Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Civil Rights prosecutions

From sources provided Grant's prosecution of Civil Rights took place from October 1871 to the Spring of 1873 under his Attorney Generals Amos T. Akerman and George H. Williams. I believe this is important in terms of a time frame for Civil Rights cases prosecuted by the Justice Department. I believe President Benjamin Harrison prosecuted civil right cases during his administration, under Attorney General William H. H. Miller in terms of securing African American voting rights in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

URL not linking.

I have recently edited the Ulysses S. Grant Historical legacy section and the URL is not linking the title to the website. Can anyone fix this? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Defense of corrupt appointees

I believe the term "defense of corrupt appointees" is a generalized statement. The only "corrupt" appointee Grant defended was Orville E. Babcock in a White House deposition in 1876. The other issue is that with the exception of Grant's own Cabinet, Congress approved of Grant's other appointments under the Tenor of Office Act. Is that accurately reflected in the article? In addition under Grant's Civil Service Reform the general demeanor of appointments improved. I believe there needs to be clarification somewhere in the article. Grant did start Civil Service Reform that Congress failed to renew. Grant supported his own cabinet members who were charged with corruption, meaning he did not ask them to resign. Is there any way that the term "defense of corrupt appointees" can be clarified in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

President Grant's extractions

President Grant had English extractions but also Walloon extractions by his father's mother. Could you please add it in the "Early life" section ? Grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Gaulois courageux (talk • contribs) 08:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A reliabe source would be needed for this to be added. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Panic of 1873

I have been cleaning up the Panic of 1873 section. According to Smith this was a turn around in the Republican Party, becoming the financially conservative party. I put that Grant's reaction was conserative. The Press was favorable to Grant on his 1874 Veto and the Resumption Act in 1875. More could be added. Is there any objection to state that Grant was conservative? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be cautious here -- Grant seems ignorant of financial matters. Don't call the soft-money/inflation/populist element "liberal" (that word refers to Grant's enemies in the GOP). The big book is Irwin Unger The Greenback Era A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865--1879 (1968) -- it won the Pulitzer prize. see online portions Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If I am reading Smith and Brands correctly, Grant was not as ignorant of financial matters as might seem. The article still states that Grant knew little of economics. If you read Brands, Grant made statements that sound pretty conservative. Secretary Fish was a conservative and I believe he convinced Grant not to sign the inflation bill. Smith stated that without a Federal Reserve system, Grant's anti-inflation policy was the best choice. Grant's Resumption Act did allow the creation of more banks and bank notes in the West to help out the farmers. I put conservative in the article since Grant was not about to launch a New Deal program such as FDR. Grant's limited help of the New York Bankers was one of moral obligation rather then federal intervention. The Resumption Act was Grant's effort to resolve the Panic and Depression. I was hoping Brands had more analysis on the Panic in terms of Grant's performance. Smith gives Grant the best outlook concerning the Panic and following depression. Also Grant had Benjamin Bristow at the Treasury. I can look at the Unger book. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Down valley

(Unsigned respondent, not authorised to edit page). Under 'Petersburg', you say: 'Lee had sent Early up the Shenandoah Valley to attack Washington, DC and draw troops away from Grant's Army...'

Washington is down-valley, not up. 109.154.233.142 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Scientific expeditions and establishment of Yellowstone National Park

Is there any objection into putting into the lead that President Grant sponsored scientific expeditions and that he signed into existence "Americas Best Idea", Yellowstone National Park? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I object. it belongs in the presidency article. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Rjensen. I can put in the Presidency article. I am not attempting to negate the scandals, since there was real corruption during the Grant administration. However, I believe that a neutral article will give both the good accomplishments and the mistakes. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

USG showed no interest in the National Park project--he thought of the mountains as "sterile". Good treatment in Joan Waugh (2009). U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth. Univ of North Carolina Press. pp. 132–. ISBN 978-0-8078-3317-9. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen, for the U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth source. Interesting that his Secretary of Interior Columbus Delano had interest in Yellowstone giving directions to the Hayden Expedition. President Grant did sign the bills that gave payment for the Hayden Expedition and the Polaris Expedition. I suppose what matters is that Grant signed Yellowstone into a National Park, I believe over 2,000,000 Acres, despite apparently having no interest. I am not sure if Grant ever went to Yellowstone and I am sure all he knew about Yellowstone was on Hayden's report to Congress, if he read the report. Maybe their is more in The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant on Yellowstone. I suppose Grant could have vetoed the establishment of the park and left the land wide open to private interests, speculators, and the railroads. His signing of the Yellowstone bill is signifigant, in my opinion, and is considered America's Best Idea today. The other interesting thing is that Yellowstone indirectly saved the Buffalo from extinction. Grant was the President who vetoed the bill to keep buffalo hunting only open for Native Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the Grant Papers--there is a lot on the Yellowstone River (which starts in the Park--I actually live near that river) only because it was an important strategic location re the Indian wars. Grant understood war and was very good at reading maps. The maps showed a lot of useless mountains (Yellowstone Park is 10,000 feet high). Signing a bill that he had no interest in is not important, but his views on westward exploitation (accordfing to the Waugh book) seem to me to be important for the presidency article. Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe part of the dilemna was that Congress did not pass appropriations for the Park, so Grant could do nothing with the park even if he wanted to, I suppose. Seems like there may have been Railroad interests on the Yellowstone River in the Souix Country. I know part of the Great Souix war had to do with both Railroad and Gold Mining interests. I could be mistaken. Did any railroads have federal authority to build inside Yellowstone National Park? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RR to Yellowstone park came after Grant's years--they were built for tourists. Travel was by steamboat on the rivers, esp Missouri & Yellowstone rivers, connecting Montana and Omaha. The Sioux lived in the Dakotas, a long way from the Y Park. Rjensen (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that means there was no underlying financial or political interest in creating Yellowstone Park. That seems to be rare legislation or Act from a Gilded Age Congress and President Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I could not find any direct mention of Yellowstone Park by President Grant in his Papers I checked during his Presidency. Someone had asked Secretary Delano in 1874 for a job to protect the Park, but Delano wrote back that he could not hire anyone because Congress did not appropriate any money to protect the Park. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a proposed edit located on the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant Talk Page Yosemite National Park. Please feel free to make any comments and/or improvements. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There may have been a Northern Pacific Railroad incentive for signing the bill into law. Here is a web page that had all the Northern Pacific Railway brochures: Yellowstone's Brochures Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Davis Bend

According to Foner review in Washington Post, Brands also "does not really explain Grant's conversion to emancipation during the war. He ignores Grant’s decision to create what he called a 'Negro paradise' at Davis Bend, the Mississippi plantations of Jefferson Davis and his brother Joseph, where land was divided among groups of emancipated slaves."

True, not a single mention of this in Brands bio. But, does anyone else know more about Davis Bend, or how much of a role Grant played in it? No reference to any Grant connection in the Wikipedia entry on this "paradise." One minor online site, however, does add this: "In 1863, General Grant determined that the 'Davis Bend' plantation in MIssissippi should become a 'negro paradise.' The entire area, once owned by Jefferson Davis and his brother, was set aside for the exclusive settlement of freed slaves who had to pay for their own rations, mules, and tools. Davis Bend became a remarkable model of what might have been in Reconstruction; the self-reliant laborers there earned $160,000 in profits in 1865 from their cotton crop. Many of Mississippi's black Reconstruction leaders came out of the plantation." Mwprods (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Black cadet

In another review of Brands's bio, Michael Korda notes that he never mentioned that Grant "appointed the first black to West Point as a cadet." If this is true, I have yet to find any confirmation for it. On the contrary, it appears as if President Grant actually shared some blame for the failure to help this first black cadet, James Webster Smith, from being eventually dismissed from the academy.Mwprods (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

New photo

I just uploaded a new photo of Ulysses S. Grant from Google Art Project in 1864 (right). Quite high res, 23 megapixels. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 09:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Good job Dcoetzee. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: This latest archival photo of Grant is the one that graces the cover of the 2012 H.W. Brands biography.Mwprods (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Inflation bill of 1874

Is the term "Inflation bill" of 1874 accurate? The bill would have readded currency to the market that had already been allocated in the "Legal Tender" acts. President Grant called the bill the "Currency bill". Is that more accurate? The bill would not have caused inflation. Here is Grants view on the "Inflation bill": President Grants Views on Finance. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Error in his father's ancestry

"His father Jesse Root Grant (1794–1873) was a self-reliant tanner (leather producer) and businessman of English ancestry" .... the name Grant is of Scottish origin so his ancestry was Scottish and not English.

Sorry, but the surname means very little and proves nothing by itself. My name is Wallace, which is very Scottish but that could not be further from my original surname and actual Eastern European roots. The immigrant Grant family traced by author H.W. Brands departed from England; that's all he could document. Where ever else their exact ancestry originated is anyone's guess. And without evidence, it remains only a guess.Mwprods (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Improved reputation -- H. W. Brands's new 2012 biography on Grant

In light of H.W. Brands's 2012 biography on Grant, whom Brands call the greatest war (hero) President, does the lede need to be reassessed in terms of Grant's presidency? If I am reading Brands correctly, Grant's handling of the Panic of 1873 wasn't so bad, and Grant also secured the South from a second secession, preventing a second Civil War. The "villians" in Brands's book are not the corrupt appointees, but rather Senator Charles Sumner and Senator Carl Schurz, specifically for not supporting the Ku Klux Klan bill. Brands states that this bill split the Republican Party, in addition to Grant siding with money interests or "Railroad Republicans." Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

it will be a year or two before we know the reviews and reaction of scholars to Brands. The Panic of 1873 was a major national disaster. As for war president--which war was that-- I guess he means the Sioux war, which is most famous for what Grant let happen to one of his subordinates named Custer. Rjensen (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Which war was that?!" You are being sarcastic, right? Ironic? Remember the Civil War? It led almost immediately to Grant's presidency, especially if you do read Brands book and see that Grant was so popular during the war that many wanted to run him against Lincoln in 1864! And Custer? Read the short section of Brands to learn just how Grant opposed the unsuitable, defiant Custer getting anywhere near the Indians.Mwprods (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Brands mentions "war hero" president. Yes. The Panic of 1873 was a major national disaster. I suppose Brands would be refering to the American Civil War. Although, the Great Sioux War would be a fairly large war, in addition to having to use the U.S. Military to keep the Southern states from rebelling a second time and enforcing African American citizenship. Why a year or two for scholars to make their assessments on Brands's book? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Brands believes Grant was a greater "war hero" president than George Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Grant was a greater "war hero" president than George Washington" -- i doubt many scholars will ever agree to that. He's in the league with Jackson and Eisenhower, I think, and ahead of Harrison, Taylor and TR. History journals are not like Twitter: It takes on average 15-18 months for most scholarly book reviews to appear in print with the considered analysis and judgment of scholars. All we have now are newspaper reviews written for popular audiences. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That could be true. Brands apparently admires Grant most for securing the nation from secession. The nation under Washington was not secure from secession, possibly the Fugitive Slave Law that Washington signed may have divided the nation. That is my opinion of Brands's opinion. Thanks for your input, Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe adding Brands's view that the Republican Party split in 1872 was due to division over the Ku Klux Klan bill in addition to patronage or money interest part of the Republican Party would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I read a review by Eric Foner in November, 2012. He stated that Brands was a good writer but he lacked tangible analysis of Grant's presidency and lost focus. I tend to agree, especially when Brands tended to gloss over the Panic of 1873. Although I believe Brands viewed Grant as a person who took charge of the situation, however, Grant was really conservative concering the Panic. I believe Hamilton Fish, Grant's Secretary of State, influenced Grant on financial matters especially concerning an inflation policy. One wonders what would have happened if Grant would have signed the legislation. I believe Fish would have resigned office. The farmers might have liked the extra cash flow. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the lede reads fine as is, especially since the end of the lede states that historical views of Grant are changing. However, there is obviously a need for Brands's view of Grant in the historical reputation section, especially since Foner's views are presented there. I've added in a few sentences to accomplish this.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Good edits SouthernNights. My own personal view is that historians have ignored Grant because of the difficult and at times complicated aspects of Reconstruction. Only focusing on the scandals and ignoring his whole Presidency, in my opinion was negligence on their part. One would believe Hamilton Fish was the only saving grace of the Grant presidency, while ignoring Grant and his other qualified cabinet including Alphonso Taft, Ebenezer R. Hoar, George S. Boutwell, Benjamin H. Bristow, J. Donald Cameron, Marshall Jewell, Zachariah Chandler, Jacob D. Cox, and Edwards Pierrepont. William W. Belknap and George M. Robeson, although involved in scandal, were capable administrators and were active in modernizing the U.S. Army and Navy. Columbus Delano was definately not a reformer, however, he was active in Grant's Peace Policy and was a leader in the formation of Yellowstone National Park. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

some comments: Foner has a good review of Brands saying he is an excellent storyteller but is weak on analysis and historiography. That is, Brands does not make his case for upgrading Grant's reputation. Let me add regarding the "Peace Policy" Grant introduced toward Indians--all the historians I have read consider the peace policy to be well-meaning but a failure. Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I agree that Brands could have gave a little more insight into the Panic of 1873, and the Presidency section does not cover Grant's entire Presidency. How then is failure defined in terms of Peace Policy? For example, does our current Indian Policy really understand tribal ways? Do historians take into consideration that Grant got Indian wars down to 15 in 1875? Grant did keep Indians ultimately from extermination. Delano, although not a reformer, did define and implement Grant's Peace Policy. Delano advocated the establishment of the Apache reservation, when the people of Arizona wanted to exterminate the Indians, and attempted to at the Fort Grant massacre. Was the allotment system that followed a success? Our current policy is giving Indians gambling Casinos. Is that a successful policy. If there was a failure in Grant's Peace Police, I suppose, was the pull of gold into the Black Hills, that escalated violence after 1875. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Historian Brands, The Man Who Saved The Union Ulysses S. Grant In War And Peace , pages 501 and 503, took a positive assessment of Grant's Indian "peace policy". Brands states that Grant's policy reduced Indian battles and that many tribal leaders accepted the reservation system as protection from settler intrusion. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The article implies that only "revisionist historians" have appreciated Grant's genius as a military commander. The re-assessment of Grant as a general is pretty old, dates back at least to J. F. C. Fuller. He published a book about Grant's generalship in 1929: wrote another in 1932 making an extensive case that Grant was a better general than Lee. Fuller also pointed out that Lee's armies suffered a higher casualty rate than Grant's. John Keegan reveres Grant in The Mask Of Command. I think the article should be revised slightly, to emphasize that purely military assessments of Grant have been very positive for ~80 years, independent of "revisionist historians". Jim Hardy (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2012

It's not "succession", it's "secession". I confirmed this by following the reference to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It indeed uses "secession". There's no definition of "succession" which works in the two contexts in which its used on this page. 173.228.63.253 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just corrected it myself, since it didn't look quite "done" yet. Mwprods (talk) 18

29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sherman and Mexican American War

I think the unattributed claim that Sherman "served in the Mexican War" is misleading at best. Sherman devotes a substantial portion of his own memoirs to describing his army service in California during the Mexican War, and conveys his regret that he was not able to serve in the expeditionary forces who fought in Texas and Mexico. He never set foot in Texas or Mexico during the Mexican War. Thus, while Sherman may have been serving in U.S. Army during the Mexican War, he never "served in the Mexican War." Mwhittlaw (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This does not belong in the Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Grant the abolitionist

Wasn't Grant an abolitionist in August 1863 when he wrote Representative Elihu B. Washburne that the purpose of the Civil War was to end slavery? Source: Catton (1969), Grant Takes Command, p. 8 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Grant is stating the Lincoln administration policy. The people historians call "abolitionists" had moved on and were talking of civil rights and voting rights. Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree in part. Before August 1863, I don't believe Grant was completely on board with the abolition of slavery movement. Even Grant admitted that. His letter to Washburne, I supposed sealed the deal in that Grant wanted slavery perpetually abolished. The Civil War had yet to be won and would take a year and eight months before Lee surrendered. Also, the 13th Amendment was not passed until 1865. Slavery was alive and well in the border states. I understand Civil Rights was the next agenda for the Radicals, but slavery had yet to be Constitutionally outlawed until 1865. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the date August, 1863 as the time that Grant came on board with the Radical Republicans in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting factor is that after Vicksburg Grant was in the Regular Army, no longer Volunteers. Lincoln in a sense restored Grant's honor in the U.S. Military after his resigned in 1854. Grant had been out of the U.S. military for 9 years. I wonder if being restored to the regular army had anything to do with his vigorous prosecution of the war and determination to end slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical reputation

Please change the phase "both party's revisions" to "both parties' revisions".

I have not read Brands, but it is clear from the context that "party's" is incorrect here. 65.31.6.253 (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. It was clearly an error, although I have to say that even with the correction the phrase "both parties' revisions of history" isn't blindingly clear in its meaning. Rivertorch (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 July 2013

In the discussion of U S Grant after the Battle of Shiloh, in the Spring of 1862, reference is made to William T Sherman's discussion with Grant, and his similar experience, including "service in the Mexican War...' I don't believe that Sherman did serve in the Mexican War; he was in California during that period. Any reliable source, such as Sherman's own Memoirs, or J. MacPherson, Ordeal by Fire, or Battle Cry of Freedom, will confirm this, as well as any reliable biography of Sherman. 74.67.247.110 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Y I've removed the disputed text. William Tecumseh Sherman supports that he was not involved in the Mexican War, at least out on the field. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: With apologies, I see that this point has already been made by an earlier request! 74.67.247.110 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate request. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer recruitment and training section

I think there needs to be information on Grant's promotion to Brigadier General, his strengthening forces and securing Jefferson City, and his capture of Paduch without a shot being fired. In addition, Frémont appointed Grant to lead the expedition South to capture the Mississippi and break the confederacy in two. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I added that Grant was promoted Brigadier General by President Abraham Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Commander of Union Armies authority

As Commander of the Union Armies, was Grant superior to U.S. Navy Admirals? Of course President Abraham Lincoln was Commander in Chief and controlled all Union military forces. Was Grant's authority over the Navy in terms of making any naval attacks? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Franco Prussian War

I think the Franco Prussian War needs to be discussed in the article since President Grant and his cabinet, including Secretary of War Belknap, were indirectly involved in the war. Grant did not want shipping to the United States to be impeded by the war. There was also a secret peace treaty attempt by the French. The official policy of the U.S. government was neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This article already stands at 153,806 bytes. If you want my opinion, the priority should be shortening, summarizing, and preparing for GA. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see there is much to say about that war in this article. -- any statement would fit better in Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article Rjensen (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be GA status. In my opinion, any reduction in content would be by editor concensus. Yes. Putting the Franco Prussian War would be best for the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should follow consensus. I didn't mean to suggest that one of us just start hacking away at the text. But over-length is a problem here. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article is too long and needs to be reduced. If there was a way to keep context by editor consensus and to get rid of any repetition I believe that would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Good article overview

I think this would be a good time to start a Good Article overview of the Ulysses S. Grant article. Attempts for GA have been made before and failed. I beleive the article is in good enough shape to improve to get a GA status. I am starting this discussion to get input on how GA can be achieved and what is the best way to improve the article. My suggestion is to start by improving the lede. If the lede had improved or better summarization, then this would help editing the body of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the last GA review is a good place to start. Also, a quick glance shows that the citations are all over the place, different styles, different formats, etc. And, as you say, summarization. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• I honestly don't think we're anywhere close yet. I actually considered demotion to C prior to adding the several KBs of content I did. I think there are some gaping holes of coverage, particularly in the post-presidency. Grant was one of the most-written about people in the world between 1877 and 1885, and there are countless bios of him. Where is that information? The honors section was non-existent until I added it and it too still needs work pbp 01:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Comegenus and pbp for the input on the article and GA status. Maybe the best approach is one step at a time. Fixing the citations might be the best thing to work on in the article, prior to anything else. The reference style in the Rutherford B. Hayes article would be good for the Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I own the Smith biography, and Hesseltine is coming in the mail. I'd like to help, but it depends on how much time I have. Large parts of this look like they need complete rewrites. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus the most recent book on Grant is H.W. Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union. I would recommend Brand (2012) and Smith (2001). Brand (2012) also wrote an article on how Grant defeated the Ku Klux Klan. I have Brand (2012), Smith (2001), and McFeely (1981) biographies on Grant. I would call Brands and Smith pro Grant books while McFeely would be an anti Grant book. Hesseltine might be a bit dated if it is the 1935 book. I think that article as written is somewhat fair on Grant. The article needs improvement in summarization, but I am not sure complete rewrites. The topic of rewrites would be good for discussion. What parts of the article needs complete rewrites? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know Hesseltine is old, but I thought it would add balance, since he was famously anti-Grant. I like Brands's writing, but I haven't got the 2012 book yet. McFeely is also well-regarded. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I just ordered McFeely on Amazon. Only $3.49 for a used copy. Cheap! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, if you like the style of citation used in Hayes, I'm all for that. Alarbus re-did the whole thing a while back and the system there is pretty easy to use. You just type {{sfn|Smith|p=##}}. If you type the same cite twice, it combines them automatically. For multiple works by the same author, you can type {{sfn|Smith|1999|p=##}} and for multiple cites in one note, use {{sfnm|Smith||1pp=##|Jones||2pp=##}}. I've found the system pretty easy to use. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Thanks Coemgenus. That looks like a good way to reference and improve the article to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I believe one must understand that Grant's presidency did not fit in with either Northern or Southern historians. Brand (2012) states that northern capitalists who desired reconciliation with the South forgot about civil rights, while Southerners forgot that the Civil War was over slavery, were the reasons why Grant's presidencial reputation suffered historically starting at the turn of the 20th century. Grant was no pushover. Historians forgot about his thawrting the Gold Ring not to mention prosecuting and shutting down the Whiskey Ring. Historians are currently respecting Grant's prosecution and shut down of the Ku Klux Klan, his Foriegn Policy under Secretary Fish, and his humane Indian Policy that signifigantly reduced Western Indian Wars. Of course Grant's presidency is not without deserved critisism, however, I would want to keep this article as neutral as possible without either being pro or anti Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's my point. I've been reading about Grant for nigh on two decades, and I've got my opinions. But my opinions are not going into the article, as far as I can prevent it. The article should aim at a synthesis of the mainstream scholarship, including criticism. I don't mean adding a million Dunning school-style sources, just acknowledging that Grant's presidency is not widely regarded as above average. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. That depends. Certainly his foreign policy under Hamilton Fish, considederd one of the greatest diplomats, would be above average. Preventing war with Spain over Cuba, implementing International arbitration, resolving the Alabama Claims, receiving $15 million in gold from England. Negotiating peace with south american countries, and implementing Hawiaan statehood. Grant was the first to implement Civil Service reform, he thrawted the Gold Ring, destroyed the Ku Klux Klan, and prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. He used the military wisely to protect African American civil rights during elections. Grant sponsored two scientific expeditions including the Polaris expedition and the Hayden expedtion into Yellowston. He was the first President to promote blacks to public office and allow them into West Point. He established America's first National Park, Yellowstone. He got the 15th Amendment passed and was the first President to sign a Civil Rights Bill in 1875 allowing blacks public accomodations. Brands (2012) believed that Grant saved the Union. Who kept the peace during the turbulent 1876 election? President Grant. His peace policy was successful at reducing Indian wars. One source asked if Grant was the greatest of Presidents. Ulysses Grant: Our Greatest President? Reading Brands (2012) and Smith (2001) would give better neutral perspective on Grant then McFeely (1981). Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I can tell you really admire him. That was my point. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I do. But I am not without criticism either. Grant handled the Santo Domingo treaty terribly. He protected Orville E. Babcock and Secretary Columbus Delano way to long. Grant's handling of George Custer prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn was terrible. Grant's curt dismissal of his cabinet at times without explanation was unsettleing. I agree with Smith (2001) assessment that Grant could have vetoed the Congressional Pay Raise and set a better moral tone in Washington. Grant was also too trusting of people of wealth or corrupt associates. With this said, I don't want any of my bias to be in the article. I believe Smith (2001), Brands (2012), and Bonekemper (2012), Grant versus Lee, have some admiration for Grant as well. McFeely (1981), in my opinion, was almost an attack bio on Grant a book to counter Bruce Catton's positive assessment on Grant as a military war hero. I admire all U.S. Presidents and believe their Wikipedia articles need to be objective and neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Humanist

There's a citation in the first section that just says "The Humanist" (March–April, 2009). There's no page number or url or any other publication data. If there's no objection, I'll delete it and try to back up the information it cites to a scholarly source. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus, could you put the edit reference in the talk page before any deletion? I could try to look up the source to find the page number. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

<ref name="The Humanist">[[#The Humanist|The Humanist]] (March–April, 2009)</ref>

Thanks. Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sub-articles

I'd like to condense the legacy, memoirs and cultural depictions like they did here in the Abe Lincoln article. What do you think? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. That would be a step in the right direction to getting GA for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Barack Obama and John McCain, you'll see a little box near the top that directs the reader to sub-articles about those men. As with Grant, there was too much information to fit in one over-arching summary, so they split off larger articles to take a closer look at this part or that part of the men's lives. I thought we might do the same here. I came up with this --->

What do you think? Two of the articles that exist are already GA-class after Cmguy's work on them. The others could be created now and improved in time, without as much of a length restriction. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I started the first one: Early life and career of Ulysses S. Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Started another: Ulysses S. Grant as peacetime general, 1865–1869. Mostly a cut-paste with a new lede, but there's room to grow. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. His world tour really needs to be expanded. Grant travelling around the world like a 21st Century President (no Airforce One though) from 1877 to 1879. He was kind of Americas popular world ambassador. As far as I know he was the only President to dine with Queen Victoria and meet with Bismark. Was he the First President to visit China and Japan? I agree, there is enough information for additional articles on Ulysses S. Grant. Another suggestion could be Reforms of President Ulysses S. Grant. However, this could either be addressed or expanded in the Scandals or Presidency articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to write it, there's certainly room for it on the template. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. Yes. Rjensen's perspective would be helpful. There was scandal and also reform in the Grant Administration. Grant's prosecution of the Whiskey Ring was successful. He prosecuted the Crédit Mobilier although not as successful. Grant thwarted the Gold Ring. Grant stopped the moiety system. There were reforms in the Departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury, and Postal. There was also Civil Service Reform, the first time in U.S. History. A few of Grant's appointments implemented Civil Service reform in their own Cabinets for the first time. Grant prosecuted pornographers and he signed in a law that still is used today to prosecute obscene material in the mails. There was the prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan that cleaned up lawlessness in the South. Grant allowed Blacks into West Point and a Supervisor was appointed who reduced hazing of Black Cadets. I suppose the creation of the Justice Department, created by Grant and still in operation today, was a reform. Grant also was able to reform the Tenure of Office act that allowed the President to choose his own Cabinet. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography

I see Rjensen restored the books I deleted from the Bibliography. That's fine, but I'd like to keep the reference section tidy. If it's too big, it might make it hard for readers to find anything (although {{sfn}} liknks may help with that, too). Again, I think the Abraham Lincoln article could be our guide. We should have those sources actually cited in the article listed first, so readers can find quickly from where a certain fact is derived. Then we can have a separate "additional references" or "further reading" section for useful books that aren't directly cited. I'm not sure that Grant requires a whole separate Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant subpage (Lincoln has one, but he has untold thousands of books about him) but if it got too unwieldy we could resort to that. What do you think? --[[User:Coemgenus|Coemg(talk) 11:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

re readers can find quickly from where a certain fact -- I believe there is no need for multiple lists of books. the footnote tells exactly where a statement came from. Rjensen (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty standard in Wikipedia articles to list only the books actually cited, not every book ever read in preparation of the article. I'm just trying to cut down the massive size of this article and make it manageable for the average reader and editor. But I'm happy to wait for others to weigh in before making changes to the Bibliography section. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I suggest discussion before deleting in the Bibliography. Possibly, books that are not used as a references could be put in their own section. If that section is too large, then a seperate article could be used for a complete bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant, as suggested, similar to the Lincoln article. I recommend cleaning up the references first from top to bottom in the article. Right now, in my opinion, the priority of this article needs to be summarization of the article text, uniformity of references, and retaining and/or establishing the neutrality of context. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

having multiple book listings is a crazy solution--yes it does exist in some articles and serves to baffle and confuse readers and thereby degrade the value of Wikipedia to users and make us look silly to teachers and librarians. The Wiki rules for "Bibliography" does NOT rule out using books that are not footnoted. As I noted before the books in question were actually used and they confirmed statements made in the text. Instead of using 2 to 5 different footnotes to books to document the same fact, my strong preference is to use just one source. However if people here insist that the recommended books be actually footnotes I will put in those footnotes. General Grant would never waste resources like that (look how well he handled the logistics at Vicksburg & Chattanooga).  :) Rjensen (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right, the MoS doesn't require the solution I proposed. It does say this: "It is most common for only citation footnotes to be used, and therefore it is most common for only one section to be needed. Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." I agree with Rjensen's point about keeping it to one cite per fact -- no need to use multiples for every uncontroversial fact (a practice I have been guilty of in the past). But you're right: it's not the most important thing to spend our time on. Further: the only thing more wasteful than revising the whole bibliography is arguing over how to revise the bibliography. I'm happy to leave it, for now, and (as Cmguy suggests) clean up the article and its citations as we go. That should produce better results. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Isbell??

I deleted the references to "Isbell (02-13-2012)">Isbell (02-12-2012), Fort Donelson Victory Brings Forth "Unconditional Surrender" Grant see http://www.sunherald.com/2012/02/13/3750488/fort-donelson-victory-brings-forth.html It's a lightweight newspaper feature story that adds nothing new and is far weaker than the standard biographies by Smith, Brands, Simpson etc. Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. No need for such sources when loads of scholarly books and articles exist. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead is too long and paragraphs in the lead are too large

The lead is waaaay too long, and paragraphs in the lead are a solid wall of text. MOS:LEAD directs that lead sections be no more than 4 reasonably sized paragraphs. WP:Writing better articles#Paragraphs has guidance on how to shape paragraphs. Could some take the lead in trimming it down? 123.203.195.18 (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

no the lede is not too long. It has to summarize a great many events of one of the most prominent leaders of the era. The Wiki rule is a gentle suggestion: "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule—the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs." "normally" applies to articles about video game characters and kings about whom little is known. Keep in mind that most users only read the lede. Rjensen (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. 123.203.195.18. It's way too long. Look at other articles on presidents -- even presidents with interesting a long pre-presidential careers. None of those ledes are as long as this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen that this Grant lede has to "to summarize a great many events of one of the most prominent leaders" during his era. I do not find attending West Point, fighting in the Mexican American War, and being stationed in the West during the 1850s uninteresting. True there were eight years of survival, but even then, Grant was successfully raising a family in Missouri. Fighting in the American Civil War, I do not find uninteresting. Being the top ranking General prior to becoming President I do not find uninteresting. Any repetition in the lede can be edited out. The term "way to long" is not very specific. Brands (2012) needs to be kept in the lede since he gives the most current research on Grant. I suggest making a specific proposal of how the lede would be summarized for editor concensus. If the lede is going to be changed, then putting in the talk page first would be the best alternative. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's hold off on changes for now. When I rewrite an article, I typically leave the lede for last, since it's meant as a summary. Why change it before we change the body? But, yeah, it's hella long. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus, before any rewrite of the article, I suggest that you read H.W. Brands (2012), The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses S. Grant In War and Peace. The book is similar to Smith (2001), but I believe Brands (2012) offers a good perspective of Grant in terms of Civil Rights and prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan. Brands (2012) also addressed the Panic of 1873 and Santo Domingo. Brands (2012) also thoroughly addresses Grant's miltary career during the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to take your word for it. I'm not going to re-write the whole thing, just try to help it along to GA. Whatever cites you've already added to Brands are probably fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I agree that there is a need for summarization in the article body. Any help to get to a GA status is welcome. The Civil War section probably could be reduced as well as the Presidential section. Standardizing all the references is good for the article. Is there an area of the article that you believe needs the most work on? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I appreciate keeping the Brands cites in. Any rewrites you do would be good for the article. Thanks. 74.42.189.39 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Grant and the Klickitat

In "Mexican–American War and pre Civil War service", we had this passage:

Grant came in contact with western American Indian tribes. In 1853, Grant stated that the Native Americans were "harmless" and that they would be "peaceful" had they not been "put upon by the whites". He stated that the Klickitat tribe was formerly "powerful", yet had been inundated by white civilization's "whiskey and Small pox."

It's only source is to Grant's papers. I took it out, for now. WP:PRIMARY tells us that we can use such sources, but only with care. Secondary sources are generally preferred. For my part, wading through the many, many volumes of Grant's writings seems beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article, and belongs more properly to the professional historians who write books and articles, which we then cite here. I can't find anything relating to this in Smith or McFeely. Do Longacre, Brands, Hesseltine, mention this? If they don't, I think it's best to leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus, I put in that edit. I do not oppose taking the edit out for the reasons you mentioned. However, these words are from Grant, and establish that he had no anymosity towards Indians in the 1850's. Grant was known for his Indian peace policy as President. I do not speak for Longacre, Brands, Hesseltine and I am not sure why we need their approval if they are not in any way contributing to this article. Hesseltine as mentioned was anti Grant. Why would he want to make Grant look like a nice guy? These words make the General look like a humanitarian. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We're overlength as it is. Should we really add things that Grant's own biographers don't think is important enough to put in their monographs? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That depends. Grant thought his views were noteworthy, I guess that is why he wrote them down. Biographers do not cover everything about a person. Biographers have covered Grant's Indian policy: McFeely (1981), Smith (2001), and Brands (2012). Brands (2012), pages 414-415, (2012) writes how Grant as Commanding General overuled General William T. Sherman and withdrew the Powder River forts on the Western Plains to keep the peace with Red Cloud. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

our job is to follow what the historians say is notable. His presidential Indian policy is notable; his offhand prewar comments on Indians are not. Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned I have not protested Coemgenus edits. In my opinion Grant's comments are notable because he did not find Indians to be aggressive and he went onto state that he believed small pox and whiskey caused the Indians demise in the West. Historians often quote Grant's view that the Mexican American war was unjust. I am all for following established historians in the article, if the historians are neutral or fair to their biographical subjects. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grant made an intense study of the Mexican War (from the inside), making his opinions worthwhile. His history of the war (in his Memoirs) helped make his reputation as one of the best military writers. On the other hand he did not study the Indians but repeated various notions he heard from fellow officers. Rjensen (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RJensen has it right, as I see it: "our job is to follow what the historians say is notable." --Coemgenus (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia states a reliable source needs to be verifiable and supports the edit. I believe Ulysses S. Grant was a reliable source. I approve the edit removal made by Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No. (that little tutorial is only for beginners). Wikipedia rules WP:WPNOTRS say we must use a reliable secondary source, and we should be very cautious using primary sources (such as his Memoirs): the rule = All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe my edit was made with caution. Wikipedia does allow the limited use of primary sources. The edit, in my opinion, did not contain any interpretation or analysis in the article. With this stated, again, I do not have any issue with Coemgenus removing the edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it's synthesis to say In my opinion Grant's comments are notable because he did not find Indians to be aggressive -- of course Grant was not talking about peaceful California Indians. His peace policy was dealing with VERY different warrior tribes (the Sioux, Apache, Navajo, Comanche, etc) Rjensen (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's synthesis. You're taking primary sources and analyzing them. Grant didn't write about how the Klickitat effected his views on Indian policy as president because he was writing contemporaneously, without reflection or analysis (plus, as Jensen says, they're totally different tribes and not all the same). You say "Biographers do not cover everything about a person," but they do tend to cover far more than an encyclopedia article in the hundreds of pages they write. If it's not in there, it ought not be in here. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Had I put in the article that Grant was a humanitarian or that Grant's view of Indians in the 1850's affected his Peace policy while President in the article, then that would be "synthesis" as Rjensen suggested. I was analysing primary sources in the talk page, not the article. I understand how that could lead to synthesis in the article and that is why primary sources should rarely be used. I understand and accept that secondary and tertiary sources are best for the article. I understand how the edit could be construed as "synthesis". There was no intent of "synthesis" in the article. I hope we can drop this issue. I admit that was not my best edit for the article and again Coemgenus had every right to remove from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it seems were ganging up on Cmguy777. These discussions in my opinion are the most stimulating part of Wikipedia and ‎Cmguy777 has done a lot to make them so good. Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant nothing personal. I also value the work you both do. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen and Coemgenus. Rjensen. I am complimented that discussions on Ulysses S. Grant are the "most stimulating part of Wikipedia" as an editor. Coemgenus. I did not think there was any ganging up on myself and I try not to take things personal. I think Grant's military and Presidential career are making somewhat of a come back as for as current historical research goes. I have felt historians, for the most part in the past have generally ignored or dismissed Grant's two terms in office. In addition I too value the work of both Rjensen and Coemgenus on work and interest in this article. Maybe editing out all primary sources in the article would be good, if there are any left. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

poster on Grant's career

I came across this great 1885 poster showing Grant's career--but am not sure how to format it and locate it. (It's now at the end of the lede) It appeared when he died and probably was used to sell his Memoirs

Clockwise from lower left: Graduated at West Point 1843; Chapultepec 1847; Drilling his Volunteers 1861; Fort Donelson 1862; Shiloh 1862; Vicksburg 1863; Chattanooga 1863; Commander-in-Chief 1864; The Surrender of Gen. Lee 1865.

Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's already there, in the "Military career 1843-1854" section. It is a nice poster. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

yes. It highlights his career & I think we should highlight it, especially for the visually inclined users. Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a great tribute to Ulysses S. Grant. Interesting there is no mention of Grant's Presidency in the poster. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. Maybe we should move it to the Civil War section, since that's mostly what's depicted? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Grant and Reconstruction

The article currently contends that Grant sided with Johnson's initial Reconstruction policy. McFeely (1981), pages 238-241, as the source. Smith (2001) and Brands (2012) do not support McFeely's contention. Smith (2001) stated on page 421 that Grant believed both whites and blacks required protection from the of the federal government. Grant supported the Freedman's Bureau, a Lincoln policy, while Johnson opposed the Freedman's Bureau. Grant supported and defended Congressional Reconstruction over Johnson. In fact Grant and Johnson opposed each other over Reconstruction policy. Brand (2012) on pages 391-392 calls Grant's report on the South "as apolitically objective as he could phrase it", however, Johnson had in fact appended Grant's report to a "self-congratulatory" message that he gave to Congress essentially declaring the Southern States were part of the Union again without Congressional approval. I believe more clarification needs to be written on Grant as General in Chief during Reconstrucion. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Smith says "Johnson, who was moving toward leniency for the South, saw the general in chief as a bedrock of support, which was an accurate reading of Grant's position. Grant, for his part, not only found himself in broad agreement with Johnson's goals, at least as he understood them at the time, but also brought an instinctive deference to their relationship." (p. 420) Grant's tour of the South, too, talked about the "thinking men" accepting their defeat and reconciling with the Union, although he began to differ from Johnson in advocating continued military occupation (Smith, p. 421). So, I think Grant and Johnson were on the same page, at first, but Johnson grew more conservative and Grant began to take the side of Congressional Radicals. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus, Smith is stating that Johnson viewed Grant as a "bedrock of support", not that Grant was a bedrock of support for Johnson. That was an accurate reading of Johnson's position on Grant, not Grant's position on Johnson. Brands clearly states that Johnson used Grant's objective report to push his own Presidential Reconstruction on Congress. Johnson opposed the Freedman's Bureau while Grant supported the Freedman's Bureau. What is true is that Grant was not yet a Radical in 1865. The Grant and Johnson coalition was had reached a "zenith" in 1865. The Freedman's Bureau was a Lincoln policy so Grant was supporting Lincoln's previous Presidential Reconstruction, not Johnsons. I believe Grant and Reconstruction needs three sources for clarification, McFeely (1981), Smith (2001), and Brands (2012). Cmguy777 (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus, Grant was in agreement with Johnson's goals, not neccessarily his policies. Deference would come from the fact that Johnson was Grant's boss, as Commander in Chief. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

By 1869, Grant was somewhat radical and Johnson was very conservative. But in 1866, the lines weren't as clear. Remember that Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Johnson all seemed to want to let the Southern states back in to the Union quickly, the only change being that they abandon slavery. The radicals in Congress actually thought Johnson would be more radical than Lincoln when Johnson took office. In retrospect, we can see how it shook out, but it's not wrong to show, as the biographers did, that Grant and Johnson were once on the same side. I think the article makes clear that they diverged fairly quickly. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln, Grant, and Johnson both wanted a speedy recovery of the South. Grant did not want this at the expense of African Americans. Johnson cared nothing about the fate of blacks and frankly he tried to reinslave them. Grant favored the Freedman's Bureau while Johnson opposed the Freedman's Bureau. Johnson may have been planning an overthrow of the Radical Congress and installing Southern Senators. According to Brands Grant distrusted both Johnson and the Racicals in Congress. Grant could not independantly exercise the military from Johnson, since Johnson was the President and Commander in Chief. Johnson was ambitious and jealous of Grant's popularity. Grant in his report had stated the issue of slavery was settled, but he also stated the South was not ready for self rule. Grant stated the white and black needed the military for protection in the South. Grant supported the Freedman's Bureau stating that "It cannot be expected that the opinions held by men at the South for years can be changed in a day...the freedmen require for a few years not only laws to protect them but for the fostering care of those who will give them good counsel and in whom they rely." Grant did not want the Freedmen become idle in the U.S. Military. Johnson only used Grant's report and popularity for his own political purposes. The article needs to state that Grant and Johnson disagreed over the Freedmans Bureau. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Smith nor Brands do not state that Grant desired Southerners to be reinstated in Congress. In his report Grant did not believe Southerners were capable of self rule and required the military and a few more years of the Freedman's Bureau. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

McFeely is vague, so I changed part of that section to reflect that. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I think the final edit looks great in the article. Adding Smith, Brands, to McFeely gives better historical perspective. I agree McFeely is generally vague. Thanks for your help. You are correct Grant did want Southerners seated in Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Created reforms article

I created the article Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration reforms. I believe this adds balance to the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals article, since his administration fluctuated between the forces of corruption and forces of reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. With a two-term president in a turbulent time, there's plenty of history to tell. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Coemgenus. I believe the Congressional Record is a good source to verify the reform. McFeely stated that (some historians have noted) Grant ended the moiety system. The CR might show when this law was written and signed into law by Grant. Ari Hoogenboom was McFeely's source Civil Service Reform and Public Morality, in H. Wayne Morgan, ed., The Gilded Age (Syracuse, 1970), 1-12, 77-95. I am trying to find the exact date Grant ended the moiety system, possibly 1874, after Secretary Richardson was replaced by Secretary Bristow. This discussion can be transferred over to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Source: McFeely (1974) Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct, edited by C. Vann Woodward, p. 133. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Scandals and reforms

I am requesting the "Scandals" section should be changed to "Scandals and reforms" This would make the article neutral since the Grant Administration fluctuated between corruption and reform. Grant thwarting the Gold Ring and prosecuting the Whiskey Ring. There were other reforms in the Justice, Interior, and Postal Departments. Seems like Grant was getting his "house in order" in 1875. That seems to be when most of the major reforms took place. I am not attempting to downplay the Gilded age corruption that took place during the Grant Administration. But I believe adding reforms would give the reader better understanding into his presidency. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I hate scandals sections, too. Why not just address each in its own place? Financial scandals in the finance section, etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree Coemgenus. There were scandals and the financial section would be good. Maybe we don't need to have the "Scandal" box in the main article. That would allow more space in the article. I am for addressing the "scandals" in the appropriate sections. If new sections need to be made that is fine. The "scandals" are throughly addressed in the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals. I am for keeping the scandals in the article but put in their appropriate places. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reforms need to be put in the appropriate sections also. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree about the box. I was going to bring that up myself. We should try to work the scandals and reforms into the appropriate sections where possible. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Gilded age

I propose to change the Scandals section titled to Gilded age. This would help relieve POV in the article, in my opinion and give opportunity to present corruption, and there was corruption during the Grant Administration, with Grant Administration reforms in the Treasury, Interior, and Justice Department. President Grant thwarted the Gold Ring and prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. The corruption in the Grant Adminstration was fueled by rapid Westward expansion and industrialization, in addition to uprooting of the nation caused by the Civil War. The Grant corruption and Grant reforms were part of the Gilded Age in a boom and bust economy. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The title change is fine, but I was thinking that we ought to move the gold ring out of there anyway and put it in a general financial section. The Public Credit Act of 1869, the Gold Ring, the Currency Act of 1870, and the whole Greenback question could then lead into the Coinage Act of 1873, the Panic of 1873, and the Specie Resumption Act of 1875. Maybe the Whiskey Ring could go in there, too, but I'm not sure it fits. I haven't written it yet because I wanted to make sure I understood Gould & Fisk's scam fully before I tried to write about it. I may take a whack at it in the next week. --Coemgenus (talk)

How about "Gilded age and corruption"? As that's what you just said it should be about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker. Yes. I would state Gilded Age corruption and reform. There was corruption and there was reform. Grant thwarted the Gold Ring, ended or limited the moiety system, and prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. There were reforms in the Interior, Treasury, and Justice Department. Corruption took place in the Interior Department, under Secretary Columbus Delano, however, that was cleaned up by Secretary Zachariah Chandler. Secretary Benjamin Bristow, Secretary Edwards Pierrepont, and Postmaster Marshall Jewell prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. President Grant gave approval for cleaning up the Interior Department and prosecuting the Whiskey Ring. President Grant also gave Secretary Pierrepont permission to clean up the Justice Department Southern U.S. Attorneys offices and U.S. Marshall offices. President Grant created the Justice Department and under Attorney General Amos T. Akerman and solicitor general Benjamin Bristow prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan in the South who intimidated and committed violent crimes against African American citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. The Gold Ring can go in the financial section since that scandal affected Wall Street and Western or South West farmers. I would though briefly mention the Gold Ring in the potentially titled Gilded Age corruption and reform section. I believe the Whiskey Ring is more the cleaning up of Treasury Department corruption. I do not believe the Whiskey Ring directly affected the national economy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I made changes to the Scandals section including title change and adding more information on reforms. I changed the title from Scandals to Gilded Age corruption and reforms. I added information on events that fueled corruption in government offices including Reconstruction after the Civil War and rampant speculation and economic Western expansion of the United States. I believe the section can be fine tuned. The Star Routes postal scandal could be mentioned and also that Postmaster Marshall Jewell, appointed by President Grant, curbed this contract fraud practice while in office. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

Can someone put this picture in the article?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2446391/Amazing-Civil-War-photographs-created-colorist-bring-eras-heroes-characters-life-color-time.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.100.85 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are beautiful, but almost certainly copyrighted by the artists that colorized them. We can only feature pictures that are free. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's a little (C) emblem in the lower left had corner of the pictures. Pity, they are indeed beautiful -- they almost take you back to the day. I'd recommend adding an external link to them, but no doubt it'll turn '404' in a year or so, typically. -- Gwillhickers 04:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Questionable terminology

In the Later Reconstruction section there is a passage that reads: "conservative southern militia groups (including the Red Shirts and White League) rose, using violence and intimidation against African Americans..., (Grant: A Biography, McFeely, pp.367-373). The term "conservative" or "red shirt" is nowhere to be found in that page range. In fact "Red shirts" is not mentioned in the book at all. (!) The WP article for Red Shirts refers to them as white paramilitary groups. The term "militia" is not used in the page range referred to. A militia is something that can be called forth by Congress. Big difference. Further, when McFeely uses the term "conservative" it is often used in a benign capacity. Someone should look into that source and do some rewording in the section. -- Gwillhickers 06:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Southern whites opposing Reconstruction called themselves "Conservative". The blacks formed official state militia units and so the term should not be used for the white militants. The "Red Shirts" was a South Carolina Conservative group. see for an example. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

They may have referred to themselves as that, along with who knows what else, but for purposes of the article it seems this broad and general term isn't quite befitting for such a group imo, and again, the source doesn't use this description. Yes, we should replace militia with paramilitary group or something to that effect. -- Gwillhickers 07:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

the usual term (used by them at the time and by historians ever since) for these Southern pols who opposed Reconstruction is "Conservative"; they eventually joined the Democrats and dropped the term "conservative"; they were also called Bourbon Democrats, which includes conservative northern Democrats like Grover Clevelamd. Compare "Liberal Republican" (as major party in 1872). There's nothing controversial about it. As for who knows what else, -- well that's what historians do for a living. ) Rjensen (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jensen's changes look good to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good RJ', though I might put the term conservative in quotes, just to distinguish these types from others. Naive readers could very well be mislead to thinking that all conservatives were and are racist to the same extent as the Red Shirts, KKK, etc. i.e.In Rable, 2007, p.167 it says, Dawson joined other conservative editors in roundly condemning the Hamburg massacre, particularly the killing of black prisoners. Dawson greatly helped Grant in his reconstruction/political efforts in South Carolina. Your call. -- Gwillhickers 15:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

McFeely uses the term "white supremacist" a lot in that section to describe the group the Klan recruited from. Smith does, too, though not as frequently. That might be the best term. It's fitting, considering that, as Smith says, the "Klan's avowed purpose was to undermine Reconstruction, destroy the Republican party in the eleven states of the old Confederacy, and reestablish black subordination in every aspect of Southern life. As one scholar [Eric Foner] has observed, 'The Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.'" (Smith, p. 544).

I suggest looking at H.W. Brands terminology. I don't know off hand, however, he has the most recent (2012) Biography on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Brands doesn't use any particular name for the KKK, but describes their purpose as "to intimidate blacks and Republicans and keep them from the polls." (p. 423). He says the White Leagues were "dedicated to the recapture of the state by white Democrats" (p. 539). Are we really unsure whether to call the these groups white supremacists? I don't think the question is in doubt. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't know about all that. "White supremacist" is a modern day term used to convey the idea that whites were/are the only race to claim they are tops. Of course we know that's not true as even today the various races in much of the world still harbor feelings of superiority. Anyway, just thought it would be a bit more clear if we put conservative in quotes as there were various types back then, including those in the effort of reconstruction. -- Gwillhickers 18:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

we're talking Reconstruction here and "Conservative" was a term everyone used. People come to Wikipedia to find out what it was really like back then, and we should tell them. Putting quotes around a word will puzzle readers but give them no new information. The problem at the time was that lots of former Whigs strongly disliked to call themselves "Democrats" so they used "Conservative." Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Chapter XXI of Hesseltine's biography of Grant is called "White Supremacy". The book was written in 1935. It's not that modern. McFeely uses conservative in describing non-Radicals, and white supremacist to describe unreconstructed rebels (like the KKK). I'm happy to use both, without quotes, where appropriate.

I'm all for telling readers the whole truth, by all means. Various issues are too often skewed and presented in a two dimensional manner, however, I have no big issue not using quotes here. Just looking for a way to convey the idea that conservative didn't always translate into pro slavery, racism, as is evidenced by Dawnson and others like him. -- Gwillhickers 09:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

H. W. Brands source

H.W. Brand (2012) The Man who saved the Union, Ulysses S. Grant in War and Peace has been completely ignored, a major biography on Grant, in the later Reconstruction period. Why? In my opinion that is POV. Also ignored in H.W. Brands article, Grant Takes on the Klan (December 2012). Again, in my opinion that is POV. Brand does use the term Ku Klux Klan in association with terrorism in the South. Yes. Brands does not use the term conservative. I prefer conservative without the quotes. These people did not want any blacks to vote or have citizenship. These people wanted blacks to be in subservient positions. Let's not blame only Southerners. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite turned out to be a traitor to Grant's reconstruction policy more then the violent militias. Again, H.W. Brands needs to be infused in the article. OK. Brands is pro Grant in terms of Reconstruction, that does not mean the Anti Grant McFeely should dominate the article. Brand's admires Grant for boldly taking on the Ku Klux Klan and ensuring a fair election of 1872 in the South. This article as a reminder is on Ulysses S. Grant, not the Klan, nor Conservatives. Let's keep the article focused on what Grant did to the Klan in 1871. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, although Brands (2012) is listed as a source in Indian Policy, his view that Grant turned the Indian Policy over to his subordinates because he had to prevent a second Civil War during the Election of 1876 crisis has been excluded. Also excluded from the article is that Gold discovered in the Black Hills is what set off the Souix War. Grant's Indian Policy in my opinion is under written in the article. That is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

POV, in the lingo of Wikipedia, means the personal views of individual editors. POV could possibly be stretched to cover an editor who deliberately erases the Brands interpretations because he disagrees with Brands, but that has not happened. There is a risk however that Cmguy777 might be pushing his own favorable views of Grant-the-president, so let's be careful. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Before you start accusing editors of bad faith, explain what POV is being pushed? What opinion is being used to override facts here? I don't see McFeely as anti-Grant. It's a pretty well-balanced analysis, really, that happens to have won a Pulitzer Prize. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The most recent research on Grant and Reconstruction is by H.W. Brands and he is not even listed as a reference in the Later Reconstruction section. Maybe POV is not the best choice of wording, however, I believe eliminating or excluding a source reference is bias in the article. McFeely accused Grant of perjury in his book. If that isn't anti-Grant I don't know what is, regardless of winning a Pulitzer Prize. McFeely is the only author I know of who accused Grant of perjury. McFeely believes that Grant was a criminal President and he treated him as such in his book. I had referenced that Grant's Indian policy was influenced by the 1876 election using Smith page 538. This edit was deleted from the article, in fact the Civil Rights section was deleted from the article. I do not view POV as bad or good, but that the artcile needs to be neutral. I am not accusing anyone of POV, but would like POV to be discussed in the talk page and eliminated in the article. Why was the Civil Rights section deleted? I am also requesting that Civil Rights be readded to the article. I apologize if mentioning POV offended anyone. I am all for critisizing Grant's Presidency, but I am also for adding balance to the article by citing President Grant's accomplishments. I do not want a pro or anti Grant Wikipedia article regardless of any POV I have towards President Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Smith was my source reference on Grant's Indian policy being influenced by the General election of 1876 and Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I combined the Civil Rights section with the Later Reconstruction section when I rewrote the latter because they overlapped to a great extent. I got Brands from the library two days ago. I had planned to begin adding it in if I found anything different from what McFeely and Smith wrote, but then we got wrapped up in all these POV accusations. What does Brands say that's different from what's in the Later Reconstruction section now? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. What does Brands say? His title say Grant was the man who saved the Union. His article states that Grant made a bold move againt former Confederate terrorists by prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan and ensureing a fair election in the South. Direct quote: "Historians have long underrated Grants performance as President." i.e. McFeely. Why is there such opposition to Brands when he is the most current source on Grant. Why does McFeely dominate? That is a 33 year old source. Brands is about one year old and his article is less then a year old. You can reduce the Reconstruction section. I have no issue with that. But please keep "Civil Rights" in the title. I believe bias can occur by leaving out the most current research on Ulysses S. Grant. Why was information on Grant's Indian policy influenced by the 1876 Election and Reconstruction removed? That was a Smith source. I do not agree that McFeely and Brands state the same things on Grant and Later Reconstruction. Brands needs to be in the article just as much as McFeely. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To answer one question: McFeely gets more respect because he won the Pulitzer prize which was awarded because he covered a lot of new territory. Brands adds little new info, except for his praise of Grant. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Brands is the most current research source on Grant and offers a widely different opinions then McFeely as stated above. Why not admit there is a McFeely bias in this article? All other historians do not have to worship McFeely because he won a Pulitzer Prize. McFeely's accusation that Grant was a criminal purgurer in my opinion is utterly biases McFeely against Grant and completely false. So is it the job of historians to make criminal accusations against Presidents of the United States? That is exactly what I am talking about. Brands is getting ignored because he has a positive view on Grant's Presidency. Why? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Why is there such opposition to Brands"? I'm not opposed to Brands and I'm getting pretty damn tired of you accusing me of bad faith editing. As I said above, I just got the book two days ago and haven't read very far into it yet. I asked you in good faith what new ground was broken by it and you get accusatory and bold-facey. Take a step back. No one is persecuting you. I've got nothing against H.W. Brands, although you seem to have an axe to grind against William McFeely. I'm all for including both, and Smith, and Hesseltine, and Catton, and Simpson, and any other credible historian that adds something meaningful to the scholarship. If you want to add some language about Indians and the '76 election, by all means do so. You'll get no argument from me. All I want to do is improve this woeful article so it can pass GA and eventually FA, so that more readers will see it and learn about Ulysses Grant who, if I must confess my bias, I actually admire a great deal. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. I don't have anything against your editing, in fact, I encourage you and Rjensen's editing in the article. I am not accusing anyone directly or implied of "bad faith" editing. My issue is with McFeely (1981) as a source, not with any editors on Wikipedia. I have already apologized for the "POV" statement. You and Rjensen have improved the article greatly. Here is my issue with McFeely (1981). His book is well written and critical of Grant and that is good. However, McFeely overstepped the line in my opinion when accusing Grant of perjury at his deposition for Babcock. Only Congress can file charges of impeachment against a President and Congress never did file charges of impeachment against Grant. To accuse a President of perjury goes beyond the scope of neutrality and I believe is hostile or anti-Grant, since McFeely views President Grant as a felon President. Brands (2012) on the other hand and Smith (2001) are much less to judge President Grant then McFeely. I will apologize again for any misunderstandings of any of my statements. My view is to accept the most modern research on Grant. If you and Rjensen favor McFeely that is fine with me. I would get out voted then, but I can accept that. I do not own this article. Please keep editing on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

for the record: McFeeley and I were classmates years ago, but I do not agree with his harsh views on Grant. Rjensen (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We can certainly mix in enough of the other sources to come up with a good consensus of scholarly opinion. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen. Wow. I did not know you and McFeely were classmates. In the interest of the article, I offer an unconditional apology for any statements I made that could be considered offensive or over reaction. In one way I admire McFeely for recapturing interest in Ulysses S. Grant. Although I don't agree with all his assessments on Grant and his Presidency he did deserve the Pulitzer Prize. What I don't understand is why McFeely was in my opinion severely critical of Grant, his life, his General carreer, and his Presidency. I appreciate all your views on Grant, edits made in the Grant article, and your aid you have given me in other articles. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Coemgenus. Yes. I agree. We can work on a good concensus of scholarly opinion for the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Indian wars

I like how the Indian section is developing, but we have to be careful to stick to reliable sources. The webpage that was added there yesterday doesn't qualify. I found most of what was sourced to it in Smith and McFeely (Brands doesn't much mention the Apaches) and re-wrote it accordingly. It's worth noting that Smith contradicts the website on the identity of the Apache chief involved (Cochise). --Coemgenus (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus for your valuable editing in the Indian section of the article. I agree reliable book sources are the best. I did not see anything that was unreliable on the website, however. An Apache Reservation was settled in 1872 by President Grant and gave the Apaches protection from Anglo encroachment. The Indian section is developing. This is only my opinion, but it would be nice if historians researched both Grant's successes and failures. The Indian section looks good. I believe more could be added. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is more on Grant and the Apache Reservation: Culture and Customs of the Apache Indians Veronica E. Velarde Tiller (2011) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Expulsion of Jews during the Civil War

This brief incident (General Orders No. 11, December 1862) is now the subject of a book by Jonathan D. Sarna, "When General Grant Expelled the Jews". According to Sarna, this seems to have been an aberration for Grant, and he later disowned it and deeply regretted it. The Wikipedia article may leave an impression that Grant himself was anti-Jewish. It would be good if the brief mention of this incident could be suitably modified, with a reference to Sarna's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.76.182 (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That book is already listed among the sources and the incident is mentioned twice -- once in the Civil War section, when it happened, and again in the 1868 election section, when it became a campaign issue. It's covered enough. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The reality is Grant felt haunted by giving the order and he rarely commented, if any, on the subject after 1868. Even in his own biography he skipped over the subject of anti-Semitism. He stated the order was hastily made without any thought. Grant may have been influenced by anti-Semitic forces already in the U.S. Military. Lincoln did not immediately rescind Grant's order, only after complaints from Jewish leaders and families who were banned in the order. President Grant appointed many Jews to office. Grant and his whole Cabinet attended the opening of a New York Synagogue. Grant obviously felt guilt for giving his order and I believe he expressed this remorse more through his actions on Civil Rights during his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)