - sure it is - Simpson himself cites it in 2000 (a source in this article), and even says it has "merit" and is "compelling". Perhaps you are confusing a couple different things, for example, 'the radicals did not follow Grant' may well be a fact but it can have all different kinds of implications, including, perhaps, Grant's leadership of his party was a poor or ineffective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Covering how McFeely has treated Johnson would simply be getting way too afield for the Grant biography. Cm' has made great efforts, but let's get back to 'all'(!) of those blacks disappearing from office holding positions. If this occurred under Grant's watch, by all means it deserves mentioning. If Grant and his administration are responsible it would merit at least a couple of sentences of coverage. ASW, what source is this coming from, and does it explain why? This seems like it's more than just a coincidence. I would think McFeely would be prominent among those who brought this advent to light. We should be focusing our efforts on this question now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest we can bring this discussion to a close. I admit this discussion is getting out of hand. Gwillhickers, blacks were taken out of Southern politics because of Jim Crow, not Grant. Coemgenus, Simpson a historian is critcal of McFeely. In my opinion editors can't approve of misleading information that presents Grant in false historical context even if it comes from a Pulitzer Prize historian. Simpson balances McFeely's perspective. Alanscottwalker, Simpson in his article says McFeely left out information in his biography on Grant that made Grant look like a "racist" and a "butcher". All I am requesting is that the article be neutral as possible. I don't want to go around in circles or cause contentions among editors. I thought this discussion was neccessary and I appreciate everyone who participated. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777:, Alanscottwalker has claimed that all blacks disappeared from office holding positions. He didn't mention anything about this occurring in the south only -- and if 'Jim Crow' prevailed over Grant's administration to the extent of this then I believe we need to look into that further. I would assume Grant was dismayed by this advent entirely, which we might want to mention also. For whatever it's worth, Grant is one of my favorite presidents and I've no desire to misrepresent this noble man's efforts as you should know by now. Just so you're clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The south, that is where almost all blacks lived then. No, it was not offered as a detail to include in the article, and it was as mentioned, not even trying to be exact, it was "something like". We already cover Reconstruction and its failures in the article enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think by the time of Grant's presidency many blacks lived in the North (in addition to those who were already there) and that 'some' of them assumed office holding positions. Many of them fought for the Union during the war. What did they and the other blacks do after the war -- move to the south? Doesn't seem likely. If as you say 1500 blacks assumed positions in office in the south than this must have occurred in the north to some extent. Am in general agreement that reconstruction is covered very well in the article, but if as you say all blacks were removed from office in the south, mentioning this remarkable event would give good insight and context to Grant's failed efforts to enforce reconstruction and the forces he was up against. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Black migration to the North was minuscule before the First World War. I agree with Alan that this subject is best left as it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I would surmise that the few generally moved west, as did the rest of the nation -- but no I was not offering a proposal, just a trend, was all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this should be a seperate discussion. According to the Jim Crow article African Americans held office into the 1880's, years after Grant was out of office. We can't blame Grant for racism that was prevelant in the South before Grant became President. Additionally there was hundreds of years of slavery that Grant tried, but admittedly failed, to permanently change. Laws and court decisions can't change people's hearts. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

editbreak4

Thought this might be a good way to exemplify the forces Grant was dealing with, which would lend to the idea that he could only have done so much, and that his so called 'failure' was not entirely (if at all) his fault, as McFeely seems to want us to believe. If there are sources to support the idea we should at least mention the 1500 as a definitive example of how failed reconstruction materialized. While we cover reconstruction efforts very well (e.g.sending the military to enforce law, etc) the only example of how this actually effected the black community is where we mention ... Grant spoke out against voter intimidation ..."
Source(s) permitting, I would append that sentence to read like this :

• During his Presidency, Grant spoke out against voter intimidation against blacks in the South, the effects of which resulted in some 1500 blacks being removed from office. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does the "some 1500 blacks being removed from office" come from? Eric Foner, Freedom's Lawmakers (1994) names 1,465 black officeholders who served at all levels of government at any time during the Reconstruction years; Foner thinks there were 2000 in total. Some continued to hold office into 1890s. Rjensen (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

1500 is clearly wrong--turnover was always high (thanks to Jacksonian democracy and absence of civil service) and most office holders left when terms expired or when their party lost office and ALL republicans were replaced. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't know where ASW got this information. The major removal of blacks from office positions, if true, or partially true, does seems rather likely. Whether 1500, 2000, some, most, blacks were removed, this advent seems worth mentioning if the numbers were appreciable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I got it from my memory, which is why it was ""something like", the general 1500 number for 1868, was what I recalled as near the high-water mark. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Rjensen, thanks for setting the record straight. If 'all' Republicans were removed is this worth mentioning -- anywhere? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Foner (1994) says 1% (15 of 1,465 black officeholders) were Democrats. Yes it should be mentioned that when a party lost an election all the people appointed by that office holder (normally) were replaced by members of the winning party. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Great point Rjensen. Unless Grant while president (1869-1877) personally removed African American office holders, appointed or elected, how does any of this information concern Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Cm' has a point, sort of. i.e.No one is saying Grant had a hand in removing anyone from office, even if he could -- the office holders were elected. I wanted to mention the '1500' thinking it exemplified the situation Grant had to address. i.e.Voter intimidation of blacks and voter fraud, part of which begged Grant to send troops. But the event RJ brings to light is wholly political it seems, not involving Jim Crow laws or anything Grant had to deal with directly. Though this may be getting a bit tangential it does however offer a perspective on the political situation then. I've no strong opinions about adding this or not. If this can be worked into the narrative appropriately and briefly I'd have no objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Grant sent Phil Sheridan into Louisiana in 1875. Sheridan wanted to punish those who persecuted African Americans. Both the South, North, West, and East would have none of it. There was a huge public outcry because Sheridan represented federal intervention. Grant held back, but the reality is Sheridan would have established marshal law, and the Civil War would have started over again. It was the United States that rejected Reconstruction, not Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Enforcing reconstruction was a two edged sword, given the immense area involved and the resources it would have required. As it says in the Later Reconstruction and civil rights section, Grant was reluctant to use the military for a prolonged period of time because he wanted "... to avoid the impression that he was acting as a military dictator ...", and as you say, it could very well have inspired another civil war, though I doubt it would have ever gotten off the ground. The south was beaten, weary and its resources were exhausted and it's doubtful England would have been willing to supply another losing cause. People everywhere were trying to get on with their own lives, heal their own wounds (more than 500,000 dead) and put the country on track again, so reconstruction and ideology was no longer much of a priority once the reality of such a pious venture became clear. Unless RJ has ideas about mentioning the political situation he discussed above I think we're done here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Historians have traditionally blamed Grant for corruption and the end of Reconstruction. But the reality is the American people gave up on Reconstruction and the American people were corrupted at that time, using Grant as a shield to commit crimes, such as Gould and Fisk. Materialism and lavish lifestyles were rampant during the Gilded Age. White (2016) says Grant on page 553 Chapter 32 "Malfeasance!" continued to support Reconstruction and his Indian policy in his second term. Grant also created and implemented the Civil Service Commission and its rules. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Article Doctor needed

Hello Grant editors: I just saw this article Black Friday (1869) and it looks like it needs substantial work, if anyone who has burrowed into the scandal is interested. (and it has a prominent link from this article, eek) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I can offer this much. White, 2016, covers Black Friday on pp. 480-485 and 530; Brands, 2012 covers the affair on pp. 437-446 and 555-560. Brands refers to the affair as the "gold conspiracy" in his index, while White refers to it as "Black Friday". According to Brands and White, Abel Corbin, a small time speculator, married Grant's sister Jennie, where James Fisk and his partner Jay Gould took advantage of this relationship and persuaded Corbin to introduce them to Grant with the idea that befriending Grant would give them privy information about up and coming government gold sales -- information with which they could manipulate the market. This arrangement pretty much sets the stage for the scandals that followed.
Evidently the Grant biography covers the affair much better (i.e. w/ info and citations) than the dedicated article. That's not to say we should start gutting the biography and dumping the contents on that page, so I'm hoping we don't go there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Section name change

Is the section entitled Gold standard and the Gold Ring the most definitive for the greater topic covered? The subject covered in this section lends itself more to the scandal than it does the gold standard, which is only one idea in the greater subject. Grant's main objective was to reduce the national debt which invited the speculators Gould and Fisk who brought on the Black Friday scandal. The gold standard is just one of the elements involved, not the major theme covered in this section. Recommend changing the section title to Black Friday and the gold ring, as these are the main topics covered in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph was about larger monetary issues, which is why we titled it that way. Your change is OK. I think just "The Gold Ring" might be even better. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the first several sentences in that section pertains to the national debt and efforts to reduce it, which invited the scandal. Gold ring by itself however seems a little empty, esp when viewed from the TOC. The efforts of the gold ring culminated on Black Friday, which is the name of the main article. Both components of the proposed title go hand in hand and together comprise the main theme of the section. I suppose if a title were to be compositionally inclusive here it would have to read, National debt, gold ring and Black Friday, but that's obviously too long, and Gold ring by itself seems too short and not very representative of the entire section. In any event, the current title seems off the mark, esp since it doesn't mention 'debt' or 'Black Friday', while the section has next to nothing to say about any 'gold standard'. Recommend getting Black Friday into whatever title we decide on, esp since most of the sources refer to this event as such. The first proposal seems best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "Gold standard" was chosen because it was the one of the profound and far reaching economic issues of the age. 'The scandal, and the scandal', although I know that's not the intent, seems to be the focus of 'Black Friday and Gold Ring' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

With that in mind we might want to introduce a bit of context on the topic, in relation to the national debt, in the beginning of the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The title would be too redundant. How about National debt and gold panic ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the debate over the gold standard was only slightly about the national debt. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the 1868 Republican Party Platform :"Fifth—The National Debt, contracted as it has been for the preservation of the Union for all time to come, should be extended over a fair period of redemption, and it is the duty of Congress to reduce the rate of interest thereon whenever it can be done honestly." Boutwell was paying down the national debt, forcing a lower gold price, to get to a gold standard. Source: Republican Party Platform of 1868 May 20, 1868 Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"to get to a gold standard." So, the Gold Standard, remains the profound and long lasting issue, not the debt. See also,

"Then came the Panic of 1873 and an ensuing depression. Congress responded with the Inflation Bill, a modest monetarist measure to circulate more currency — far less aggressive than the Federal Reserve’s recent “quantitative easing.” Fish helped persuade Grant to veto it. White presents this as a highly popular decision. But the historian Nicolas Barreyre argues persuasively that the veto shattered the Republican coalition, giving Democrats control of the House of Representatives and leading to partisan corruption hearings that discredited the administration and helped end Reconstruction.

To grasp why, we need to understand the currency debate — how men like Fish saw the gold standard as a moral, even theological imperative, how Westerners saw the greenback, untethered to gold, as the government’s main tool for aiding a suffering public. Grant, who knew hardship better than anyone in his cabinet, had been expected to sign the bill. White describes his change of mind as essentially a rational decision, but his book as a whole suggests that Grant had an emotional need to be financially honorable, whatever the cost, precisely because he couldn’t manage his own money. Character may not be destiny, but certainly complicates it."[1]

All very interesting, yet speculative on some points, (e.g. Grant's 'emotional need') so let's stay focused in terms of what the actual section covers in relation to Grant. No single topic/term is appropriate, so again, gold ring by itself is not inclusive, nor is gold standard. The main topics in the section are the efforts to curb the national debt, which is what Grant was mainly concerned about, and the scandal, which, when it presented itself, he was equally if not more concerned about. The gold standard in itself offers some good context but doesn't merit a mention in the section title, as does the gold ring whose machinations culminated on Black Friday, effecting the national debt and the economy. Apparently no one (concise) section title is going to be 'perfect', in light of the topics covered so a title that relates to the main subjects involved would be best. If there is a better proposal let's take a look at it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the gold standard and reducing the National Debt were one and the same thing. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, but they were related. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No. They are not but the gold standard makes the debt more difficult because the payment can only be in gold under a gold standard - thus to achieve the gold standard, debt was a liability standing in the way the goal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There really is nothing in the 1868 Republican Platform that mentions gold standard. Obviouly Boutwell on his own sold Treasury gold, removed greenbacks from the economy, paid off Civil War bonds, kept the price of gold down, and reduced the National Debt. Money and gold were very scarce. Especially gold since that is why Gould and Fish tried to buy up all the gold. During the Abraham Lincoln administration during the Civil War, there was an attempted corner on the market. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your first statement is incorrect, the platform section on improving credit is move to the gold standard, as enacted in the 1869 public credit act. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Separate section

Since the first paragraph in the current former Gold standard and the Gold Ring lends itself almost entirely to the national debt and the economy, topics that involve more than just the Black Friday scandal, I suggest we place this paragraph in its own section. i.e.National debt and economy, and place the second paragraph, which lends itself almost entirely to the scandal, in its own section following. The National debt and economy section would lead right into the section covering the scandal. I went ahead and did this, with a few narrative tweaks, tentatively, to demonstrate. Feel free to revert or tweak if there are issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It is more accurate to say the Gold Panic rather then the Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Gold ring involved important 'people', like Gould, Fisk and Corbin, and all of their dealings, esp with Grant, Boutwell, the Gold Exchange, etc, etc. The 'panic' is simply what resulted. The section covers these people, and their dealings, and only mentions the panic that followed, after the fact. Gold ring is more appropriate for representing the section, is the term Ackerman uses in the title of his book, and is also consistent with the section title you introduced to the Black Friday article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

They build on one another and both deal with currency. I'd say to leave it be. Remember that one of the criticisms we addressed at the GA review was that there were too many little sections, which made for a long TOC and a lack of narrative flow. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind additional information, but I think the two article titles are redundant, or cover similar topics. I will have to agree with Comgenus here. Let's work on the narration rather then seperate titles. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the gold standard is a minor topic in the bigger picture, yet it's at the beginning of the section title. 'Gold standard' is not even mentioned in the section. The narrative covers the national debt, greenbacks, bonds, currency and gold trading, while the section is mostly committed to the Gold ring and the Black Friday scandal.
Grant, like Jefferson and Washington, were very involved at different stages in the history of the country, hence more topics and a longer than average TOC. If you want to see a truly long TOC look to the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article, which is a GA. One additional subsection here isn't pushing the envelope. The current section contains several major topics, so no one section title fits all, unless we come up with half a sentence for the section title. One additional section committed to the national debt solved the problem neatly. If anything National debt should replace gold standard. The national debt is its own issue, effected by many things. The debt would have been an issue for Grant even if the price of gold remained the same and the scandal never occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The section discusses the Public Credit Act of 1869 which was a step in the return to the gold standard by denominating payment in gold. The gold standard was vitally important across the republican party, to 'liberal' republicans it meant less government (which was their central issue, from corruption, to tariffs, to reconstruction), to business/eastern republicans it meant "sound" currency and getting paid back in gold. Prior to "gold standard" the section header had "currency debates" but since that debate was about the gold standard, in the run-up to FA, gold standard was substituted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ASW. As I mentioned the one section covers a rather broad spectrum of topics. Thought splitting the section into ones that were more specific would spare us the task, and all the debate, about trying to decide which was the best 'phrase' for a section title. If concern for adding just one more section is the only reservation I would say, that adding one more isn't going to cause issues, not that we don't have them already. Also, a separate subsection for National debt and economy would allow (some) additional content without concern about venturing away from the Black Friday-Gould/Fisk subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested title changes

I am just throwing things out here for any appropriate title changes. Please feel free to discuss, change, or give altnernative suggested title changes. Maybe concensus can be reached. Rather then have two sections, just change the title. The section title in discussion or dispute is Gold standard and the Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Economy, gold standard, national debt Cmguy777 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• National debt and gold corner Cmguy777 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Economy, Black Friday. and gold panic Cmguy777 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The last one seems the best, such that it is, though I would shorten it so it simply reads Economy and Black Friday, as the idea of a gold panic is just one aspect of the Black Friday subject. The idea of Economy covers the gold standard subtopic, while Black Friday covers the gold ring and gold panic subtopics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Black Friday and the Gold Ring

Even though 'Black Friday' doesn't show up on the historical radar screen like Appomattox does (Civil War battles always get more attention) it was still a major event in the presidency of Grant, caused a national crisis, and involved many major figures. Seems a bit odd that were trying to cover this (albeit in a summary & biographical capacity) by lumping it in with a one-size-fits-all subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You brought up a good point Gwillhickers, if the section is titled Gold Standard then gold standard should be discussed in the section. I think Grant was trying to make the gold dollar equal to the paper dollar. If I am correct then that is what the Gold Standard is. Was Grant trying to get rid of all paper monies ? More explanation would be helpful in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Gold standard includes debt payable in gold, and paper money, that is backed by (even upon demand refundable in) government gold reserves (also gold coins in mass are heavy and bulky). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting back to the content discussion started above, and as mentioned, a little context about the gold standard in relation to the economy is welcomed. If the only concern is adding one more subsection I would urge that we do it, as both topics seem to merit their own subsection, esp since the Economy was an issue that lasted the entire presidency of Grant, while Black Friday rocked the boat of the entire nation. At this late date I don't foresee any other topic coming along where we would be compelled to add another section of any kind, so it's not like were establishing a trend that will snowball out of control. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

My own view is that having one section is best, but there needs to be some sentence where a modern reader can understand 19 century money issues. But what exactly is a "gold standard" ? Does that mean all purchases are by the gold dollar. I don't think there were enough dollar gold coins in circulation at the time. The silver dollar was briefly discontinued during Grant's presidency, but only had a foreign trade silver dollar. There should be some sentence that defines the "gold standard" and how it related to Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's settle on what name is best for our all encompassing subsection, and then we can decide on what context to add. If we are not going to split the section then we should use a modified version of Cm's proposal: Economy and Black Friday or Economy and the Gold Ring would be fine by me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind if "Gold standard" is used as long as it is explained. "Economy and the Gold Ring" is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems the first paragraph in the section already covers the gold standard inasmuch as the price of gold went down, and that the government, thanks to the Public Credit Act of 1869, required that bondholders were to be paid in gold, not greenbacks. Don't know if there's much more to say about the 'gold standard' in terms of Grant's presidency than that. If there is, then it would be welcomed, so long as we don't run at length with the idea. Meanwhile, let's try to get a section title in place that we all can live with. Economy and the Gold Ring seems the most inclusive. Economy addresses the national debt and the gold standard, while Gold Ring addresses, Black Friday and the resultant panic it created. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• To be more explicit about the gold standard, we could add something like "the Public Credit Act of 1869 []set a 10 year timetable for returning to the gold standard"[2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yes, sounds good. I'll see if we can also cite it with White, Brands or Ackerman, just for good measure. Meanwhile, can we get at least one more Yea before adding the proposed section title? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Gold Standard and Gold Ring is a good subsection title , it touches on all the issues (gold, currency, paying debt in gold, gold market), and it has excellent parallel structure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not really. A debt can exist regardless of any standard of money, whereas the economy can, but not always, involve a gold standard, or other forms used in trading. i.e.There would be an economy and even a debt, even if people used the barter system and did all their buying and selling by means of trading goods. There was a debt and an economy before Grant made efforts to return to the gold standard. The gold standard is merely a subtopic to the 'economy' which is the more inclusive term. A national debt and an economy can exist even if the main form of trading is done with salt. Gold standard and Gold ring, doesn't let the reader know up front (while viewing the TOC) there is a national debt involved either. Maybe we should use National debt and the Gold Ring for the section title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Payment of debt in gold (only gold) was the law adopted for addressing debt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

How can there be a gold standard when greenbacks are still in circulation ? That is misleading to the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Greenbacks, the debt and the economy existed regardless of any gold standard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, misleading. The gold standard is made up of multiple steps. The law insisted on payment of public debt in gold, in support of the gold standard, if not they would have put payment in lumber, or silver, or fish, anything beside gold, and the Teasury Secretary would have been issuing anything else beside gold every few weeks to pay the debt. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There was not enough gold dollars in circulation for the people to use. The gold standard is not mentioned at the 1868 Republican convention. National debt is. There needs to be an explanation of what the gold standard is, not just a link. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We've been over this, it was the sound public credit that the platform called for is in the Public Credit Act of 1869, which was put in place to support the gold standard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. We can be more clear about what a gold standard is if need be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• A link to Gold standard was just added to the section. We can mention that a "gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is based on a fixed quantity of gold." as it mentions in the lede to that article. However, I think the section will fare well whether or not we mention this. Perhaps a foot note? Also added a piped link to National debt of the United States. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall the Credit Act of 1869 saying the monetary system is fixed on a quantity of gold. As far as I know, no "Gold Standard Act" was passed by Congress during Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Grant was sworn in on March 4, 1869, the Public Credit Act of 1869 was passed on March 18, requiring that bonds be paid off in gold. Along with a link to that, we now have the above two links as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

All debt was now denominated in gold, that is a gold standard, a gold standard for debt - yes, the government debt was now fixed to its amount of gold, during the Grant administration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that no section title is going to be perfect for this section which includes many topics and subtopics. We can't specify all the items involved in one section title. This is why we need to used the most general and inclusive terms in the section title. If Economy is the issue (part of the title) it addresses all the subtopics involved. Grant's main objective was the economy and the debt. If he could have solved the probelem with Greenbacks, or with salt, he would have done so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Credit Act of 1869 says U.S. notes will be paid in coin. There is nothing mentioned concerning a gold standard specifically. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the section does say "return the national economy to pre-war monetary standards", but I wouldn't go so far as to imply that 'gold' was not a factor here. We have links to the Public act', the Debt and the 'Gold standard', all of which come under the umbrella of 'Economy'. Don't want to leave any editors with their legitimate concerns ignored entirely. 'Economy' is also the recognizable term as traditional presidential issues are concerned. -- ASW, if we use 'gold standard' as the first item in the section title, those inquiring about the economy in Grant's day might overlook the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I just don't think that's a concern -- they will readily see things like like "gold", as having to do with money, and "economy" is needlessly generic, here, imo. So others may have to weigh in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the Credit Act of 1869 mentions Gold Standard. Was the purpose of this act to make one dollar greenbacks equal to a one dollar gold coins i.e. restore credit of the greenbacks ? That is what readers can understand, if that is the case. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

editbreak

As our article says, in the Panic of 1873 and loss of Congress section, the gold standard was established in 1873 when the Coinage Act of 1873 was signed by Grant. Having a section called Gold standard and the Gold Ring, which lends itself to events in 1869, four years earlier, is a misleading section title, esp since this section has a number of other major topics covered. i.e.The Economy, National Debt, Public Credit Act, Greenbacks, Black Friday and the Gold Ring, which involved individuals in a scandal, not anyone involved in establishing a gold standard. Having gold standard in this section title is inappropriate, esp as the first term in the title. We should get one of the two proposals in place : Economy and the Gold Ring or National debt and the Gold Ring. I still have reservations about lumping the Black Friday and Gold Ring topics in with a section that is involved in several other major topics, but can live with one of these proposals if we must. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Its not misleading, it's introducing the profound and long-lasting issue with the Public Credit Act of 1869 - sure that also extends through deep-depression that marred his presidency and extends on for decades to come, which makes introduction important, and it touches all the things in that section currency, payment of national debt in gold, gold market. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It's misleading inasmuch as this section is barely committed to the idea of a gold standard, and as the first term in the section title it gives the impression that this is the main them of the section. There are several other major topics that should be mentioned first, like the inclusive terms of National debt and Economy, both of which were top priorities for Grant. Grant would have been happy if he could have resolved the debt and restored the economy using grain as the main commodity. Both the above proposals could easily include the idea of 'gold standard'. Again, the gold standard wasn't established until 1873. If we're going to use this topic in a section title it should be used in the Panic of 1873 and loss of Congress section. i.e.Gold standard and the Panic of 1873 or 'Panic of 1873 and the gold standard'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The term Gold Standard is not defined in the article. The term does not appear in the "The Credit Act of 1869". The effective Gold Standard took place under The Coinage Act of 1873. I am not sure even that law mentions the Gold Standard by name. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Cmguy, actually your recent addition of "gold and its equivalents" stated the gold standard - that's what standard means, gold is the standard, the measure of equivalents and everything is made, in measure, equivalent to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Alan has it right here. The importance of the Public Credit Act was not that the debt was going to be paid--it was always going to be paid--but that it was going to be paid in gold, not fiat money. That's a huge step in restoring the credit of the United States by moving the country to a more purely gold-based standard. While greenbacks still circulated, that Act effectively ended the monetary emergency measures of the war period and returned us more closely to respectability among the nations. It's a big deal, and it's a big deal because of the gold standard. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The bonds were going to be paid in gold or its equivilents. That would be considered a "gold standard", even though that appears to modern terminology. Paper notes or green backs were to be redeemed in species, apparently either gold or silver ? But the confusion, in my opinion, is there clearly was not enough gold coinage for everyone in the U.S. Apparently gold coins were rare even for the 1800's. Something is missing in the narration. A "gold standard" could mean that everything was bought by gold coins and there was no paper or silver monies. Did people actually go to the banks and exchange paper money for gold ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• If we're going to have 'gold standard', which as Coemgenus points out, put the nation back on the road to respectability, then it would seem that this idea, along with the National debt be covered well, and in recent days it finally has, and be given its own subsection. i.e.Gold standard and national debt, which brings us to the next issue.
• The events involved in restoring the economy and debt, which gave rise to the Credit Act, eventually lead up to the formation and signing of the Coinage Act of 1873, which was debated, authored and signed during Grant's first term. If we're going to have a section that starts with the term 'Gold standard', then coverage of the Coinage Act, which officially established the gold standard, should be included in this section. Currently the Coinage Act is covered under the Panic of 1873 subsection in the first paragraph. The Panic came later and occurred during Grant's second term. Currently we have coverage of the 'gold standard' in two separate sections spaced apart in the article, while we have the gold ring lumped in with the gold standard' section. This is disjointed coverage and is not par with our otherwise good editorship.
• Black Friday, a major event during Grant's presidency and while it involved gold, this scandal is completely unrelated to the formation of the gold standard. Black Friday and the Gold Ring' warrants its own subsection and shouldn't be lumped in with our current disjointed account of the gold standard. I think it's safe to say this would be the final subsection for the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• In the interest of all parties involved, we should give Gold standard and the national debt its own subsection, and include coverage of the coinage act and establishment of the gold standard here, while we give Black Friday and the Gold Ring it's own (and final) subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the details of the economy can go into the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. I think the "gold standard" issue needs to be resovled. These issues seem to be related in some manner or other, so I am not sure why subsections are necessary. Did people take paper money to a bank and actually exchange for gold specie ? Was paper money still being printed ? We know that silver dollars were not minted under the Coinage Act of 1873. In my opinion more explanation is needed. As for title changes or subsections that seems to be a seperate issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• United States Note

Thanks to all our efforts it appears to me the issue of 'gold standard' is largely resolved. Only the question of section titles and dedicated sections and coverage remain. I'm hoping that the two last proposals will be adequate for all. After we clear this hurdle we can address the idea of moving details to another article if we must. Seems to me our summary accounts are good and not overdone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved ? The Coinage Act of 1873 needs to be mentioned. But the reader should be told that paper money and silver, although limited after 1873, was used as currency. The term Gold Standard could be interpreted that everything was bought and paid for by gold. Gould and Fisk could have bought up the entire gold supply had not Grant and Boutwell released gold on Friday, September 24, 1869. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• The Coinage Act of 1873, which established the gold standard, is mentioned in the Panic of 1873 section. I would like to have this information put in the 'Gold standard' section, with perhaps a few more words of context if needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Gould and Fisk certainly were rich but I don't think they could have bought up the entire U.S. gold reserve, even if it was all available for purchase, which it wasn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Changes

If there are no pressing issues, I'd like to change the Gold standard and gold ring section to Gold standard and national economy. I'll also place the first paragraph in the Panic of 1873 ' section in the Gold standard' section. This paragraph starts off with:

As his first term was ending, Grant continued to work for a strong dollar, signing into law the Coinage Act of 1873, which effectively ended the legal basis for bimetallism (the use of both silver and gold as money), and established the gold standard in practice.

Also, Black Friday needs its own subsection, as it was a major event which many of Grant's biographers cover very well, including White and Brands, while there are books dedicated or largely devoted to the subject. e.g. by Ackerman Browder, Fowler, Josephson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should remain with the chronology structure - it is really a bad idea to upset the whole of the article structure at this stage -- and the current subtitles, as already extensively discussed (also, for whatever reason you did not mention Resumption Act). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it as upsetting "the whole of the article structure" or changing the chronology. There are some simple needed improvements. You wanted 'gold standard' the foremost term in one of the sections. Gold standard and national debt are the main topics in the first paragraph. Hence the title Gold standard and the national debt. Was not your emphasis on 'gold standard'? We have to get out of this mindset that this FA is forever set in stone. There were a good number of things missing, some of them major items, when this article passed the FA review, yet we all know most reviewers don't have half a clue about what should and should not go into the narrative. That is the unfortunate truth. It's up to knowledgeable editors who have done their homework to write and improve on the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

First, "gold standard" has been there for years (and yes, that is good evidence it is not a problem -- similarly, that it went through FA review is good evidence it is not a problem). Second, gold standard is "first" because that's the chronology of the two paragraph section. Third, the article is generally laid out chronologically (meaning year by year) - so I oppose moving to more thematic structure, as you suggest. (And this is kind of irrelevant, but as it is false that major items were missing, I can't accede to you assumptions. And bringing up these irrelevant claims, again, is a waste of time). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Gold standard... was there for years, and for years there was next to nothing about that subject in the section until recently, i.e.After the FA review. It's still missing items. No one is changing the structure. Moving the content about the Coinage act that established the gold structure into the section that is entitled gold structure doesn't 'upset the structure'. i.e.TOC Giving the topic of Black Friday a section title doesn't 'upset the structure' or the chronology either. It is not "false" that major items were missing as just pointed out. Also, during the review there was no mention that Grant was sworn in by Salmon chase for the first time, and as we just witnessed, yesterday, there was no mention of his second inauguration, for openers. Please don't hold up the FA review, and reviewers ignorant about Grant, as your reason to justify major oversights or to oppose article improvement. This is getting highly argumentative and fuzzy, all over again. Editors don't need permission to make contributions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And again you make the false claim - it does not get any more true, the more you say it. Actually, those things have been there explicitly and implicitly for years -- no one can help that you don't see what others see and have seen (especially, as you come extremely late to your realizations - after years -- which is bound to seem odd to other people -- it just is odd, after years, to rewrite and rewrite a writing - one that has been deemed 'good' by many, and, it is likely to make it worse to do so) and if anything, it is the repeated attempt to denigrate FA review that is "highly argumentative." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Blur... There was no mention of either inauguration during the FA review. Re: The Gold standard section: The focus until recently was Greenbacks. Also, it was not my intention to "denigrate" the review, only to make legitimate criticisms. Are reviewers above criticism? The reviewers were largely ignorant about Grant and didn't notice a number of oversights. Since the FA review, many improvements have been made. I believe you and I should back off, and hopefully the good feelings, at least that I had, when you called for 'Article doctors' will return. Please don't block out the idea about article improvement on my account. Cheers.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I called or "article doctors" on another article, that was not an invitation to rewrite this article. The so-called "many improvements" are minor, at best - neutral, if lucky -- and sometimes, just prolix (and again, it is odd that they arise after years and years) . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting. The U.S. Treasury is still in the gold "business": Status Report of U.S. Government Gold Reserve Current Report: November 30, 2016 The U.S. Government owns over 11 billion dollars in gold. That's 16,343,682.889 pounds of gold. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Alan, I think the current arrangement is good and concise. If we lengthen a section everytime we discover more about it, we'll get back to the old too-large size and beyond very quickly. And that is something that was mentioned repeatedly at the FA review. It feels like bad faith to pass the review and then revert to the old, sub-standard version. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus, all the proposals I asked for do not involve "reverting the old" or lengthening the article in any manner worth mentioning. Cm' was concerned about better explaining the gold standard, and not wanting to stone-wall fellow editors, I said some added context would be welcomed, at least by me. The discussion was about a better title for the Gold standard and gold ring section, and a section for Black Friday, a major event that rocked the nation's market and a subject unto itself, covered well by Grant biographers and others. And yes, this is Wikipedia. When there are new things to add, we add them, and no, not "every time". Also, I really wish you come to terms with the idea that a FA is not forever set in stone. Do you really expect this article to be the same 2, 5 and 10 years from now? Hopefully, it will have improved with age. There is 'always' room for improvement, and that is all anyone wants to do. As for good faith, this idea is abandoned when someone assumes that any change from the FA review version made by contributing (or any) editor is going to be less than good for the article. There have been a good number of improvements since the FA review. There are no problems here other than any that may have been perceived. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

ASW, please read what I have written. I was referring to the good feelings (at least mine) when you asked for article doctors for the Black Friday article. I did not even imply that this was an invitation to "rewrite this article". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the financial situation is covered in two sections already in Grant's first and second terms. I think there is room for expansion without having to create another section. As far as I know not one of financial acts of Congress mentions gold standard specifically. Practically speaking there was a gold standard deflationary policy. This may have exacerbated the deppression after the Panic of 1873. The currency situation is confusing because apparently back then there fractional paper money. I don't think the modern reader can understand this. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally agree. The chronological sections' format is good and we really cannot answer all their questions about currency (greenbacks is a gold standard issue) - whereas, we can flag the issue, and offer brief discussion (At one time we had a link to hard money is the section, but in the changes it was lost, should it be returned?) - you are right, gold and what humans have done with it is quite mysterious, if I remember anything about this book: [3] Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As all should know by now, not only does FA and more importantly good writing, value concision, FA also values stability and summary style - So, yes, Wikipedia, wants concision, stability, and summary style. The corollary of 'everything can be improved' is 'everything can be unimproved' (the iron law of entropy). This article was already improved to a high degree, as determined by Wikipedia, so yes the risk now is more going down hill than up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Conjecture. Good writing above all values good coverage and good writing, but in summary style. This means we're not writing a book on the one hand, however, we're not merely piecing together a chronological outline with truncated prose and the least amount of information possible. Clinging to the poorly conducted FA review of some two+ years ago by reviewers obviously ignorant of Grant, even with some of the basics, like inaugurations, as an excuse to justify oversights, other missing information and the blocking of simple and needed improvements has gone on for some time now, with some exceptions. Coemgenus and Cm' at least have endorsed or proposed some improvements. It's also not supposed to be used as a fall back excuse to block improvements when an editor fails to defend a position rationally. None of the proposals Cm' or myself have proposed involve major additions of content, or an overhaul of the TOC . If anything is making the article unstable, it's these long drawn out debates that routinely ignore reasonable proposals, the reverting (1, 2) of simple needed improvements and the apparent Article ownership tendencies as evidenced by, demanding that simple contributions be discussed, and then ignoring them when they do, while accusing editors of trying to "rewrite the article" and for taking the article "downhill". Abandoning good faith hasn't helped either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your pronouncements against the FAR are silly (and worse seem grossly ignorant and disrespectful of the people involved) and are rejected over and over, again -- so don't be surprised when such nonsense is rejected again. Your implication that I have not endorsed some changes is plainly false and tendentious. We will continue to argue against these non-improvements, especially since rarely is a cogent case made for them, other than they happened and expansion is stupidly wanted - and likely make less good a good article. As for ignorance of Grant, you seem oblivious that we have a whole article just on his presidency, alone - and your repeated implied claims that you are an expert on Grant are not only useless, they are absurd. Grant died 130-some years ago, repeatedly finding a new something to add to (or change about) his good encyclopedia biography is not the mark of expertise. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I had added a neutral primary source the Credit Act of 1868 but that was deleted from the article. The article contends there was a gold standard, but in reality fractional paper money was printed up until 1876. The only really attempt at a gold standard was the Coinage Act of 1873, that removed the silver dollar from circulation. But then again paper money and silver coins were continued to be printed and minted. None of this is mentioned in the article. Adding this information would be helpful to the reader, unfamiliar to silver and gold coinage. This country has not had silver coinage since 1964. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the article introduces gold standard in relation to the Public Credit Act because sources discuss the act's relation to gold (including White) and the gold standard (Federal Reserve article) - I think we all know by now the currency standard was a continuing issue of the day, and it centered on gold, and paying off debt using gold as the standard for debt - especially for Grant and the Republicans (as for the primary source - you have a discussion below about it and basically conclude that White (the secondary source) was correct in substance (and we do generally go secondary - I don't have strong opinion against the bill as source, but then again it is linked (or should be from the Public Credit Act article) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Cm' your proposals sound reasonable and would add improvent to the article. If the financial acts of Congress don't mention gold standard specifically then this needs to be looked into and clarified in the narrative. A few sentences to this effect would be welcomed by the intelligent reader. If there was a gold standard deflationary policy, brief comment and clarity in this area would be called for. If this policy helped to bring on the Panic of 1873 as you suggest then we should make the connection in the narrative there also, sources permitting. You have made more than a passing effort to explain these things, so just go ahead and add what you think is necessary. If it's not long winded, has no errors or poorly source and violates no policy there will be no call to scrap your efforts by any editor who may want the article fossilized in its present state for all time. There is no policy that says a FA cannot improve. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• ASW, no "disrespect" to any editor was meant, only criticism. There is a difference. The reviewers were not familiar with Grant and missed a number of (basic) things in the narrative, as pointed out to you more than once now. Again no editor, or reviewer, is above criticism. The FA and GA review process is far from perfect, varies considerably from review to review, and is in need of reform. My reservations about the review process are shared by many others. If indeed you have endorsed some changes, I can't remember when. This notion of "expansion" is just as unfounded as the notion that someone wants to "rewrite the article". Once again, no one is proposing "expansion" other than maybe a sentence of clarity, here and there, as Cm and myself would like to do. No recent edit or proposal far exceeds the one that you made not long ago. A good addition! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Have we not made clear your criticism is poor (often based on misunderstanding or undue emphasis, when it is not just wrong) and it is quite false that the people involved in the review were ignorant of Grant -- I was involved in responding as was more so Coemgenus, and they were not ignorant, at all. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Focus was not aimed at the narrative during the review, so no one blames Coemgenus or you for addressing the many things that were tossed your way. Reviewers typically approach the article academically, sometimes robotically, and rarely look into the narrative, and with good reason. They are, too often, not nearly familiar with the subject. This is a just criticism, shared by others. All we are doing now is filling in the gaps that were overlooked and making other minor adjustments. No "rewriting", and radical TOC changes. Again, you have made additions and no one gave you the routine you are giving us now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I do recall focus on the narrative - the narrative tells the life, and no they did not seem like robots. The claimed "gaps" are just a figment -- if there were gaps, everyone involved in that review would have made sure it failed. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, your description of the FA is not really accurate. I've written or co-written twenty-two of them, and I can tell you that no one there reviews things robotically. They may, I admit, have standards that you disagree with, but the solution to that is not it change a featured article so that it no longer meets those standards, but to challenge the standards themselves in the proper forum. People do that all the time! Nothing is set in stone. But to degrade an article against consensus to meet idiosyncratic standards of your own isn't going to meet with many editors' approval. Not mine, certainly.

Part of Alan's point, if I'm saying this right, is that a featured article is already among the top 0.1% of all wiki articles in terms of quality. That doesn't mean it can't be improved--far from it. But it does mean that each change is more likely to make the article worse than it is to make it better. With an article like Black Friday (1869), on the other hand, which was in terrible shape until recently, there is so much room for improvement that even edits that aren't the best possible wording or sourcing will still be likely to make the article better. So why do we waste time banging heads here when there is so much more to be done? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

edit-break

Okay. 'Robotically' (I did say sometimes) is perhaps an overstatement, but the attention given to narratives too often is merely aimed at length, grammar, etc. In any case, all anyone is asking is to make a few improvements in the same capacity that ASW has done recently. You even approved of one. All I am proposing is mentioning 'national debt' in the title for the Gold standard section and mentioning the Coinage act in that section, which established the gold standard -- while giving the Black Friday paragraph, a major national event, its own subsection. A final section. While it involved gold, it's a separate topic. Cm' wants to add a few points of clarity also. Open to suggestions along these lines. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you not hear Coemgenus when they argued against a new section days ago, and or me when I argued against the other reorgs - so let's move on from that, not repeat it over and over. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've made a reasonable appeal to Coemgenus and all you've done is categorically and habitually object to anything we put on the table with vague accusations of trying to rewrite the entire article. You have yet to 'explain' why these changes are not good, while you ignore the contribution you made, without discussion, just recently. We could have moved on long ago had you not reverted my edit, after first only moving it, and allowed me to make the same sort of contribution you made. A minor improvement. You brought this on by demanding from me what no one demanded of you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I still think one-paragraph sections are bad: they crowd the table of contents and make the narrative more disjointed. So I disagree as to that change. The Coinage Act is already mentioned in the "Panic of 1873 and loss of Congress", where it belongs, chronologically (it's been there since at least 2013). I'd suggest it should stay there, especially since it relates closely to the political reaction to the Panic that coincided with it (whether this connection is justified or not, they were connected in the voters' minds.) Cmguy's points of clarity, I'd be happy to address one by one but, frankly, he doesn't really understand the financial issues involved in the fight over resumption, bimetallism, and the rest. It's a complicated subject, and tinkering with the wording is very likely to mislead the reader if not done very precisely. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Coemgenus, there are already two sections that contain only one, similar sized, paragraph. i.e. Early life and Pacific west and resignation, and these are not for major events as was Black Friday. Paragraph sized (sub)sections are not uncommon for an encyclopedia. I don't think one more subsection for this national event will significantly impact the TOC in terms of length. If the concern is for TOC length, the Bibliography has four subsections, one for each of the four categories of sources. We could simply make 'dummy' subsection titles in bold that won't show up in the TOC. This is done in the Thomas Jefferson#Bibliography Four subsections for a bibliography isn't needed. A reader can easily jump to the Bibliography from the TOC and readily see all the sources available. It will shorten the TOC by four places.
• Coinage act: The Act establishing the gold standard by itself isn't what created the Panic in '73. The Coinage act article doesn't claim the act is what started the panic either. There were a number of events that lead to the panic, including the collapse of Jay Cooke's financial empire. He couldn't sell off all his Erie RR bonds, and this had a domino effect on Wall Street. I am not entirely familiar in this area, but we all know the Coinage act established the gold standard, which was conceived and debated during Grant's first term. It simply took effect in '73. If anything, we could leave the account as is in the Panic of '73 section and at least mention that the Coinage Act established the gold standard, in the gold standard section, which would be practical. A topic can come up in different sections for any number of reasons. I don't mind looking into the Coinage act in relation to the Panic of '73 a bit further, but feel sort of strongly that we should have Black Friday in its own subsection. It was a major event during Grant's presidency. In any event thanks for taking the time here and bringing the tone of the discussion down a few notches. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Coemgenus. There is no reason to make that scandal anymore prominent in this article as it would unblance with undue weight. We have several sections with 'important this and important that' and should also not be lengthening and disjointing the article by such means. Similarly, we should also not discuss '73 twice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus...Please let me speak for myself. I understand that the article section needs clarity. I am viewing Grant from an historical perspective, not writing a financial thesis or book. I have had some business classes at Sacramento State including Finance. I don't claim to understand everything about finances, apparently you do, but I don't want to turn this into a political debate. There is no need for personal attacks. What needs to be addressed is 1. The Treasury Department continued to print paper money, but disbanded fractional money in 1876. 2. Silver coins continued to be minted, except for the Silver Dollar, that ended in 1873. 3.The lack of the silver dollar exacerbated the Panic of 1873. The reader of this article might conclude that gold coins were the only option available for money. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Cm', you're putting a lot of albeit interesting information on the table here. If you can briefly summarize this material and connect it, appropriately, in the narrative, it shouldn't cause issues. Most, if not all of us, want context, clarity and some depth of knowledge, in practical proportions, for the biography, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping for other editors for their input. Also, what's the point of making additions or adding sources if only to be deleted, ridiculed, or mocked. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I gave you my input. I always welcome information that brings clarity to the readers, so long as we don't venture out into left field, not that you have. I like to believe that the readers who come to Wikipedia for information about history have above average intelligence and welcome clarity and in depth information. I regret to say, the FA process, sometimes, impedes this effort, before during and sometimes long after the nomination. However I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone has mocked you. We all have criticisms and have our moments of less than ideal behavior. Bear in mind that if we were having these debates sitting around the same table, and putting pen to paper thereupon, the tone and process amongst editors would be markedly different during moments of dispute. If you have clarity to offer, please continue in your effort to present it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cmguy: I am a bit unclear about what you want, they seem to me a bit far afield. But perhaps you can create two cited notes for the note section? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to think whatever we're studying at the time deserves more weight, but the only place that leads is an article even longer and more unwieldy. We've all had favored sections reduced, moved to subarticles, or cut altogether. If we highlight each scandal of the Grant administration in it's own section, half the article will be scandal. It's just undue weight. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Undo weight ? All I am suggesting is more information on the economy such as fractional notes and silver coinage. Since the article says "gold standard", the reader is left to believe that people only used gold coins, the Treasury stopped printing paper money, and silver coins were not minted. All not true. The only exception to this is that the silver dollars were discontinued in 1873, when people needed money the most during the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Weight is always a consideration. However it seems we're always ready to put the 'undue weight' brand on a topic, esp when one is (perhaps over) concerned with page length. Don't recall the last time anyone said that a topic wasn't given enough weight, and needed better coverage. Weight should be determined for a topic with 'the topic' in mind, nothing else. 'After' that, and a proposal is presented, we can look for ways to reduce the prose if it's needlessly long winded, etc. Let's not determine the weight for a topic simply by looking through a page length lens. Let's also remember that during the FA review, page length was mentioned briefly, but it was never held over our heads as a condition for FA approval once it was understood that we were dealing with a very famous figure in American history. A good number of GA and FA articles exceed page length guides lines, because as guidelines say, there are exceptions to consider. Having said that, let's give Cm' a chance and see what proposal he offers. If he can clarify a point with a sentence, and it's well sourced, there would be no need to debate him at length here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cmguy, I think Coemgenus point was addressed to more than to your points, and to the section in general. But if I can address your claim more directly, I have never in my life thought 'gold standard' meant any those things, so, it's hard to see the basis for your claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cmguy, this is what I meant when I said that you don't understand the monetary debates of the 19th century. Never--never--did a gold standard mean people didn't use banknotes. And it never had anything to do with fractional currency, either. The main problem with greenbacks, for hard money advocates, was not that they were paper, but that they were not redeemable in gold. Paper that was redeemable in gold existed and you could go to a bank and get gold dollars for it, or use it to pay customs duties, etc. Silver coin also circulated, as did base metal coins, but their value was based on the gold dollar, not the silver dollar. That's why the price of greenbacks was always well below the price of gold until just before specie resumption. These are the kind of things you need to understand before editing a fairly technical piece of text on the subject. No one is mocking you, but neither can we, for the sake of saving your feelings, sit here and keep mum while incorrect information is added to a featured article. I didn't know these things, either, before I started editing here. I made the effort to learn them. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess, I would add if helps you any Cmguy, with a gold standard silver maybe used, it's just valued in gold (to simplify, you could go to the bank, and get one once of gold or 10 ounces of silver, where the value of silver to gold is 10 to 1, and you could, depending on what is available, get the specie in bars, dust, and/or coins, etc., and if you did not want the specie, because you would get robbed or it was too hard to carry, you could get paper note.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What I understand or don't understand is not the issue. Yes. A gold backed dollar would mean one could take the paper money and get one dollar worth of gold at a bank. In my opinion the section generates more questions then answers. Where did the greenbacks go upon resumption ? Did the banks participate in the resumption process? Where did the Treasury get all its gold from ? Alanscottwalker, that is the information I believe would benefit the section. A common practical use of the "gold standard" the modern day reader can understand. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a note that explains the practical use of the gold standard system would benefit the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Everyone has made some valid points. Cm', to simplify matters, we would need to see the current passage that you feel is not clear enough, and then the same passage with the added clarity you feel it needs. This way we all, including myself, can go from supposition and conjecture to the actual matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My whole issue is that the currency back then for practical purposes no longer exists. People don't understand what a 25 cent paper bill is i.e. fractional currency. People don't understand going to a bank and getting gold or silver equivalent from paper money. Pretty much factional currency ended under Grant. That is signifigant. People today might understand a silver dollar, but really, our coinage is mostly nickel and some copper today. That is the clarification I believe is needed in the section. Alanscottwalker is on the right track. A definition of resumption is needed. Where did the Greenbacks go ? Where they destroyed ? I think a few context sentences that address these issues would be good in the article, for example in a note. It does not have to be in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, once again, this is all very interesting, but most of these things seem to be getting way away from Grant's biography. i.e.His life. If factional money ended during the Grant presidency that would be perhaps appropriate to mention, if tied in appropriately to the narrative, sources permitting. As for getting into the 25-cent paper money, etc, even in a footnote -- that seems a little off for a biography. No objection to mentioning factional money ending under Grant, maybe in a footnote. The Grant bio however is not the place to be explaining the finer points of currency, finance, etc. A good link might help also, again, if placed in the narrative appropriately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Understanding Grant's world will help understanding Grant. The Gold Standard is being presented as a Grant presidential policy. I think a few sentences in a note explaining fractional paper money and the resumption process would help the article. Not making silver dollars created a deflationary supply of money, exacerbating the Panic of 1873. People today don't even use cash, just a plastic card and chip. Everything can be paid online. Its a whole different world. I was trying to make this article more understandable of 19th Century finance to people in the 21st Century. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I can well appreciate that. But remember, there were a lot of things that didn't exist in Grant's time that exist today. e.g.There was no Air-Force One. Instead, there was 'Stage-Coach One'. Well, give the above input some thought. As I said, factional money ending during Grant's term, if it indeed ended then, seems worth a mention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)