Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Sarna 2012 quote

I have read the Sarna article found in Slate (March 13, 2012) The quote is nowhere to be found in the article.

• "the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history" Cmguy777 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

quote early use = Chanes, Jerome A. (2004). Antisemitism: a reference handbook -- Sarna used it in 2012 at this lecture not sure who first said it but Google shows numerous repetitions Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It is the same link or lecture from slate.com. I read through the slate.com article but could not find the quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Shevits (2005) should be used. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I used Smith (2001) to replace Sarna (2012). I simply could not find the quote in Sarna slate.com article. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It's right in the first sentence of http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2012/03/ulysses_s_grant_and_general_orders_no_11_how_the_infamous_order_changed_the_lives_of_jews_in_america_.html "On Dec. 17, 1862, as the Civil War entered its second winter, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history: “The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.”" Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There had been controversy over the use of the word "notorious". Grant was not a gangster. He was trying to clean up smuggling, not participate in it. As far as is known Grant could have profitted from the trade because he controlled the trade. He did not. That gets lost in the narrative. I changed Sarna (2012) to Smith (2001) quote. The Sarna quote is in the slate.com article, but sounds alot like Smith version, so I used the Smith version. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It is back to the Sarna 2012 quote that is very similar to the Smith (2001) quote. I don't like the use of the word "notorious". It makes Grant sound like a criminal gangster. Smith (2001) uses the term "blatant", which I believe is more accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarna was what you guys agreed to use at the time of the mediation. Smith was available to you at that time, but you agreed to use Sarna instead. Changing your mind, without a really convincing reason, is what other editors have referred to as "churn". Good stuff is when you find new sources, such as White (2016) and Chernow (2017) or articles like Miller (2019) and Blakemore (2019), and unobtrusively work them in. Bad stuff is when you play musical chairs with existing citations and existing wordings of the text. Readers of an encyclopedia expect it to say roughly the same thing from week to week. If it doesn't, it loses credibility. Churn bad, stability good. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Some Wikipedia editor does not like that sources use "notorious", someone does not like that sources use the word "antisemitic", someone does not like "blatant", and it goes on and on and is like a joke, or worse seeking to censor reliable sources. There is an alternative to quoting, it is paraphrase, but the problem has been in the past that we then have to use words like the very ones that sources use, which someone already just does not like. I suggested a way to combine Chernow, Smith, Sarna, Miller, above, but the last time we went through mediation on this it just became clear I think to the mediator that all we could agree on was a quote. We settled with Sarna, but either leave it alone or get a consensus on a way to say the same thing in paraphrase based on using the 9 or 10 and more historian sources that all basically say the same thing as Sarna about the order and American history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers mentioned the term "notorious". I liked Sarna because he used the term "anti-Jewish". But on further comparison, Sarna is really saying what Smith (2001) said, the only difference is that Smith used the term "anti-Semitism". So I am for giving Smith (2001) credit. I think Smith (2001) said it better by using the term "blatant" over "notorious". We don't want to make Grant look like a ganster type. Grant was reforming the smuggling policy that Lincoln created. Cotton prices sored turning good people into profiteers. I think Gwillhickers found Miller (2019). I think Smith (2001) is more neutral than Sarna. A combination of sources could work, but there needs to be effort on making the sentence. A proposed sentence would help. Here is a start: Historians generally believe Grant was prejudiced against Jewish people at that time he issued the order. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Above, I used the phrase, "... without a really convincing reason ...". I am not "really convinced" that there is anything wrong with the word "notorious" here. No, it does not remind me of gangsters. That's not just my opinion, it lines up with what Sarna and Chernow evidently concluded.

It's OK for you to think that Smith said it better. It's also OK for me to think that perhaps we don't need a quote here at all. But it's not OK for either of us to simulate Brownian motion with this very important article. I confess that I sinned against this doctrine until recently, but reading the mediation has converted me to the one true faith. Going forward I'll try to set a good example. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Cmguy: What? It is hard to believe you think that is a paraphrase of the quotes,* as inexplicable as you not being able to read the source above, although perhaps the two are connected.

What is important about what each of the many historians say in these similar quotes (see below) is 'Official Act . . . most . . . anti-Jewish . . . in American History' . After discussing this for five years, it should not be possible that you do not know the difference between saying what is in Grant's head, and what Grant's ORDER ITSELF IS and the historical assessment by historians of the Order are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Grant issued the most notorious anti-Jewish official order in American history." (Sarna, 2012)
• "The Civil War was the context for the most egregious act of official anti-Semitism in US history." (Shevitz, 2005);
• "This order, the infamous General Orders No. 11, is unique in the history of the United States: it is the one official overtly anti-Jewish decree in the American experience." (Chanes, 2004)
• ". . . Grant issued an order . . . one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history" (Smith, 2001)
• "Grant's order was the severest attempted official violation-civil or military, federal, state or local--of the rights of Jews in the history of this nation." (Jaher, 1994)
• "the most sweeping anti-Jewish regulation in American history" Miller (2019), who relies on Korn (1951)
• "It was the most sweeping anti-Semitic action undertaken in American history" (Chernow 2017)

As far as Sarna's quote, it was mixed in with a direct quote from Grant's actual General Orders No. 11. So in essense to do a full Sarna quote you would have to add Grant's full order to the narration. I offered a good sentence. You AlanScottWalker can offer a sentence, but so far, all you do is complain against me. Please stop. Instead of complaining about what I edit in the talk page, why not offer your own paraphrase sentence ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

False. I did offer a paraphrase of these quotes in the prior section where this was discussed above. Not only that but we were not talking about just Sarna, we were talking about Smith and Sarna, and then Smith, Sarna, Chernow, Miller etc. , so you are clearly not paying attention or being deliberately false. Sarna's fuller quote above at the beginning of this section does NOT even begin to talk about what's in Grant's head, it says what Grant's order is and his order's historic nature. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Where is this paraphrased sentence you offered up ? I asked for a paraphrase sentence. This is a summary article. It is not a book. Can you paraphrase in one sentence ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

[1] Do you do such poor discussion deliberately by not reading the comments that people write which you nonetheless find the poor ability to respond to. And, no one said the article was a book. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about a one sentence summary for the article, not the talk page. I said nothing false. Can you give a paraphrased sentence for the article that summarizes all the sources mentioned in this talk section. I had given a one sentence summary above that you complained about. You are supposed to be the better editor. Where is the paraphrased sentence for the article ? Otherwise, let's drop the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I already gave it.That you do not or or refuse to read is increasingly a problem, first with the Sarna article, now with me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You gave a link, not a sentence. I have read the link. In the link you said something about what Chernow said and other sources with a page number. This talk is going nowhere. Let's drop the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you even reading. I gave the link to the comment which has the proposed article sentence[2] because you were false. The proposed article sentence is right there after the colon. The comment even lists the sources and the very position in the article for the proposed article sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop this. You have not posted the summary sentence to this talk page. You gave me a link to line 266. After the semi-colon. I said nothing false. This talk is going nowhere. For the second time. Let's drop the subject. There is no need to keep responding. Stop. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

False again, it's right there in [3], right after the colon, which is on this talk page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The proper thing for you to do here, Cmguy777, is to say something to the effect of, "Whoops! Don't know how I missed that line in the Slate article. My bad; sorry for the wasted discussion. I'm dropping this now." YoPienso (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

YoPienso. I have been trying to drop the discussion for sometime now. Please let this discussion end. I did make a mistake on the Sarna quote. I don't have to admit fault or say I am sorry. Please let this talk stop. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to, but it would be more pleasant of you than ordering Alan to stop and criticizing him for imaginary faults. Thank you for admitting you made a mistake! That helps clear the air. YoPienso (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This must be the sentence: Historians have assessed the order as the most anti-Jewish official act in American history. Not here to rehash old issues, but I did find the paraphrase sentence. Alanscottwalker is correct. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Vicksburg

Cmguy777, I reduced the narration about slaves you just added to the Vicksburg campaign section, there was simply too much coverage about slaves fleeing the south, their employment in the north, etc. I left the major details you added, however. Also, Miller, p. 207 didn't use the term "conservative whites – he refers to Lincoln and the "Illinois political leaders" worried about how the great influx of slaves would effect the election. This also, is tangential to the Vicksburg campaign, but was left in place. It still could be argued that there is too much to do about slaves fleeing to Illinois for the Vicksburg campaign section. Recommend more trimming. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Were the Illinois political leaders black ? I am paraphrasing Miller. I don't want to copy and paste. This is the 19th Century. Unless the author says the Illinois leaders were black, or some other race, one must assume the Illinois leaders were conservative white males. Women could not hold office. Only white males could hold office. The slaves were fleeing to Grant's military district. Grant was sending them to Illinios to be sent to Chicago and work as domestic servants. Illinois leaders, white males, objected. Linclon agreed and stopped Grant's policy of integration. Grant had to figure things out on his own. Lincoln offered no leadership and Lincoln's cotton policy was ripe with corruption. I added the context of Grant helping blacks to make the article more neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Conservative" is your assumption. It's also understood that politicians in the United States were white, just as the Japanese or Chinese are in their respective governments. You seemed determined to make some sort of socio-political statement, typically. Best to say what the sources say, esp since it involved Lincoln and Illinois politicians. We don't want to gloss that over completely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to cut and paste from the sources. The white politicians did not want blacks to integrate into Chicago. That is what I called conservative. Just as conservative white politicians, including Sumner, who did not want to integrate blacks of Santo Domingo. Why else would blacks be forbidden to be relocated North ? Grant wanted to integrate blacks. I am editing from Grant's perspective not Illinois politicians. In this section he is also labeled anti-Semitic. I was only offering neutral information to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A tribute to William S. McFeely

To all who may be concerned. William McFeely passed away last month on December 11th, at age 89. His biography of Grant won the Pulitzer Prize and has provided the Wikipedia Grant article with much and valuable information. He will be missed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• In Memoriam: Dr. William S. McFeely (1930–2019)
• William McFeely Obituary

Native American policy

Regarding "turmoil" vs. "chaos", and "calamity" -- I have to agree with you that it was a bad situation. I have to do some more reading here; unfortunately White is not very strong on the Indian policy -- he doesn't cover anything after about 1870. So I am not ready to really try to improve this. In the mean time I noticed that where White said "turmoil", we were saying "chaos", which is not nearly the same thing. If you think leaving "chaos" there is a better temporary patch than not using any term at all, OK. But ultimately, I would like to use language that actually describes what the problems were. Catchy one-word summaries only go so far.

I also have my sights on the sentence where we say that in his second term his Indian policy "fell apart". In the rest of the section, we describe some important events, but we aren't describing things falling apart, or explaining what exactly we mean by "fell apart".

I also would like to fix the sentence in the lead paragraphs, "Grant's Native American policy had both successes and failures." This is about as empty as a sentence can be and still be grammatical. But in order to replace it, I have to do some more reading. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

In the context that there were several hundred Indian treaties in place when Grant assumed Office, it would seem "turmoil" or "chaos" describes the situation in either event, regardless of any differences 'Webster' may present about the two terms. "Fell apart"? With the hanging of Kintpuash, after a failed peace conference and the relocation of the Modoc tribe, we are explaining, with a definitive example, why relations fell apart. As for the lede, it would seem the existing summary statement, i.e."...successes and failures." seems to be a sufficient phrase, further explained in the body of text. However, I'm open to any improvements in any of these cases you can bring to the table, per sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Howland

Several problems here:

• Howland is a primary source, not secondary. He is not writing with anything like a detached or neutral POV.
• Nothing about Howland in the Bibliography.
• The "pp. 123-4" doesn't show up.
• I don't see anything on pp. 123-4 supporting the text you added, i.e. nothing about "not providing intelligence on their fellow soldiers".

It would be rude for me to rip this all out, but I would encourage you to start from scratch. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC) It would be rude for me to rip this all out, but I would encourage you to start from scratch. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your reserve is most appreciated. Primary sources are allowed so long as we are not trying to reinvent the wheel, per OR. Also, it's really your opinion that Howland is writing with a POV to speak of. What in particular has you believing this? Also, a POV does not automatically mean what is said is not true. Can you cite a specific clause(s) that substantiates your contention? I'll strike the clause about Union soldiers not providing intelligence to the Confederates about Grant and their fellow soldiers, as this is not explicitly spelled out. However, the complaints mostly involved Jewish speculators who had no particular allegiance to the Union. This is not to say there were no Jews who didn't love the country. Aside from the speculators, most did and were greatful of the the freedoms afforded by the Union, regardless of any prejudice that was inherent amongst many peoples towards different cultures and religions. i.e.The human condition. Lincoln and many others, including Grant, were sympathetic. let's keep an overall perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you have removed that clause, I will calm down a little. I'm reading WP:PRIMARY, which is, of course, part of WP:NOR. It looks to me like there are pretty severe limitations on what you can back up with a primary source ("only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person ..."). Since that source is no longer backing up anything problematic, you're not crossing any lines at this point, I guess.

The acronym "POV" popped into my head as soon as I read the word "our" in Howland's text. The fact that he was in Grant's army doesn't mean he has any specific problems; in fact, Grant's own memoirs are highly regarded (and I have read them through several times). But it means that, whenever any serious questions arise about what really happened or why it happened, we have to get a second opinion; we can never trust a primary source to not be self-serving, or even to remember things correctly.

Evidently Miller, Chernow, et al. have put together their work from gazillions of primary sources. That's their job. They spent hours, days, months, deciding which primary sources were most likely correct about what. We don't have time for that kind of labor; we have to rely on them. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally agree. However, no source, primary or secondary, can be blindly trusted. There's much to be said of the older and primary sources. They didn't have everyone looking over their shoulders with stigmatized views perpetuated by much of the media who is too often trying to please all the people all of the time. You should know also that there are a fair number of publishers who won't publish your work if it doesn't comply with their POV. I'm noticing how Chernow, who I generally respect, speaks with, all the many things considered, sort of an escape clause in his "anti-semtic" estimation of matters, per his New York publishers. What a world. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that Grant's order will be looked through 21st and 20th century perspectives, especially the Holocaust and Nazi Germany. A minority of Jewish people were involved in speculating. A majority of non Jewish people were involved in speculating. Grant wanted to stop smuggling, so that makes Grant a reformer of Lincoln's liberal cotton policy. Good people were tempted into speculating in cotton. Grant did not speculate. He could have become super rich making money selling trade permits. He did not. That is getting lost in the historical background. There were Jewish Confederates, civilians and soldiers, just as there were non-Jewish Confederates and civilians. Grant was in enemy territory. Grant did not believed civilians were sincere in their loyalty to the Union. This counters the idea that Grant was a trusting individual. The order seemed to be triggered by Grant's father Jesse, and Jesse's partnership with a Cincinnatti Jewish tradership, the Mack Brothers. The order was directed at Jewish traders and Jewish people as a class. Grant escaped censorship and Lincoln kept him in command, the order was overturned, while is lasted about a month. FDR's order 9066 lasted from 1942 to 1946 and was upheld by the Supreme Court. Is FDR's order labeled the most anti-Japanese order in American history ? These are just my opinions intended to help the talk page discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Grant was a trusting man overall, but when it came to the "civilians" pursuing the cotton trade that was a bit different. Yes, after WWii anti-semitism concerns were heightened and justifiably so, however, this sometimes spills over into any criticism brought to the Jews in modern times, as it often was for Grant. There were a lot of officers and no doubt soldiers trying to get a piece of the action, but it's safe to say they were not wandering over to the confederates and providing aid and intelligence to be used against their fellow soldiers. The "piles" of reports Miller p.259 refers to involved complaints about Jews trading in gold, and no doubt their individual numbers were not as great as all the small time operators. Hence Chernow's out of context statement that most of the traders were not Jewish. Whatever the comparative numbers were, there was great concern about the nature of the trading, and in what capacity the Jewish speculators were operating, the likes of which revealed itself when the Mack brothers showed up, with Grant's father, asking Grant himself for permits. Again, it's no wonder why Grant just directed them all to leave. To simply blame this on blind prejudice is just too easy, (not that you have) and is actually a form of prejudice in itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't personally defend Grant's decision to expell Jewish people, but we should approach this from Grant's perspective. Yes. 20th 21st century anti-semitism today is justifiably heightened, but could be directed at Grant. He was trying to reform or stop the smuggling policy. He was honest. Something in him thought of trading with the Confederate enemy was repugnant. He was not part of the graft. He did not trust civilian loyalty during a war. He was in enemy territory being attacked by guerrilla warfare. That is understandable. He was not censured. His order was overturned. Jewish people returned to their homes. Did Grant know who the enemy was ? Civilians did not wear grey. That could explain why he said "as a class". The other option is he viewed all traders as Jewish people. We don't know. FDR's order 9066 is not labeled the greatest anti-Japanese order in U.S. history. In fact, historians may even defend FDR, even though he used false information to justify imprisoning Japanese civilians. As far as is known not one Jewish person was imprisoned. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FDR faced the same urgent situation as did Grant, and in the midst of war simply acted in a sweeping no-nonsense manner. i.e.No time to chase after individuals and question or interrogate them. There was no way to tell the difference between operators, spies (who could have been masquerading as cotton speculators), etc. I agree, we should look at the situation through the eyes of Grant, and given his situation and the course of events that led to the issuance of the Order, while engaged in one of the most important key campaigns of the war, it's difficult, at least for me, to criticize him. In light of the fair number of "notorious" and "blatant" references to "anti-semitism" in Grant's case, esp on the internet, it seems these discussions are called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

I agree. For some reason FDR gets virtually a free pass by historians, but Grant gets heavily criticized. Maybe I am exgerating a little, but it seems that way. FDR's order 9066 was upheld by the Supreme Court. Grant is treated like a criminal or that he committed a hate crime. Really, no crime was committed by Grant's order. Grant was trying to clean up the corruption of the cotton trade. True many historian label Grant's order anti-Semitism, and we are suppose to go by the sources. But FDR's legal order to imprison Japanese throughout WWII is not labeled notorious, or blatant, or anti-Japanese. There were no internment camps under Grant. FDR's order was much more invasive of Japanese civil rights too, not to undermine the suffering of some Jewish families during the order. And most importantly, it was overturned by Lincoln. Since FDR is not labeled anti-Japanese Grant should not be labeled anti-Jewish. FDR is not labeled anti-Jewish, even though he turned away Jewish refugees believing them to be Nazi spies. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, not to venture off into other areas on the Grant Talk page, but FDR received his fair share of criticism, but not so much during and immediately following WWii. Like with Grant, also a war hero, much of FDR's criticism came later. Esp in the 60's when the counter-culture movement was more or less fashionable, comparing the Japanese iternment camps with nazi death camps. As I've always maintained, most activists and the press will take a little bit of truth, and pile on their twisted conjecture to give weight and attention to an issue it would otherwise never receive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current narration makes Grant out to be a racist war criminal. As far as I know, Grant's order was neither illegal nor unconstitutional. FDR in the FDR article does not get such treatment. Why should Grant's article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The section covers events preceding the Order, and Grant's fears of aiding the enemy with gold and military intelligence, and the appearance of Grant's father with the Mack brothers, which prompted the issuance of the Order where Jewish speculators were finally told to leave. Plenty of context. "Racist war criminal"? What else would you add? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not what I would add. What I would remove. Grant being labeled anti-Semitic or his order was blatant anti-Semitism should be removed or put in a note. It is making Grant look like a war criminal or that his order is illegal. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that in order to use over-the-top language like "racist war criminal", you had better be prepared to cite chapter and verse. Exactly what sentence(s) or phrase(s) do you have in mind? I am having a hard time taking seriously your claim that in this section, which you yourself have worked on, and which went through mediation in 2015, you suddenly see "racist war criminal". Bruce leverett (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully. I am only expressing my opinions in the talk page. Since Grant is charged with anti-Semitism in the article, is Grant assumed guilty of a war crime by his General Orders No. 11 in 1862 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that the standard of behavior on the talk page is a bit looser than in the article itself, and when you have argued at length with Gwill about Grant's character or Grant vs. FDR or whatever, I have refrained from getting involved. But when you refer to this article itself, I have to respect your opinion, and I have to ask that you be a little careful with your wording.

As I am looking at the article now (Jan. 6, about 10AM EDT), we aren't using the term "anti-Semitism", for whatever that's worth. So I can't immediately identify which sentence or sentences you have in mind. I could guess, but the correct thing to do would be to let you point them out to me.

We have used "anti-Semitism" in the recent past. But "war crime" and "war criminal" have very specific meanings. People have been tried and executed for war crimes. I don't know if the term "war crime" was already in use in the mid-nineteenth century, but there was undoubtedly a code of conduct for soldiers, and Grant undoubtedly learned it, and as a general, he must have known his actions would be judged by that code of conduct; and when Lincoln told him to revoke GO11, that was essentially a rap on the knuckles for a violation. Do you think GO11 rises to the level of what we would call today a war crime? Our sources seem to agree that Grant had some level of anti-Jewish prejudice. But saying that he committed a war crime is another matter. If you think we're implying that, it's a potential problem. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am talking about the article narration. Saying Grant's order was notorious and anti-Jewish in the article narration, in essense, connects him to a war crime. Did Grant commit a war crime ? Did Grant violate a military code of conduct ? Or was he fighting a war ? There is a double standard of historial treatment between FDR 9066 order and Grant's General Orders No. 11. Grant's order was overturned by Lincoln, a President who offered Grant no leadership with how to handled freed blacks, and who allowed a corrupt cotton trade. I think Grant was fighting a war and he did what he believed would win the war just like FDR did. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not here to argue. Just stating an opinion. I don't believe the article is written as neutral as could be and may need some improvement. We can move on to other things. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we are not here to argue philosophy or semantics; we are just here to work on the article.

Neither the article, nor any of our sources, uses the phrase "war crime". That is why I jumped out of my skin when you used that phrase. But if you are not planning to put that phrase in the article, then so far so good.

The article does use the phrase "notorious anti-Jewish". We are quoting this directly from one of our sources. 'Way back in 2015, you guys went through mediation, and the outcome was, you ended up with (among other things) this quotation. I don't think that the mediated text was necessarily perfect, or even all that great. But I'm willing to live with it, and I understand that if this quotation was anywhere near to describing Grant as a "war criminal", you guys wouldn't have agreed to it. So I think you're selling yourself short here. I'm glad to say that. If you come back to some text that you wrote 5 years ago and it doesn't look so wonderful any more, join the club. But the same 4 people are still working on the same article, plus me, and no doubt other lurkers, so fixing this paragraph is going to be like herding cats. So yeah, let's move on to other things. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Next to the "notorious" quote, which is okay in a footnote, since a RS mentions this, we should also mention that only about 100 Jewish people were expelled from the War District. This comes from Jewish Historian Jonathan Sarna. This will let the intelligent and objective readers know just how "notorious" the Order was, given the facts and circumstances that led up to the Order. As for "war crimes", yes, this is ridiculous. The Order wasn't a crime, much less a war crime. It's bad enough some sources try to appease their publishers and other interests with terms like "blatant", "notorious", "exodus", etc. Let's not do it here and maintain objectivity and honesty. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's so important that "only" 100 people were expelled. That is undoubtedly because the Order was rescinded before it could do much damage. If it had stayed in effect longer, it would have done more damage. As for how "notorious" it was, well, it apparently hit all the major newspapers at the time -- is that notorious enough?

As I have said before, and so have you, it's still important not to violate the spirit of the mediation. This includes adding a sentence here, a sentence there, to make further excuses for Grant's Order. This applies to you as well as to Cmguy777. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no controlling editors. This is not a magazine or a book publishing company. Wikipedia should not put Ulysses S. Grant on trial for General Orders No. 11, especially in light of FDR's 9066, was found constitutional by the Supreme Court. That order was in effect from 1942 to 1946, 120,000 Japanese were rounded up and put in internment camps. Is 9066 labeled notorious ? The FDR article does not say 9066 was notorious or anti-Japanese. Historians are entilted to their opinions, but Grant has a history of historians making him out to be a drunk and his administration is labeled corrupt. Grant now is charged with anti-Semitism or that his order was anti-Jewish. This is what is missing. Grant controlled all the trade permits in his district. He could have made millions on the graft of the Cotton trade. Traders could have given Grant a percentage of profits. In that sense Grant was a reformer. He did not take a dime of profits. He kicked his own father out of the camp who was trying to make a buck. While president he is known for advocating civil rights for all. GON11 is like a ball and chain around Grant's ankle and gives historians something else to negatively portray him. Wikipedia needs to be impartial. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Bruce, The Order was in effect for roughly two weeks, and only some 100 Jews were directed to leave. This is hardly "notorious", or an "exodus". Still, such sentiment can work in a footnote because a RS says this. Historical estimation, such that it is, can't be cherry picked. Miller says no one knows for sure. Smith, says "notorious". No one is making excuses for Grant's order, because in his view, he didn't need an excuse. Even when interviewed in 1868 by various Jews after the war, he maintained his position, that the ends justified the means, and clarified that he had no particular animosity towards any race or religion. He backed up his words by appointing Jews in an unprecedented manner, while he was president. It's unfortunate that Grant had to deal with public pressure over hurt feelings while he was busy fighting a war and watching his men die all around him. Makes you wonder where the various priorities lied. I'm sure the press was giving the Confederates a big moral boost by their attempts to excoriate Grant in the public eye while he was trying to take Vicksburg.
• Cmguy777, Appreciate your words also. However, Grant was and remains on trial to this day, which is why we need to include the important facts, while not sweeping any details we may not like under the rug. The section perhaps is not perfect, but between the lot of us, we've done a fair job, and is a section I can live with. I am still open to any improvements, so long as we're not dumping another paragraph into the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

All I want is Grant to be treated equally with FDR by historians concerning GON11 and EO9066. These Photos Show the Harsh Reality of Life in WWII Japanese-American Internment Camps Madison Horne May 1, 2019 The FDR article does not call this "notorious". Grant's order was one of evacuation. 9066 was one of internment. No internment camps with GON11. Huge difference. Sienna (2018) Ranked FDR 2 Grant was ranked 24. The current section is a lot better. I respect other editors opinions and input into the article and appreciate their contributions. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarna

Jonathan Sarna, a historian who is himself Jewish, gives an intriguing account (pp.39-41) of Jewish and other speculators who traded in gold when dealing with the south, as the Confederacy had no use for Union script (Greenbacks). Expecting to read a somewhat biased account, he surprisingly covers how many immigrant (German) Jewish traders "were no strangers to smuggling and illicit transactions of these sorts." He traces their activity back to 1840-50's Europe, where they were also engaged, and were well adept and connected. Sarna maintains that Jews were most certainly involved in such trading during the Vicksburg campaign, but "Jews as a class" certainly were not, which is obviously true. Grant's reference to Jews as a class pertained to the illicit traders, not the Jewish people and religion, as he made clear in his 1868 interviews while running for president. Imo, Sarna makes Grant's position that much easier to understand. Our section should make clear that Grant's Order was not the product of blind prejudice, and was prompted by events, circumstances and legitimate concerns over gold and military intelligence reaching the Confederacy. I believe we've done this, but again, a few more contextual details wouldn't hurt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's count up how well you've done. In the FA version of the article, the whole paragraph about GO11 was five short sentences, four lines on my screen. A casual reader, who started the article knowing nothing about Grant, would reasonably conclude that this incident was largely forgotten, a minor blemish (if that) on Grant's record. Now, the article is at least 13 sentences. It's considerably longer than the whole text about the victory at Ft. Donelson. A casual reader could not miss this emphasis. He would have to conclude that GO11 was very important incident indeed.

But that isn't all. Most of those 13 sentences are spent justifying what Grant did. Any reader, not just a casual reader, would have to conclude that historians are frantically struggling to apologize for what happened. No such inference could have been made by readers of the FA version of the article. Of the five sentences, only one was devoted to explaining why Grant did what he did. The presumption was that one sentence was sufficient.

So, the paragraph has gone from a matter-of-fact exposition of a little-remembered incident, to a florid discussion that both of you have complained about because it is too hard on Grant. That's all because of steady contributions to it in the last five years. Who was responsible for those contributions?

I wonder if I should propose to toss out what we have, and replace it with the FA version of that paragraph. Would that proposal fly? Of course, it could be tweaked -- the FA version quoted Smith, a more recent author could be used (e.g. White calling the incident a "monumental misstep"). But in any case, it would de-emphasize GO11 in the healthiest possible way. Of course, it would be necessary to get permission from all parties to the mediation. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that in todays society being accused of anti-Semitism either is or could be viewed as a crime. There were Jewish Confederates along with non Jewish Confederate civilians who aided the Confederate army. With the Japanese Americans in WWII no Japanese spies were found. In FDR's case imprisoning 120,000 Japanese people, without trial, is not considered a crime. Also FDR turned away Jewish immigrants fleeing from Nazi Germany believing they were spies. FDR is not called anti-Semitic, nor is he called anti-Japanese. EO9066 was never overturned, but upheld by the supreme court. Historians give FDR a light touch but are heavy with Grant when only 100 people were evacuated from their homes, no one was imprisoned, there were no internment camps, and the order was overturned within weeks. My objection is that Grant is being called an anti-Semite in the article. Here is the other issue. Jewish people had rights. They were allowed to freely complain to Lincoln. One of the Jewish people who was evacuated freely traveled to Washington D.C. Jewish leaders met with Lincoln. They had the New York Times behind them. The Japanese had no representation. Just imprisoned. Sarna and Miller should be put in notes. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I propose that Sarna's indictment of Grant of anti-Semitism or Grant's order was anti-Jewish be removed and replaced by Shevitz assessment that Grant held common Jewish prejudice. That gets rid of the indictment. This section should not be a trial. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Cmguy777 : When striving for neutrality, all sources must be scrutinized, as should the wording in the section, and in effect the section is on trial. In any case, we don't even know if Grant held "common Jewish prejudice". That term too can imply a lot in regards to Grant, not to mention Western society as a whole. As I said a while back, we should just state the facts, i.e.definitive and tangible actions, and let readers decide what sort of judgemental labels they might attach to such actions. We can at least say that some historians have been critical, ie.Smith, 2001, while others are undecided i.e.Miller, 2019, in regards to any prejudice that factored into Grant's decision. Otherwise we could be here for awhile. It's unfortunate that most internet accounts of Grant's Order just use that Order as a platform to discuss the anti-semitism in society overall, with little or nothing to say about what led up to the Order and the pressing situation Grant was faced with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Bruce : I'd strongly recommend not reverting back to the 2015 FA version for a number of reasons, most importantly, that at least three major sources have been published since then. i.e.White, 2016, Chernow, 2017, and Miller, 2019. All incorporated into the section since 2015. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruled that FDR's EO9066 was constitutional and not racial: Justice Black maintained that the internment of Japanese was due to war with Japan, not racism. Wasn't Grant at war with the Confederacy ? He was trying to stop smuggling. He was trying to defeat the Confederate Army militarily and economically. I am not against saying that Grant personally held common prejudice against Jewish people. Sarna is entitled to his opinion of Grant's GON11. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Grant held no animosity towards any religion or race to even mention. Any decisions Grant made were based on the common welfare of his men and his homeland. As was also said before, Grant would have come down with a heavy hammer even if the major operators were Eskimos. Easy math, given Grant, a pragmatic, unpretentious and simple man by all accounts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Blakemore a questionable source

There's a statement made by Blakemore, 2019 that tends to impeach her credibility and objectivity. i.e."In his {Grant's) eyes, the perpetrators were all Jews." This is patently false. Several sources say that Grant feared that the Cotton trade was corrupting his own officers, some of whom were no doubt in a position to grab a big piece of the cotton pie. Further, Blakemore's following statement undermines this idea. i.e."he {Grant) commanded his men to examine the baggage of all speculators, giving “special attention” to Jews. There's little doubt that Grant believed that the main offenders were Jewish, given the numerous reports of major speculators dealing in gold. However, If Grant felt that the culprits were only Jews he wouldn't have ordered that everyone's baggage be inspected. Since Grant is mentioned in the title of her essay, it's a little odd that her main focus in on anti-semitism. Here again, Grant is being used as a poster-boy and as a platform to prop up her account of anti-semitism in the West. Since Blakemore is used only as a supporting citation, I'd recommend getting rid of this questionable internet source. Don't understand why it was introduced in the first place, as she has nothing unique to offer other than a false statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, we need to remove, or not use, indictment phrases such at "anti-Jewish", "anti-Semitism", and "In his eyes, the perpetrators were all Jews." I just think Grant is being put on trial, while FDR, gets a free ride, by historians. This is 1862-1863. Grant was not censured. In light of FDR's EO9066 upheld by the Supreme Court, this article should not indict Grant for GON11 and racism. I believe Blakemore is reliable for detail. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Your (Gwill's) observation is keen, but I would ask that you get a second opinion, i.e. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, if you don't mind. Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the Blakemore source isn't being used, by itself, to support some stand alone, unusual and suspect statement, and is only employed in a supporting capacity, I'm not going to lose any sleep if this source remains in our Bibliography. We should, however, be using well established RS's, when it comes to controversial issues, just as a general practice. In the past I've removed less than notable sources that could be replaced with well established existing sources for no pressing reason, so there's no reason why this source should remain, as some of it's statements don't hold up to objective scrutiny, imo. If we use this source here and there, it opens the door for it to be used to support some of it's questionable assertions. Who is 'Blakemore' in the first place? Won't remove it unless there's a good reason to keep it in terms of citing items in the Vicksburg section where the other established sources are unable to. Fair? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not the person who added the citations of Blakemore, but I have no special problem with Blakemore as a source for the material we are citing it for. But if you can get a confirming second opinion from the Noticeboard, I'll back off. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I put in Blakemore. The source is History.com. I think the source is reliable. To be neutral, in my opinion, historical assessment of GON11 should not be part of the narration. It reads like an indictment against Grant. That is not neutral. Why not just put in what took place and then let readers have their own opinion of Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Again, I can live with Blakemore so long as we're not using any of her false and questionable assertions. As I said, when she claimed that Grant believed that 'all' the speculators were Jewish, not only did she impeach her credibility and objectivity, but it only revealed her to be somewhat ignorant about Grant and more concerned with using him as a scapegoat for her take on anti-semitism. As for Noticeboards, unless we're dealing with someone with subject knowledge, which is highly unlikely, I fear we will get a 'by the book' decision, without much regard for the facts in the matter, so I'll pass on that. We can keep Blakemore if anyone is insisting, but again, she's an unknown and only serves as a 5th wheel to all the established and reputable RS's we already have at our disposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It is quite possible to render an opinion on reliability without extensive prior subject knowledge, and moreover, it would be desirable to get an opinion from someone who hasn't already been embroiled in the arguments on this talk page. I don't think you should be afraid of getting input like that. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Without subject knowledge any opinion about reliability is without basis. Since we are keeping the source, I don't see much point in going to the Noticeboard, nor am I "afraid" of any opinion they have to offer. You are free to go there and ask for their opinion about a source we're going to keep anyway if you feel it will accomplish anything. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Even though we should let the facts speak for themselves we should not ignore historical assessment of Grant. Again, we can include general assessments in a footnote, indicating that some historians have been critical of the wording in Grant's Order (ie.Smith, 2001), while others are undecided (i.e.Miller, 2019), or have no opinion, in regards to any prejudice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is a fine line between historical "assessments" and historical "indictments". When you literally take assessments that Grant's GON11 was "anti-Semitism" or anti-Jewish" that makes him to be a racist, or in essense, a war criminal. Grant was fighting a war and he did what he believed would be best to get victory over the Confederacy. Grant wanted to squeeze the Confederacy economically. Rather Grant is charged with racism by historians FDR was cleared of racism for EO9066 by the Supreme Court. Korematsu v. United States Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Grant's motives are well defined in the section. Even so, we are up against modern day stigmas which largely serve to hype and distort history in the minds of many, esp with the narrow and cherry picked accounts coming from the special interest websites, the media, and activists, some of them ulterior liars and hypocrites, imo. We can only present the facts and give general coverage of historical assessments. Anyone who has taken 2 + 2 and come up with 100, i.e.racism, etc, already has made up their mind. Nothing we can do about their situation but let them go through life in disgruntled ignorance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The reader is not really allowed to think. Just told it was anti-Semitism. Nothing in the FDR article says FDR was a racist against Japanese. Also Grant was under Lincoln, who as President, was in charge of the federal government. Grant at that time was one general fighting a Civil War for the Union. That is what the reader needs to know. Do historians blame Lincoln for his liberal Cotton policy ? No. Sarna and other historians are not a court, but Grant is put on trial and found guilty. Is that neutral or impartial ? No. I rest my case. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No need to refer to FDR to justify being clear in this article – being clear about why events occurred is ample reason enough. Having said that, I'm sure you know that readers do think, at least most of them. The important consideration in that regard is that we give them as many facts as is practical, and again, it seems we've done this. Again, if there is a point or two you'd like to add, it most likely will be welcomed if it's supported by a reputable RS. As for opinions, once again, these would work well in a footnote. I provided a general example above which seems will work. Otoh, people with an entrenched bias will likely never change their view on issues like this. All we can do there is appeal with reason and outline the facts and circumstances that were present in the midst of war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I made changes, hopefully will stick, to the section. I added information that was neutral to Grant. The reader hopefully will understand that Lincoln and Johnson were in charge of the American Civil War, not Grant. I believe the time frame of GON11 was five weeks. FDR's order, EO9066, much more broad and invasive than Grant's GON11, was ruled Constitution by the Supreme Court. I believe that is signifigant. The majority view was that FDR was fighting a war, justified the internment of over 100,000 Japanese, and EO9066 was not racism. I apologize for any hard feelings between myself and other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Raised an eyebrow at this apology, but since you have said it, let me say, I apologize for showing impatience or vexation at other editors. Please take it only as a sign that I am deeply involved (and have an ego the size of a house), not as a sign of disrespect.

Regarding FDR, I realize that it is tempting to compare the internment of Japanese with the actions of GO11. (It's not in every way a good analogy, but we can't help but think of it, right?) But in editing Grant and editing this talk page, we have to remember that readers will not necessarily be thinking of FDR, will not necessarily know anything about FDR or about internment of Japanese during WWII. What we say about Grant has to stand by itself, on its own merits. Even if we feel that historians are treating Grant less favorably than they are treating FDR, we mustn't try to tilt Wikipedia in the other direction to be "fair". At the risk of saying things you already know, of course. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

My apology was unconditional. FDR's 9066 and the internment of over 100,000 Japanese men, women, and children, was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court and was not considered racism. FDR was brought up for comparison purposes only in the talk page, plus the fact, that there was a Supreme Court ruling, that in my opinion, helps shed some light on Grant's GON11. Maybe we should move on to other things in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit history accuracy

Cmguy777, after your last bunch of edits you made a number of edit summaries that were not accurate. In one case, you entered "fixed Sarna quote; neutral wording; fixed Miller quote; neutral wording" where all you did was and the abbreviation of 'Gen.' to Grant's name. The existing quote only included a phrase and was accurate, while there was no Miller quote involved, or any "neutral wording" added. In another case you entered "added Fuller quote; narration fix", where you added a quote from Chernow, not Fuller, while you removed an important quote from Sarna. In other examples, you entered tighten narration several times, but in every case you were removing context. You were concerned about how the section might be presenting Grant as a racist, etc, but were removing several important statements that greatly help to explain Grant's actions. However, the Chernow quote you added was a good step in the right direction, but by itself it wouldn't carry far with much of the context you had removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed duplicate information. The article section says: "Union Army officers were bribed" Then the article section says: "Grant also feared that the corruption of the illicit cotton trade spread to many of his officers". That is the same thing. I don't like saying that Grant feared anything in the article, except maybe Bedford Forrest. I don't want to continue this discussion or do I believe I need to defend my edits. I don't claim to be a perfect editor. Who is ? Let's please move on to other things. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of your edits were okay, and this is not about duplicate information. The edit summary entries in question were not simple oversights, and there were several. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Subsequently

Bruce  As entered in edit history, the exact term subsequently is not used in the sources cited, but nonetheless the first statement supports the following statement. The term Subsequently simply tells us the one situation was the cause of the other. Was there something else we're missing, causing Jewish speculators to not be in the majority? Editors are allowed to make obvious deductions so long as we are not advancing an unlikely or unusual idea. To use a simple analogy, if one source says many apple trees grow on Smith Hill, and another sources says pear trees grow on Smith Hill, while another sources says very few trees on Smith hill are non fruit trees, we can make the obvious deduction and say most of the trees on Smith Hill are fruit trees, even though none of the sources actually say most.  If for some reason this is still an issue for you, we can join the two sentences with the term while. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

What are you suggesting caused what? If the causal point is something about number of Jewish people, the obvious and logical cause would be that there were so few Jewish people. In his section on GO11, if memory serves, White talks about how few Jewish people there were in the United States even with an uptick of immigration in the 1850s, so few that they had not been the target of nativists like Catholics were but that anti-Jewish sentiment was rising. And I don't know of anything that says all the Jewish people would be in the Mississippi valley, which even if they were would still be a tiny group in comparison to the something like 99% of the people who were not Jewish. It stands to reason than that the great majority would not be Jewish. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Insert :  Grant was in command, not "nativists", and he was not Catholic, nor were the greater bulk of his subordinates. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"Subsequently" refers to a temporal relation, not a causal relation. "Consequently" is the more accurate way to refer to a causal relation. Anyway, look at the two statements in question:

He also feared that the corruption of the illicit cotton trade spread to many of his officers and men who were also eager to make a profit on a bale of cotton.

The large majority of those involved in illegal trading were not Jewish.

I don't see how the first statement can be the cause of the second. Does Chernow suggest a causal connection? BTW, the first statement does not cite a source. If it's from the same source as the second statement, that's OK, but otherwise, we're missing something. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The reader should be allowed neutral wording in the article. It is best just to state the facts with out a cause/effect word such as "subsequently" in the narration. There could be a cause and effect, but let the reader decide. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Grant's GON11 getting too much attention in the article, 3 paragraphs, when there is an existing article? FDR's EO9066 only gets a paragraph. Nothing is mentioned about FDR being a racist or anti-Japanese. It is my opinion just to present the facts without historical opinion or judgement. The current article section makes Grant appear to be a war criminal, in my opinion. The FDR narration does not make FDR look like a war criminal. Also Lincoln was not against the removal of Jewish traders, as Halleck telegraphed Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Chernow 2017 page 236 says there were 150,000 Jewish people in population. 10,000 Jewish men served in the North and South during the Civil War. I take that means 10,000 Jewish soldiers. Chernow also says American Jewish people were "highly patriotic". I take that to mean for both the Union and Confederacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

While I am on my soap box, Grant did not receive any guidance from Washington on contraband slaves or smuggling, as far as I am aware. Grant's communications were destroyed and he had no direct link to Washington. Grant was on his own in the mist of a Civil War. He had no way of telling who the enemy was. Even after GON11 Lincoln did not give Grant any guidance on curbing smuggling. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not directly relevant to the article, so maybe I should leave it alone, but, I'm looking at White, p. 258, and there are several paragraphs about the change in gov't. policy toward contraband slaves, and how they sent Lorenzo Thomas to communicate the policy to Grant and to make sure he implemented it. So yeah, Grant did receive guidance. And where are you getting the part about "communications were destroyed" and "no direct link to Washington"? I suppose that when he got deep into the Vicksburg campaign, after he crossed the Mississippi, he might have not had enough communication with Washington; but we're several months before that point, here. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruce : The first statement indicates that " many of his officers and men who were also eager to make a profit on a bale of cotton." As such their numbers were so great that Jewish speculators were the minority by comparison. Hence the word "subsequently". Again, how else would Jewish speculators be in the minority? Are you saying that the "many of his officers" in question had no bearing on the comparative numbers? At your suggestion I added the term consequently. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I really did not know where you were coming from. However, we're not out of the woods:

• There is no cited source for the first sentence ("He also feared that the corruption ... on a bale of cotton."). I don't remember who added this sentence, but it's not the kind of thing we can say without a cited source.
• The "consequently" is not from the source of the second sentence (Chernow), and it too needs a source. There are multiple possible reasons why the second sentence might not be consequent on the first. Alanscottwalker's point that there were simply not enough Jews is a more than adequate explanation of the second sentence. By adding "consequently", we are doing WP:SYNTH (which of course is another part of WP:NOR): "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." We need to leave these two sentences alone.

Cmguy777 : Regardless of the Jewish population, which boomed during the Civil War period, the number of Jewish speculators and the capacity they were operating in, per the "piles" of reports Grant received, was such that it caused him to issue his sweeping Order. We don't know if the number of Jewish speculators was "tiny" – nor do we know that the others amounted to "99%" or any such lopsided number. Chernow's claim is unsourced and gives us no hint as to the actual differential. Bear in mind, speculators like the Mack brothers involved much more trading than your average officer or civilian trying to get a piece of the action, -- and the soldiers weren't free to leave their ranks and operate with the same freedom as did civilian speculators. It's not so much about the number of people who were speculating but more with the capacity they were operating. One speculator could effect more trading than several dozen others. Are we also assuming that Grant wasn't concerned about undermining the war effort if it involved non Jews and that he just looked the other way in such cases??  What sort of prejudice are we advancing if we assume that all the reports about Jewish speculators were unfounded and nothing but the product of prejudice of race or religion? In any case, simple logic tells us that if non-Jewish speculators were in the majority, that Jewish speculators were in the minority. That's all. Didn't mean for this discussion to wind up all over the map, but since you asked... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Historians have indicted Grant of anti-Semitism and of being anti-Jewish. The reality is Grant was fighting a war. Do Presidents and Generals have to get permission from historians for their orders. No. Should not Presidents and Generals be allowed to run their own war ? Not so with Grant. It does not matter how much Grant is defended in the article. He is already "convicted"? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cmguy777' -- Rubbish. The other day you complained that the section was portraying Grant as some sort of mindless racist whose only motivation was racism, exempting him with a comparison to FRD. -- now this. -- (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bruce, only an obvious deduction is being asserted, and given the controversial nature of the issue, this needs to be emphasized. There is plainly no SYNTH here. You said using the term consequently was more accurate. Now you're saying your own suggestion in effect is not accurate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The section puts undo weight on Grant and GON11. There are three paragraphs. I would not put in 21st century historical opinions. I would just put in what Grant did. That would reduce the article size. Historical opinion of GON11 belongs in the GON11 dedicated article. I don't think subsequently should be added to the article. I noticed consequently has been added. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker and I have carefully explained why this "deduction" was not "obvious", and your reply is to say, "But it is!", and to edit-war. You need to do a little more, don't you take Wikipedia seriously? And are we ever going to see a source citation for the first statement, or is it just something you made up? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• The explanation didn't stand up to simple logic, and no one is making anything up. i.e."the illicit cotton trade spread to many of his officers and men" There were thousands of men in the army. Many of them were involved in the cotton trading. This is the reason that Jewish speculators were in the minority. Again, what else could cause this differential? None of the sources gives us any other reason. Editors are allowed to make simple deductions, per my analogy with fruit trees being in the majority. This is the only way to take two or more sentences from different sources and write a narrative that flows together - this is done all the time, and with words not necessarily used in a given source. I suppose readers will see the cause for the Jewish minority for themselves, so to maintain good faith I removed the term consequently -- it was your suggestion. For sentence flow, I replaced that term with the term while. Hope this works for everyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• The first sentence (now joined together with the following statement) is, and has been, sourced by Chernow, p. 232. :"Every colonel, captain or quartermaster is in secret partnership with some operator in cotton: every soldier dreams of adding a bale of cotton to his monthly pay." Such practices infuriated Grant." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Cmguy777 is correct. There was too much coverage about the Order in the Vicksburg section creating a due weight issue, so I removed some of the polical details and such and placed all the historical opinion in a footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. The section reads much better and frees up the narration. Grant should not be convicted for his GON11 by a court of historians or biographers, in my opinion. We don't really know who was all helping the Confederate Army, Jewish or non Jewish, civilians or soldiers. Why did Grant single out Jewish people is unknown. But this was a war of civilians and soldiers. The common belief is that two sides wore the blue and grey. Civilians were involved in the war too who wore no uniform. Jewish and non Jewish people were involved in the war, both North and South. It was impossible for Grant to tell who his allies and enemies were in a civilian war, regardless of race, national alliance, or faith. The Civil War was indeed a war. Who are we to judge how it was fought. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Gwill, I appreciate the conciliatory move you have made here. Also, I agree with both of you that this section was too large. As I said in an earlier comment, it had gotten even larger than the section about the capture of Ft. Donelson. Your idea of putting all three quotations in the notes strikes me as good. I know that at one point I put the Sarna quotation back into the article, because I had developed a sudden case of allegiance to the old mediation. But having them in the notes is much better. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Bruce, thanks for your words of conciliation. As you've no doubt gathered, tempers and opinions can go full circle and back again when it comes to the various controversial topics. At the risk of sounding patronizing, let me just say it's nice to have new blood around here that is willing to go the distance with the lot of us 'regulars'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are two accounts, both written by Jewish historians, one being the latest account from Jonathan Sarna, that might shed additional light on the issue overall.

• GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT AND THE JEWS, by Joseph Lebowich, Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society
• Sarna, Jonathan, The Redemption of Ulysses S. Grant -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What I recommend is expansion of the dedicated article. Details of Grant's GON11 can be given. Neutral information added. Since this order affected civilians, more information on civilians would be good, such as the races and faiths, including Jewish people and non Jewish people, of Southern civilians who supported the Confederacy. I have yet to find a reference on the religions of the South during the Civil War. The races and religious faiths of the North would be helpful too. Why were Northern civilians, Jewish people and non Jewish people, supportive of the Union. Why did southern civilians support the Confederacy and view Grant and the Union the enemy, rather than a liberator ? Why were the civilians deceptive to Grant ? What values did the Union have ? What values did the Southerners have ? Slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. Was Grant's order directed at the South ? These are only my opinions and/or suggestions. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• God's Almost Chosen Peoples: A Religious History of the American Civil War George C. Rable (2010) Cmguy777 (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• A People at War: Civilians and Soldiers in America's Civil War Scott Reynolds Nelson, Carol Sheriff (2008) Cmguy777 (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

McClernand, Vicksburg

Does one of our sources claim that Lincoln "believed McClernand the superior general"? I am not finding confirmation of this in White or Chernow. Chernow (p. 238, not pp. 236-7) writes: "Lincoln had misgivings about McClernand, ... Nevertheless ... he informed his cabinet that he would accede to McClernand's request for an independent command." White writes something similar, and Perret puts it even more strongly. McClernand apparently had quite a lot of political clout, which might have enabled him to get more from Lincoln that he otherwise might have. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read pages 236-237 of Chernow (2017). Lincoln asked Porter who would be best general to capture Vicksburg. Porter said Grant and presumed Sherman would be sent there. Lincoln responded "Well! Well! Admiral," said the president, "I have in mind a better general than either of them: that is McClernand, an old and intimate friend of mine." Chernow even goes as far and says Lincoln committed a critical error. I took "a better general" to mean superior general. What else could that mean. Lincoln believed McClernand was a better general than Grant and Sherman. That would be understandable after the near disaster after Shiloh and that fact McClernand was spreading rumors of Grant's drinking. McClernand said Grant was drunk at Belmont, Donelson, and Shiloh. The information begins on page 236..."When New Orleans fell..." and continues on page 237. I cited these pages in the reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Since Chernow, p.237 says it's unclear whether Lincoln appointed McClernand on political grounds, it was best to remove the term "Lincoln believed...". However, it does seem unlikely, esp since Lincoln defended Grant's alleged drinking on several occasions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll be darned, Cmguy, I don't know how I missed that; thanks for pointing it out.

The language of the quotation of Lincoln is unmistakable. But, on the other hand, Chernow seems to have some doubts as to whether Porter's account is reliable ("According to Porter, Lincoln made the absurd statement ..."). Interesting. I see that Gwill has taken a more cautious course with this, but I will not make a suggestion either way. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is clear Lincoln favored McClernland over Grant to take Vicksburg. Halleck in this case helped Grant out. Look we have to believe someone at some point. Porter seems like a reasonable source. I don't know what Chernow thinks. I just read what is in his book. Chernow was refering that Lincoln's statement was absurd, not Porters. Clearly McClernand was under the impression he was running the show. Only Lincoln would have given him that impression. Grant was kept out of the loop. Lincoln was not a perfect President and he was a politician. He traded with the enemy and surrounded himself with cotton smugglers. Maybe honest Abe was not so honest after all. Historians for any other President would have called cotton smuggling a corrupt ring. He gave Grant no guidance on how to stop smuggling. He gave Grant no guidance on what to do with contraband slaves. It is difficult to know the true intentions of any President, but we have to put something in the article. The Lincoln we know today seems to have been the Emancipation Proclamation President. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cm', Bruce — Lincoln, in Washington, was in no position to give Grant much guidance as to decisions made in the field. He once said to Grant that he was allowed to make his own calls on the battlefield. When questions arise about the various sources we should access the established facts for ourselves. Lincoln said of Grant, "this man fights", and saw the rumors of drinking as disgruntled belly-aching from Grant's rivals, esp Halleck, perpetuated by bitty-minded journalists trying to inflate/invent issues for their newspapers. 'Read all about it!' Lincoln less than honest? None of us humans are saints and are subject to the pressing calamities of the real world, but overall, imo, Lincoln, as a person, considering his overall intentions during the war, was in the running. The term "honest Abe" wasn't spun out of thin air, and was the product of multiple accounts, over time. It would help matters if either of you were to cite the specific passage(s) in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

In an ironic twist, General Grant saw and condemned the corruption inherent in the trade, but later he became renown for an administration characterized by his associates' corruption. Lincoln oversaw a system whereby his associates gained even at the possible cost of prolonging the war, but we revere him as "Honest" Abe. Lincoln was at least sensitive to the potential scandal from the cotton trade. On some instances he refused to issue permits because of the impropriety involved. Still, the cotton trade, with its attendant profitability, probably posed too great a temptation for any set of men to avoid some sinful behavior; Lincoln was not surrounded by saints. Traders or Traitors: Northern Cotton Trading During the Civil War Business , 4nd Economic History, Volume Twenty-eight, no. 2, Winter 1999 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Interesting account. It reveals the scope of the trading in terms of the amount of cotton that traded hands. e.g."...European and northern buyers purchased over half a million bales during 1864 alone." Big money. Remember also that Lincoln supported trade inasmuch as it left the door open for southern farmers to return to business as usual with the Union. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)