Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Unorthodox approach

Did Grant take an unorthodox approach to choosing his Cabinet ? Lincoln was more independent of Congress when choosing his second Cabinet during his second term and Johnson did not consult Congress when he chose his Secretary of War...Or was the matter reversed...Was Congress attempting to choose the Cabinet of the President? That would be unorthodox. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

He absolutely did! That's not to say his approach was wrong or right, but the deviation from normal presidential behavior is significant. Before then, most presidents were beholden to party bosses, who had a lot of say in how the cabinet was formed. Grant, because he had such fame and popularity as the general who ended the rebellion, came to office without any debts to the bosses in the Senate. As a result, his cabinet was his alone, not the product of compromises with different factions. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, Smith (2001) does not use the term "unorthodox", but rather terms "methodical" and "exclusive". Lincoln chose his second cabinet more independently of party bosses during his second term and Johnson was almost impeached in part because he did not reinstate Stanton as Secretary of War as Congress demanded. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The other issue is that Lincoln and Johnson were not Republicans during Lincoln's second Adminstration, both belonged to the National Union party. Grant was the second elected Republican President in 1868. Lincoln was the first elected Republican President in 1860. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Do you think Grant chose his cabinet in a typical way? And I'm not sure what the name change to National Union has to do with anything. They were back to calling themselves Republicans in 1868. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln and Johnson were moving away from getting Congressional approval or advice. Was Grant following this trend? Grant, as a former general, chose his cabinet as if he were choosing staff officers...The trend seemed to be an independent Presidency starting with Lincoln in 1864...That's where the Nation Union party is signifigant independent of the Radical Republicans...Grant did appoint two Congressional Radicals: Creswell (Postmaster) and Boutwell (Treasury). Although Grant did not publically get advice he certainly was catering to the Radical agenda. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think any of that is true. No one moved away from Senatorial approval, it's in the Constitution. The Union party label was a temporary change to mollify War Democrats. Lincoln's cabinet was all about satisfying different party leaders. Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote an entire book about it, Team of Rivals. Changes coming in to the second term were minimal. Johnson didn't choose a cabinet, he inherited Lincoln's and Congress made him keep it. And there was no trend toward an independent presidency during the mid-19th-century; if anything, it was the opposite. I can't imagine any scholarly source saying otherwise. Other than that, we're in agreement. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not state nor imply that Grant appointed his Cabinet without Senatorial approval...That is not true...All of Grant's Cabinet had to be appointed by the Consent of the Senate. Lincoln was clearly moving away from the Radicals at the close of his second administration...Johnson almost established a Presidential dictatorship...Congress had to respond with the Reconstruction Acts to reign in the presidency. Grant could be argued to have reestablished Republican ties with the Presidency, especially after the Johnson impeachment trial. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cm' where are you going with this? Is there something in the article you would like to change? You nor Coemgenus didn't say, per article improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Smith does not state Grant's choosing his Cabinet was Unorthodox. Smith maintains Grant was choosing his Cabinet like a general would choose staff officers, without consultation. Lincoln and Johnson both were moving away from consulting the Senate. Lincoln barred Sumner from the White House. Grant, in essense, was reestablishing ties with the Radical Republicans by appointing Creswell and Boutwell to office. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes: choosing his cabinet like a general chooses his staff officers is unorthodox. I think we're saying the same thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have seen this passage in our article as a demonstration of the theme in the sources that Grant was a political neophyte (and that may help explain why his presidency was not great). I don't know, if that perspective will help you settle this but FWIW. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The only unorthodox choice Grant made was A.T. Stewart...All the rest of Grant's cabinet were confirmed without any hesitation from the Senate. Grant's choices of Cox, Hoar, Boutwell, and Creswell were popular. Fish was well qualified to hold office. Rawlin's was Grant's long time friend. It's not how Grant chose but who Grant chose. Boutwell and Creswell were Radicals. Grant was attempting to unify the Republican Party...Cox and Hoar were moderates. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Calling the first President to sign a Civil Rights Act a neophyte is a bit drastic... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy, neither "unorthodox" nor "neophyte" are words meant to convey any negative connotation. It was unorthodox not to consult with Senators before nominating a cabinet -- doesn't mean that it was bad or good. Grant had never held elected office before, hence he was a neophyte -- doesn't mean it was bad or good. These are just words that describe the facts, not judgements on Grant's ability or character. I had no idea anyone could take offense at either, and I'm certain no offense was intended. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Grant chose his Cabinet like he was a General and in fact he was...Why is that unorthodox and Smith does not use that word in the reference given...Unorthodox and Neophyte are not entirely flattering words to call a two term President...Never held elected office is misleading...Grant was Commanding General of the United States army by appointment...Grant also sent Rawlins to Washington to visit Lincoln to be his spokesperson during the American Civil War. He had alot of responsibilities administering Reconstruction and pacifying the West from Indian attacks...Grant was also acting Secretary of War until Stanton's return. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's unorthodox because it was breaking with convention or tradition. That's literally the definition of unorthodox. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Neophyte is not meant as a slur, just something that the sources seem to stress, especially given his going away speech as president where he basically said that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was to go by the sources...Smith (2001) does not mention Grant broke with convention or tradition, but rather he chose his Cabinet like a General choosing his staff officers...I don't recall any source that calls Grant a political neophyte...Remember Grant had Washburne in Congress to protect his military career and to get promoted...If you have read Bruce Catton (1969), Grant Takes Command, the first chapter is devoted to Grant and politics titled "Political Innocent" that counters Grant was a neophyte. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Compromise wording

Is there another word other then unorthodox that could be used in the sentence concerning how Grant chose his cabinet ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested words: unconventional, nontraditional; militarily Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: Grant, a former general, nontraditionally chose his cabinet methodically without consultation, expecting each person to serve their country without hesitation. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree to that sentence. But if you want to take the sentence already in the article and take the word "unorthodox" out and put in "unconventional", I don't object, because they mean the exact same thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe my sentence is more in line with Smith (2001) then the current sentence...who uses the word "methodical". I prefer "nontraditional". In my opinion there is nothing unorthodox the way Grant chose his cabinet since he was a former general and Smith (2001) does not state that Grant was unorthodox in choosing his cabinet. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The term unorthodox could easily suggest to a reader that some sort of moral or constitutional wrong had occurred, whereas unconventional or nontraditional would not. Or we could not use any of these terms and simply say that Grant made Cabinet selections in a different manner than (most/all?) Presidents before him. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Longstreet

[moved from above] This is an outstanding article, yet with all respect, If people are OK with it, I would like to change the part where it talks about Grant's wedding and speaking of James Longstreet "as his best man." We addressed this ambiguous tidbit as accurately and thoroughly as possible over in the Longstreet article, and I think this article should be consistent with it. I am a professional historian, and to my knowledge, no one has ever produced any serious evidence to show that Longstreet was indeed Grant's best man. Many knowledgeable people who have seriously dug into the situation have pointed this out. At most, it seems very likely Longstreet was in attendance of the wedding and maybe was a groomsman, but there is nothing to really suggest from the primary sources that Longstreet was indeed Grant's best man, despite it being said so in secondary sources. My honest guess is that it got mentioned in a secondary source years ago, was simply accepted as fact, and then repeated again and again and again in secondary sources (including Bill O'Reilly's book on Lincoln). Harry Yelreh (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I checked the pages in McFeely to which that sentence is cited, and it says nothing about Longstreet being his best man. I'll delete that part of the sentence. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome! It has been noted on the Longstreet talk page that apparently perhaps the closest thing to a primary source making the claim is the 1905 memoir of Longstreet's Confederate chief of staff, Moxley Sorrel (who knew Longstreet very well but was still a child at the time of the Grants' wedding and was nowhere near it when it took place). So the claim still appears at least pretty questionable, for a number of reasons. One of the most succinct ways I've read to describe the situation was in a NYT blog from last year (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/an-unlikely-friendship/?_r=0): "The two married in 1848, with the newlywed Longstreets in attendance and, according to some accounts, with Longstreet himself as groomsman." That seems to me to be a pretty good way to say it if, in the future, someone deems the whole thing necessary for inclusion in this article. Thanks, Coemgenus. Harry Yelreh (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

List of units/organizations at his procession

I came across this quite by accident, and am not really sure if it has a place in the main article, but this news article has the list of military units, including each unit commander's name, and civilian organizations involved in the funeral procession, in the order they marched. KMJKWhite (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

TOC issues

Not too long ago I pointed out that the Civil War section wasn't placed under the Military career and personal life section and as such, the TOC was in need of attention, however, if we rename the former section to Early Military career and personal life in the same manner it occurs on the General Edward Canby page then this would improve the TOC in that regard. Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What's TOC? YoPienso (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Table of Contents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Absolutely should say Early military career and personal life, even though it's a tad long for a subtitle. Otherwise, it's illogical. We went over during FAR why the early military career and the personal life are inextricably intertwined. YoPienso (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any objections I made the change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed this discussion somehow, but yes, that makes sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Horse Whisperer as an Anachronism

A recent addition was made that cites 2 sources that claim Grant was a "horse whisperer." This is a term that the Wikipedia page for horse whisperer acknowledges saw use beginning in the 1970s and gained popularity in the 1980s and 90s. This is not a term that Grant or his biographers used. It's not of the times and put a different connotation on Grant's horsemanship, however expert or kind or unusual that was. The sources are probably fine (can't view them readily online) but the term itself doesn't belong in the article; expert horseman is fine without bringing in a more modern word with other, probably unintended connotations. 162.206.141.210 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Grant a member of the IOOF

Evidently Grant was a member of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. i.e.Someone just added a category for this. If his involvement was more than just passing it seems we should we mention this somewhere in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the indices of the standard sources, I didn't see any mention of the Odd Fellows. If he belonged, it clearly wasn't a very important part of his biography. But I could look more deeply into the source materials if anyone know when exactly he was inducted or whether he ever did anything noteworthy with them. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If Grant was a member of IOOF for something other than honorary considerations I'd say we should mention it though. I suspect he became a member after his terms as president, so it might work well near or at the end of the 'Presidency' section. After a cursory search most of the Google results simply mention he was a member -- nothing more. The lot of us might want to check the index in the various Grant's biographies to see what pans out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

misquote

The fine article on Ulysses S. Grant has the following quote in the section entitled "Commanding General," with the sub-heading "Transition to peacetime":

That same year, Grant spoke at Cooper Union in New York, where the New York Times reported that "... the enhanced and bewildered multitude trembled with extraordinary delight."

The word "enhanced" made no sense, so I checked other appearances of the quote on the Internet, and the word should be "entranced." There are a lot of occurrences of the misquote on the Internet, but better sources show that it should be "entranced." The first is the New York Times itself, cited in the Wikipedia-article quote above, and the second is HaroldHolmyard (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)a biography of Grant:

THE JOHNSON MEETING - Immense Concourse at the ... www.nytimes.com/.../johnson-meeting-immense-conc...The New York Times ... from limb to limb, the entranced and bewildered multitude trembled with extraordinary delight, and manifested, in all known and approved methods, their entire ...

Grant: A Biography - Page 234 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0393323943 William S. McFeely - 2002 - ‎Biography & Autobiography ... but from head to foot, from limb to limb, the entranced and bewildered multitude trembled with extraordinary delight . . . with the foregoing 'speech.' "7 Grant ...

So please correct "enhanced" to "entranced."

HaroldHolmyard (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Harold. YoPienso (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Commanding general and authority

As Commanding General, did Grant have authority over the Navy or was that left to the President ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, without researching it, my educated guess is, no. Grant dealt with the Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, not the Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles. This was decades before there was a unified command. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Grant dismissed Butler from naval command...the article does not make it clear what authority Grant had as Commanding General...Did the law giving Grant command state what power he had as Commander ? When Grant became President Sherman's power as Commander was reduced by both Rawlins and Belknap. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I suggested someone has to do actual research and get sources to see if it matters, in the least, and is even true (which I said I doubt) but Butler what? Benjamin Butler (politician) was in the Army, not the Navy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a brief time when Union Army officers commanded gunboats on the Mississippi, but by the time Grant began operations in the Mississippi River valley, he was coordinating with Naval officers for gunboat support. Joint operations on the Atlantic Coast were commanded by Army generals before they were commanded by Naval officers. The respective spheres may have been aligned before Grant's elevation to command of all the armies. That may narrow the timeframe for the research of who did what to whom, where and how often. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the initial bill February 24, 1864 was very basic stating "and who, being commissioned as lieutenant general, who shall be general-in-chief of the armies of the United States, under the direction of the President... There is nothing mentioned concerning the navy...Apparently Grant did not have direct control over Admirals in the Navy. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Source:journal of the senate of the united states of america pages 184-185 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Grant and Lincoln were partners and that Grant bypassed the Secretary of War, at that time Stanton. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No where will you ever find a U.S. president referred to as anyone's 'partner'. To say Lincoln and Grant were "partners" is to say each had just as much authority as the other. We shouldn't use such a term in the actual article. Very misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Catton used the term that Lincoln and Grant were partners...Also the law stated Grant was only accountable to Lincoln bypassing Stanton, the Secretary of War, at that time. Grant and Lincoln did have a meeting on how to defeat the South in March 1864. Lincoln was Commander in Chief and Grant was General in Chief. Brands stated Grant saved the Union, not Lincoln. I did not put that Grant and Lincoln were partners. Also Grant wept and Lincoln's funeral. That implies there was some sort of close friendship between the two. I was not trying to be controversial on the mentioning Grant and Lincoln partnership. 74.42.183.73 (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there something specific you want to add to the article? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I did already. I added that Grant was only under Lincoln's authority or direction for clarification, according to the law his title was General In Chief. 74.42.183.73 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone in the executive (including the Army) was under Lincoln's authority, but it remains that Stanton would Order Grant to do things. [1]. This is hardly surprising as Stanton was Lincoln's Secretary of War for such matters, as issuing orders to Grant - chain of command, and all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

ASW is correct, but it should be said (here) that directives from Lincoln often came through his Cabinet, which is a component of the President's office. To say that Stanton issued an order is to say Lincoln authorized it. As this goes without saying, is this (or any such) distinction really necessary in the article? i.e.How does this bear on Grant himself? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going by what the law stated specifically that Grant was only under Lincoln's direction...There is no mention that Stanton was present during Grant's meeting with Lincoln...In other words Lincoln talked directly with Grant before Grant attacked Lee. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln did not cut out Stanton, so Grant could not. [2] What makes you think that Stanton was bypassed? Is there anything, at all, to suggest that Lincoln, Stanton and Grant did not get along? If so, I have never seen it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

After the law was passed Lincoln had a meeting with Grant where Lincoln directed Grant how to run the war...That was the purpose of the law so Lincoln and Grant could team up how to win the war. That was the law...There is no mention of Stanton at the meeting...There is no mention that Grant was under the authority of the Secretary of War only the President...Congress could have added the term Secretary of War but did not. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Senate Record you rely on for the law says that that portion of the law you rely on was struck out of the law by the Senate. (see also, [3] pp 18-19. All that law did was revive the rank of Lieutenant General. (see also, Commanding General of the United States Army). Remember that it was not until after the war, after Lincoln was dead, that the brand new position for Grant was created (see, General of the Army (United States)) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Historian Elizabeth R. Varon calls Grant and Lincoln "the architects for Union victory" Source: Southern Lady, Yankee Spy : The True Story of Elizabeth Van Lew, a Union, Prologue 5 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Catton in Grant Takes Command states Lincoln and Grant had an unbreakable partnership Source: Grant Takes Command Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have a clear answer, here. It's likely not at all clear at the time, except that Lincoln was in charge of everyone. Lincoln met much more often with Stanton than with Grant -- and most times without Grant. So, by your measure Grant was excluded. Lincoln and Stanton spent intense times together at the War Department (often several times a day) and personally together at the Old Soldiers Home, where they both stayed to escape the White House and talked for hours. As for partnership, I just finished a biography of Seward, where he is proclaimed as Lincoln's great partner. They were all (junior) partners in one way or another. So, your snippets do not show anything more than that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cm', it would help matters if you told us exactly what you want to say in the article and explaining how your proposal ties in with Grant in terms of his biography. i.e.Is your statement biographical, or is it a minor detail regarding politics in general? Context is always welcome so long as it doesn't become too tangential in terms of Grant the person and his actions. As for the use of the term "partner", this is obviously used in the figurative sense, by Catton, et al. I'd recommend that we not use this term, but instead note any close relationship Grant may of had with anyone in question, if appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to keep the focus of discussion on Grant and Lincoln and/or Andrew Johnson, not Steward and Stanton. Grant is listed as General in Chief in the March 1864 law under the Presidents direction commander of all Union Armies. Grant replaced Butler and Fort Fisher, the last Confederate ocean port, was captured by Union forces. Grant ordered Fort Fisher to be taken so he must have had some authority over the Navy in terms of where launch a naval attack. Grant needed Lincoln's permission to remove Butler. I already added that Grant was under Lincoln's sole supervision to the article. There is also the 1866 law to that apparently gave Grant more authority additionally I believe Congress Grant the authority to reject the dismissal of any generals during Reconstruction to counter act President Johnson...In terms of adding anything...I would support a sentence on Fort Fisher being captured and Grant replacing Butler... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition

• Grant relieved Butler of command and Fort Fisher, the Confederacy's last open seaport, was captured on January 15, 1865. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point. Grant wasn't even within a hundred miles of the battle, and it wasn't especially crucial to winning the war like, say, Gettysburg. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is Grant fired Butler and the job got done. Grant was Commander in Chief...He was in charge of all armies including the Army of the James. Why is this so controversial ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is a side note but wasn't Vicksburg more important since it split the Confederacy in two...Gettysburg was a defensive Union victory. Lee's Army escaped while Perberton's army surrendered and put on furlough by Grant... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Any other editor opinions, pro or con, or rebuttals ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• I see no harm in mentioning that Grant fired or relieved Butler if there is an appropriate section/paragraph for this fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I agree Gwillhickers. This shows Grant was a pro active General. McFeely would be the appropriate source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There's already plenty in there to show that Grant was an aggressive general, and that he was not afraid to relieve subordinates. The problem with your proposed sentence is it's completely lacking in context. To explain it, we'd have to get into why Fort Fisher was important, why Butler failed to get the job done, why he was relieved, and who replaced him to take the fort. That's a whole paragraph, and none if it has to do with Grant. It might be useful in the Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War article, but we don't have room for non-Grant tangents in the already over-large main article. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I never proposed adding a paragraph only the above sentence and McFeely reference...There is no need for an additional paragraph explaining Fort Fisher since there is a link to the second battle of Fort Fisher...The main point is that Grant fired Bulter an incompetent General and Fort Fisher the Confederacies last sea port was closed ... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be one editor Cmguy777 in favor, one Coemgenus against, and one Gwillhickers "no harm in mentioning that Grant fired or relieved Butler". Is putting in sentence and reference a go ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

New York Times biography 1885

I thought this could be a good reliable source on Grant by the New York Times (July 24, 1885): The Career of a Soldier Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This article uses 46 secondary sources already. Is there something missing from all of them that a primary source newspaper article would provide? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks to the publication of the Grant papers (With tens of thousands of documents) and many many scholarly studies, and undergraduate today has much better access to the life of Ulysses Grant than did a newspaper writer in the 1880s. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I just thought this would make a reliable source...I encourage modern research. I don't know if anything is missing in the article. I mentioned this only because the NYT did a biography on Grant...Somewhat similar to the later Dictionary biography series. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is somewhat favorable to his presidency...understanding this is 1885. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I can add the NYT source to Grant's bibliography. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the newspaper article actually a primary source simply because of its date of publication? I thought primary sources came from people actually involved or closely related with a given person or event. Unless the writer of the article was present at such an event it would seem the article in question is a secondary source. If we consider this newspaper article as primary lets remember that using primary sources is allowed so long as we don't embark on original research where we advance a new position. In any case, don't we have enough modern sources already to cover this? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"In any case, don't we have enough modern sources already to cover this?" That's what I was thinking. I don't think there's anything missing here that can only be found in an old newspaper. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Before making any judgements has anyone actually read through the NYT biography or part of the biography ? The article actually covers Grant's prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cm', now you're going off on a different topic before resolving the issue at hand. Do you intend to use the article to source the idea that Grant relieved Butler? Please focus your discussions. If Grant relieved Butler this is certainly worth mentioning in an appropriate section. McFeely would be among the best of sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I already replied in the above section concerning McFeely and Grant firing Butler. I agree that information is worth putting into the article since this Confederacy was completely shut off from the Atlantic Ocean and trade. The NYT's article was meant for discussion...This presents an 1885 positive view of Grant concerning his presidency ! The article presents Grant as protecting civil rights, a civil service reformer, and the successful Treaty of Washington. I thought possibly this could be used in the Historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

But what does it add that the existing sources are lacking? The fact that it makes him look good is not an argument for inclusion in an already balanced, accurate, and well-sourced section. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I already mentioned that this source could be used in the Historical reputation section in terms of how the NYT viewed Grant's presidency. The article confirms Grant recieved two houses as gifts after the War ended. Did you Coemgenus read through or part of the NYT article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(1) We already cover Grant's popularity in that era using scholarly sources. This source has nothing they lack. (2) The NYT was a Republican paper throughout Grant's presidency, in an age when newspapers were even more openly partisan than they are now. Of course they loved him. Someone who didn't know that might think it significant, but it isn't. This also illustrates why we prefer scholarly, peer-reviewed sources when they're available—a historian knowledgeable about the period would likely not include that in his book, because to say that the Republican press loved a Republican present doesn't add much to the story. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Cm', I agree with Coemgenus here. Unless the NYT article offers information other sources don't have we should just stick to the sources we already have, which are numerous. It's good that you found the information regarding Grant's relieving of Butler, and this should be mentioned, as it's not a minor detail but one which involves a major decision and action made by Grant himself. Can you give us the passage from the article you think this information belongs, with your proposal in bold? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Gw' McFeely (1981) pages 197, 198 was the reference for Grant firing Butler. The NYT (1885) article has information on the houses that were bought Grant and I thought could be used in the article in the Historical reputation section. Obviously there are mixed reviews and maybe it is best to put in the Grant bibliography article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

the NY Times article is not up to modern standards--the anon author had access to NY Times stories (as we all do) but not to the personal or official documents historians use, nor to in-depth studies of other major players. Just drop it please--inclusion means recommending it to unwary students. Rjensen (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I never stated that the NYT article was up to modern standards, personal, official, nor in-depth. But in my opinion the article is reliable and presents a positive view of Grant's presidency and lists the houses bought for him while commanding general. I can't speak for "unwary students". I was only going to put in the bibliography as a reliable source, not a recommended source. I can "drop it" since I don't appear to be getting alot of support for the NYT article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I have no desire to use the NYT article as a source, esp since the writer is unknown, but I have to take exception to the idea of "modern standards". If a modern publication offers no new facts (i.e.newly discovered letters, documents, etc) how is it automatically better than an older source with the same information? In many instances, modern sources often obscure the truth with 'modern opinion', esp since modern day professors/historians seem to be getting more partisan. As I've always maintained, sources should be judged on a per source basis. e.g.Just because Mcfeely's publication is 30+ years older than say, Smith or Flood, doesn't mean it's not as reliable or that it ignores any particular standard(s). That said, I'd opt for using Mcfeely as the source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the most important activities of archivists, historians, and librarians in the last hundred years has been an exhaustive collection of documents, letters, references, and other papers that relate to very important people, including Grant. The War Department by 1900 published its Official Records in over 100 large volumes of documentation on the Civil War, including all the relevant messages it could find to and from General Grant. Simon edited some 30 large volumes of Grant papers. Vast amounts of important material have also turned up about Grant's contemporaries, including Lincoln, Lee, Sherman, Johnson, and many others. That is the basis of what I have called "modern scholarship" for the era. Furthermore, the growth of PhD programs after 1950 produced scores of thousands of scholars trained in using these documents. Anyone who does not have access to this documentation-- and that includes the anonymous New York Times writer--is in a pretty hopeless position. As for the political dimension of the historians themselves, I think you see much more of that in the political historians like Hesseltine and McFeely, and much less among the military historians who have written most of the books in our "Further Reading." Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rjensen makes the point I've been trying to make better than I could make it. A biography written in the nineteenth century is qualitatively different than one written in our own time. And if the NYT article is not "up to modern standards, personal, official, nor in-depth", as you admit, Cmguy, then there's no way we should ever use it when we have modern sources that fulfill all of those qualifications. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Brands (2012) sources the New York Times The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses Grant In War and Peace in Chapter 81 Chapter 82 Chapter 84 Chapter 85 Chapter 86 and Chapter 87... If the NYT is good enough for Brands (2012) then the NYT should be good enough for Wikipedia standards. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Brands is already cited in the article -- it would generally make little sense to cite secondary sources' primary sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rjensen makes some good points, but as I maintain, unless there are new facts offered in a more modern source, it possesses no real advantage over older publications. Rj' mentions dates such as 1900 and 1950. That's of course many years ago, so I'd be careful to refer to any work done in or around these times as "modern". This is not to say we don't have any advantages here in the present, but again, unless there is new and definitive facts uncovered I don't see any distinct advantage of newer publications over the old. Remember also, that many writers (e.g.Badeau, King, etc) before 1900 had direct access to famous people and places and didn't rely primarily on hand-me-down secondary sources for their works. Again, we should evaluate sources on a per source basis. I take exception to the NYT article because the writer is unknown, not simply because of its date of publication. 'Nuff said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Smith (2001) Grant also sources the New York Times in Chapters 17, 18, 19, and 20. My point is that biographers use the source the NYT's in their respected biographies. This talk was never meant to be controversial. The above article does mention the houses bought for Grant while Commanding General...if that could be considered a "new fact"...and the article gives a positive view of Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Grant's reliving of Butler is not a minor detail and involves a major decision/action taken by Grant himself. We would not include this item simply to show Grant was an "aggressive general", but more importantly, to include the statement under its own merit. i.e.Grant relieved Butler. It would also be nice to know exactly why Grant relieved Butler, for the sake of context. Seems we can do this inside one sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Do we actually know why Grant relieved Butler? According to Williams, 2005, p.107, Butler made major profits from cotton and was so involved in the cotton trade that VP Johnson wondered if his strategy revolved around putting down the rebels, or putting his army in a position so as to help in (or not get in the way of) the cotton trading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Brands (2012) sources the New York Times The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses Grant In War and Peace in Chapter 81 Chapter 82 Chapter 84 Chapter 85 Chapter 86 and Chapter 87... If the NYT is good enough for Brands (2012) then the NYT should be good enough for Wikipedia standards." This completely misses the point. Brands is an historian, Wikipedia editors are not. He is qualified to review all of the primary sources and analyze them, we are not. His work is edited and peer-reviewed, ours is not. I've already told you more than once to read our policy on reliable sources, but I'll quote it again here: "When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." That's what you're doing here. If you still don't understand, I'll try to explain it again, but if you understand the policy and just seek to violate it, there's not much more to be said on the subject. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Assuming the NYT article is primary, I don't see where Cm' has embarked on original research and has advanced a new position. We should mention Grant relieved butler simply because it's a major decision/action taken by Grant himself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That depends on what primary sources are defined as. I would call the NYT a secondary source...Grant's papers and letter's are primary and I agree editors should be extremely cautious on their interpretations...I am not interpreting a primary source...But really any source interpretation (primary, secondary, or tertiary) could go beyond the author's intent...Is anyone arguing that the NYT is not reliable ? ...Brands and Smith, modern historians, rely on old newspapers...that is a fact. Apparently using the NYT or any old newspaper is a source of contention in this article...I am not sure why that needs to be so...repectfully... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

editbreak1

Cm', exception to the NYT article as a RS was taken by myself and at least one other editor because the writer is an unknown. Again, primary sources are allowed if no OR is practiced, and you have not done this. However, if you can source the idea with an existing RS I don't see where there would be any real problem. I had a number of Grant biographies, including McFeely, etc, from the public library but have since returned them, so you or someone needs to source the statement appropriately, and of course mention the idea (i.e.Grant relieved Butler) in an appropriate section. According to these sources 1, 2, 3, Grant relieved Butler because of his failed attempt to take Fort Fisher, for withdrawing troops against Grant's orders and because Grant saw him as “an unsafe commander for a large army.” (See also: First Battle of Fort Fisher -- Butler's recall) -- Btw, Grant's invasion of Ft. Fisher is not even mentioned in the article either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers I already gave the source for Butler being fired by Grant. McFeely (1981) pp 197, 198. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

How and where will you include the statement that covers this event? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777:, it's been almost a week since your last reply here and you have not followed through with any actual plan for your proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Mathew Brady" photo of General Grant at the Battle of Cold Harbor in 1864

According to the Library of Congress, the photo of General Grant at his Cold Harbor HQ was taken by Edgar Guy Fowx. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/cwp/item/cwp2003001331/PP/.

If this is not disputed, the Wikipedia citation and attribution of this photo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#/media/File:Grant_crop_of_Brady_photo.png) in this article should be updated and corrected.

(Unrelated - this photo was featured in an interesting blog post at the Library of Congress on the manipulation of a photo purporting to show Grant at City Point, VA: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/cwp/mystery.html. The "head shot" of Grant from Cold Harbor was used in the falsified City Point picture.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.65.42 (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears that it came from the Brady-Handy collection which led to misattribution, I will try to fix it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Request to include website in your list of External Sources

I would greatly appreciate it if you could include my website on Grant in your list of External Sources. My credentials are on the main page of the website. Title of website: Ulysses S. Grant Information Center. URL: http://libguides.css.edu/usgrant/home

Thank you, MEKinMinnesota (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@MEKinMinnesota: Looks like a nice site, however we have a fair number of external links already. On cursory examination your site looks like it is worthy of inclusion here, and I wouldn't mind seeing just one more link for the site, given its apparent quality. However, let's see what the others have to say first. Thank you for your time and effort all the way around, and welcome to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Request to include website in your list of External Sources. Thank you very much, Gwillhickers. I have spent several years on this rendition of the website (it's been revised into new software a few times). I think you will find a huge amount of Grant related information in it that would be of great benefit to anyone interested in Grant. I am also the author of Ulysses S. Grant: a Bibliography. Praeger, 2005. I hope I've responded to you correctly in here. I'm finding it rather confusing as to how to respond to a thread in the Talk Page. MEKinMinnesota (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC) 3 November 2015

No worries. Just look at how others make their edits. If you want to indent a following talk-paragraph, just add one or more colons -- each colon will indent the paragraph one increment. Also, have you thought about including a 'Search' function to your web site? Also, you might want to include your interets, etc on your talk page. I took the liberty of adding a user's editors star for you there. Of course, you can remove it if you like. Again, welcome. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My problem is that I don't know what to click on to make a reply. Is "edit source" correct? That's what I've been using. There is a search box in my website, upper right hand corner. The software is LibGuides, a program used widely in all kinds of libraries, especially academic ones. My site is hosted at The College of St. Scholastica, where I was a professor (now retired) Good suggestion about my "talk page." I'll do something in there. Thank you. Marie MEKinMinnesota (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC) 4 Nov. 2015

Every section title has an 'edit' link that follows where that you click on to edit that section. As a knowledgeable editor, I hope you will share the benefit of your knowledge when discussion occurs on this talk page. Just so you know, many president's pages are read thousands of times a day by the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Crédit Mobilier scandal and Election of 1872

Does the Crédit Mobilier scandal need to be mentioned in the Election of 1872 ? Although the scandal did not signifigantly effect the outcome of the election it was embarrassing to the Republicans particularly Wilson. The timing is signifigant coming out one month before the election. Wilson denied involvement but the confessed involvement during the Congressional investigation into the Crédit Mobilier in February 1873 one month before the inauguration. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been in the article as long as I can remember. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential edit: "One month prior to the election the press published the Crédit Mobilier scandal naming prominent Republicans, including Wilson and Colfax, who were either given cash bribes or purchased Crédit Mobilier railroad stocks in 1868. Although the scandal had no effect on the general election, Wilson admitted involvement during a Congressional investigation in February 1873, but he was not denied the Vice Presidency." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Not that much. Just add 'and Wilson' to Colfax in the current sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Eric Foner's book review

In the historical section Foner's review of Brands (2012) seems inconsitent to Brands (2012) book. Brand (2012) admonishes Grant's commitment to Civil Rights and his Indian policy. Historians have lauded Fish's work in the State Department. Other historians note Grant's Civil Service Reform commission. Bristow was a popular reformer shutting down the Whiskey Ring. In my view that last paragraph seems to be POV of Foner's. Also the paragraph say "experts". What is an expert ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the two historians have differing opinions. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Foner seems to disregard Brands (2012) for that matter Smith (2001) works on Grant rather citing McFeely (1981) and Nevins (1927) (1935). In fact Mcfeely lauds Foners (1988, 2014) Reconstruction book. That is POV in my opinion. I don't believe it is neutral to use a book review to critisize Grant on a book that has an overall positive view of Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Foner's POV conflicts with Brands's POV. Our NPOV policy doesn't prevent using scholarship that reflects the author's opinion--that would rule out all scholarship! It prevents us from using our own opinions as a basis for how we present information in the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Most historical rankings do not cover civil rights or equal justice. The CSPAN 2009 Pursued Equal Justice For All ranks Grant at 9. That is above average. Most historical rankings rank Grant below average when not considering civil rights. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

See, what your doing now, excluding some historians' opinions because you disagree with them? That's NPOV. Foner and Brands are entitled to have their opinions included in the article; you and I are not. Get it? So just because you don't like what America's leading scholar on Reconstruction has to say about Grant, you can't exclude it as a back door to making Grant look better. And as to rankings, we've discussed this many, many times before. Unless some new rankings have been published, I don't see what has changed since we arrived at the current consensus language. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not incerting my opinions into the matter or article...Editors are suppose to make the article neutral as possible. I inserted the word "most" because one C-Span survey gave Grant a 9 out of 43 in terms of Equal Justice for all. The POV of many of the Rankings is because Civil Rights is excluded from the Surveys except C-Span...The reader is mislead to think that all of these rankings demote Grant or have the same criteria...Foner's 1988 work really has not been updated even having a 2014 copyright date...I don't hold to the belief that historians are infallible or without bias...History is a business that makes profits when you sell books...Reading through Foner's work Grant's work on destroying the Klu Klux Klan is minimized...I just want the article to be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors are not allowed to argue with the RS. We just report what they say. The POV rule applies only to Wikipedia editors and NOT to the RS. (It is very hard indeed to find a RS who is "neutral" about Grant.) NPOV means that our article includes all (major) views on Grant fairly. Rjensen (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. The article for the most part is neutral and fair. I made a few minor edits...one edit adding the word "most" in reference to the C-Span ranking of Grant at 9 in the top ten for Pursued Equal Justice...I think it is clear though that when Civil Rights is discussed in depth by historians Grant gets better ratings. I am not saying one ranking is better then the other...I am not sure Foner reflects the most current research concerning Grant (1988) (2014). There seem to be no signifigant changes to his Reconstruction book. Foner is a great historian since Reconstruction covers from probably 1861 to 1877...McFeely fully endorses his book. Foner does give information helpful to studying Grant and Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This idea of not challenging RS's wasn't embraced by a couple of editors here when they complained that a Reliable Source, Simpson, 2000, maintained that Grant was warned by the War Dept that large shipments of gold were being brought into the District by Jewish speculators to purchase cotton -- even though Simpson cited the statement with two of Grant's letters and the letter was recorded in the registry of letters. Other WP policy was routinely ignored regarding FA's and comprehensiveness, that no major details be ignored. The current G.O. paragraph ignores several major details, e.g. like the arrival of Grant's father with Mack and Bros, for openers. As a result we have a paragraph that resembles an outline, not a historical narrative in a Featured Article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Chronological context

If we must cover the General Order #11 subject under the Shiloh section perhaps we should at least mention that the General Order advent didn't occur until some time later, just before the battle of Vicksburg. Covering this topic under Shiloh is misleading, as General Order #11 was issued at Grant's HQ at Vicksburg, again, some seven months after Shiloh.
Proposal (in bold) :

Along with his military responsibilities in the months following the Battle of Shiloh Grant was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The immediate preceding paragraph discusses the time and explicitly the months "after the battle", so this addition would be repetitious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"after the battle" is at the very beginning of that paragraph and only refers to the "northern press". While the date of the Order is given, there is nothing to indicate that this advent was prolonged, lasting months, and didn't become a pressing matter until many months after Shiloh, a battle that lasted only two days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are three battles mentioned in the section that when Grant was in command...Battle of Shiloh, Battle of Iuka, and the Corinth. The First Battle of Corinth was under Halleck and Thomas. The Second Corinth battle took place from October 3 to October 4, 1862. Grant's GO11 took place in December. There was a least a month November between the two events. So the time frame is from October 4 to December 17 from Corinth to GO11...The time frame from Shilo to GO11 is April 7 (two day battle starting April 6) to December 17. That would leave April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November a total of 8 months. Why not this statement: In the months following Grant's return to command... That makes more sense to me. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Grant's opening of the Mississippi also brought in much sought after trade in the North...I think this is getting lost in the big picture that Grant was in favor of Northern trade...not Southern trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the timing is plain from the context, and I'm extremely reluctant to upset the consensus it took months of mediation to achieve. Let's leave it be. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The context in my opinion needs clarification..."his troops" were actually Halleck's and Thomas's troops at the First Battle of Corinth...There is no mention of the time Lincoln reinstated Grant to command...a date would be appropriate... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To clear up context issues I made some changes to paragraph above GO11 for better clarification...mindful to change the narration as least as possible...a date for Grant's restoration to command would be helpful... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I added the date July 11 when Grant was reinstated command...This helps clear up any chronological issues... Cmguy777 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Grant was out of field command from April 9, 1862 to July 11, 1862 or three months. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Pew! -- Cm, once again, you're dragging in other issues and making undiscussed edits. You made this proposal In the months following Grant's return to command... yet go off making other edits. All that's being asked here is to indicate that the G.O. affair occurred many months after Shiloh. Shall I start making edits before any discussion also? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I brought in the Chronology of events Grant was relieved from command on April 8 1862 and put back on field command on July 11, 1862. The troops that captured Corinth were Hallecks and Thomas's not Grant's. There is no mention of Corinth being captured or Halleck's one hundred thousand man army...I don't have to discuss anything to make edits. AlanScottWalker narration edits helped the article...There was no reason to overturn the edits... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"many months" is misleading since there were 8 months that passed between Shiloh and GO11...For three of those months Grant was not even in field command April to July...There were also two more battles between Shiloh and GO11 Iuka and the Defense of Corinth. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The chronology seems to track in the Shiloh section, from “Encamped” paragraph discussing the battle, to “In Shiloh’s aftermath” para discussing Grant’s relief and reinstatement, to “Along with his military responsibilities” para discussing illicit cotton trade to the south. This seems generally satisfactory, I like “In the months following Grant’s return to command”. The GO11 belongs in Shiloh's section and not Vicksburg’s.

Although the narrative omits the important detail that in the first year of the war, the Confederacy gained more arms through this western (Memphis) cotton trade than it did from European sources — the cotton exchanged was for arms, not US currency. The sentence, “Historians’ opinions vary on Grant’s motives for issuing the order.” seems exculpatory in an effort to be balanced, but it lacks specificity so it does not fully answer the implication of racism as a primary motive on Grant’s part for GO11, which it clearly was not considering some targeted were Grant's father’s business partners, and Grant's subsequent actions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• @TheVirginiaHistorian: Thanks for your input. Shiloh was a two day battle that occurred on April 6-7, 1862. G.O.#11 was issued on December 17, 1862, from Grant's HQ outside Vicksburg, approximately seven (i.e.many) months after the battle of Shiloh. Since we are not giving the G.O. topic its own subsection between the Shiloh and Vicksburg sections it would therefore IMO be better placed as an addendum at the end of the Vicksburg section, as the Order was issued from Grant's HQ at Vicksburg, just before the actual battles commenced there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Cmguy777:, your edits bring some context to Shiloh, but do virtually nothing to clarify the fact that the Order was issued from Grant's HQ at Vicksburg, requiring the readers to put the pieces together themselves. The first sentence ...concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district. more than suggests that Grant's 'district' (an ambiguous term) was in and around Shiloh. If anything we should mention the Order was issued from Grant's HQ for the Vicksburg campaign. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal (in bold): On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11 from his Headquarters for the Vicksburg campaign, expelling "Jews, as a class," from the district...

• @TheVirginiaHistorian: I also like Cm's proposal, In the months following Grant’s return to command, so we should at least add that to the paragraph. General comment: As I've maintained, and as you've pointed out, there are still important points missing in the section, not to mention elsewhere throughout the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Grant's headquarters at Vicksburg ? How can Grant's headquarters be at Vicksburg when Pemberton and the Confederates were occupying the fortress. I believe his head quarters were initially at Holly Springs. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the HQ for the Vicksburg campaign. Thanks for noting the lack of clarity. Reworded the proposal on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay...As far as historians debating "Grant's movtives" how about this proposal "Grant's motives and anti-Jewish correspondence prior to issueing General Orders # 11." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you guys serious? We spent months on mediation that I thought we all entered into in good faith. What was the point of that if you're just going to go right back to where we left off? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As to the specific proposal: it is trivial where he issued the order from, and it adds nothing to the article. You don't even know the location, just that it was "his headquarters". Of course it was from his headquarters! That tells us nothing! --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I don't think it is neccessary to add where Grant issued GO11. The paragraph above the GO11 needed fixing and has been fixed. (TheVirginiaHistorian) mentioned about expanding the "Grant's motives" sentence. I think the chronology has been fixed. I believe we need to be cautious concerning more additions because that could lead to a domino effect on the GO11 paragraph. I don't want the months we worked on the paragraph to be undone...The GO11 paragraph is fine as is. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not mention that, and I do not support fiddling with the GO11 paragraph, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction: TheVirginaHistorian proposed expanding the "Grant's motives" sentence not AlanScottWalker. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I withdraw it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• The General Order was issued on Dec. 17th, at which time Grant's HQ was in Holly Springs. I am sympathetic to Coemgenus' concern, that we settled on a paragraph during mediation, however, it would help the readers greatly if it was mentioned that the G.O. was issued just prior to the battles in the Vicksburg campaign. Mentioning 'district' under the heading of Shiloh tells the reader the Order was issued as a result of, and at, Shiloh. There is nothing in that section that clarifies that. Not mentioning the location, a basic detail, is like writing about a battle and not mentioning its location. In terms of neutrality I suppose this fact is not that important, but it would be nice if we were clear about matters when we put pen to paper. Ya think? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• As I said several times during mediation, there is a neutrality issue that needs to be addressed inasmuch as the paragraph states an opinion (i.e."notorious") from one modern day historian, whose main concern is "anti-semitism" while we have left out Grant's own quotes and explanations, in his own biography, for issuing such an Order. However, unless there is a broader consensus to address this I will leave it alone for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Chronological context2

A battle location is relevant to the battle. The location in which an order was issued is irrelevant to the order, which applied to Grant's whole district regardless of where he sat as he penned it. As to the neutrality: yes, you did say that several times, but no one agreed with you. The consensus, after months of negotiation, was to change the section to its current configuration. Nothing new has happened since that time to alter that consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• The location is hardly "irrelevant" and serves to indicate at what location the trouble with speculators was the most severe. (e.g.Holly Springs is also where Grant's father showed up with Mack and Bros.) Had Grant issued the Order while at Shiloh it likewise would have told us the trouble was most pressing in that general location 'at that time'.
• Re:Neutrality. Posting an opinion from one modern day historian while ignoring Grant's own explanations is hardly balanced writing. Yes, the article says that opinions vary among historians but we have not given the same weight to the other side of the glaring inference, ala Sarna's "notorious", that Grant acted primarily out of "anti-semitism". This is Grant's biography. Why are we not hearing from Grant on such a controversial topic?? I'm confident consensus will change, as it was about to before I was rushed into mediation, if this issue is brought to the attention of other knowledgeable editors, but as I said, I'm in no particular hurry, and it's probably best if we let things cool off for awhile. And just to clarify a comment I made earlier about missing details, the article is still FA quality, by far. But like any other literary work, there is always room for some improvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I take that Holly Springs was in Kentucky...That could be relevant, but communications were broken by the Confederates so Grant's order could not be fully implemented...Both could be mentioned but I am not sure is neccessary for the article and that could lead to more expansions of the paragraph. "notorious" is in quotes and I believe the readers can understand this is Sarna's opinion. The "kid gloves" addition is more plausible as a "defense" for Grant, but GO11 is not specifically mentioned by Grant in his "kids gloves" statement. Was Grant refering to GO11 or does any source specifically state Grant was refering to GO11. Also when did Grant make the "kids gloves" statements and to whom ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Holly Springs, Mississippi and Grant's quote is already in the article in chron order in 1868, when he said it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK Holly Springs Missouri...That would put Grant outside of Kentucky...The "kids gloves" statement is not included in the 1868 statements...Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cm', I linked to a map that has Holly Springs depicted near the top, in Mississippi, close to the Tenn-Mississippi border. ASW also just mentioned it was in Mississippi -- not Missouri. I would like to see the "Kid Gloves" statement in the G.O. paragraph. As it is, we are only hearing from one modern day historian who gives us a modern day opinion, while Grant goes unrepresented, in his own biography, in terms of what motivated him. While Grant's other quote works fine in the Election of 1868 section we should say something on his behalf in the G.O. paragraph itself, as it is about the Order itself. However, as I said, I am not very inclined to make any further edits in that paragraph at this point and only hope that some reconsideration regarding the inclusion of Grant's important comment will occur in the meantime. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Gw' can you provide a link to the Grant "kid's gloves" statement and what year it was made ? Was Grant directly talking about GO11 when he made that comment? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Kid gloves statement

I found the link for Grant's "kid gloves" statement. This statement came from an interview Grant gave to a rabbi (unknown name). The statement was made in April 1885 and did refer directly to GO11. The full paragraph is found here: Al Kaltman (1998) , Cigars, Whiskey and Winning: Leadership Lessons from General Ulysses S. Grant, page 251 (There was not) time to handle things with kid gloves. But it was no ill feeling or want of good feeling toward the Jews... I believe the quote gives Grant better context...This statement was made about three months before Grant's death. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the article gets the point across very well without further expansion, even if a serious source is found for this quote. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have linked and cited that quote, once during mediation and once on the Grant talk page. Do a search for "kid gloves" at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 16. In any case, Grant's own words are needed in the controversial paragraph, not only to balance out Sarna's modern day (and perhaps narrow) opinion but to help clarify the "Grant believed..." sentence -- and simply because this is Grant's biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake for us to take primary source material to "balance" the mainstream of Grant scholarship. That's not our job. And it's fairly disconcerting that you're already trying to shift the result of the mediation. There's nothing new here, no reason to shift the consensus. You're just continuing to push points that you've failed to have adopted before. I'd be interested in Alanscottwalker's opinion, too, since he was a party to that discussion. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The GO11 paragraph needs to reflect modern scholarship. For now I think best to leave the GO11 paragraph the way it is. Possibly Grant's "kid gloves" statement could be put in the Post Presidency section. The timing April 1885 also is signifigant because GO11 really never went away. Grant did not even discuss GO11 in his Memoirs. Neutrality is an issue for this article. "Notorious" is a strong word by Sarna (2012). Some neutrality may be warranted. Grant's statement "...it was no ill feeling or want of good feeling toward the Jews... could add some neutrality to the article in the Post Presidency section. Again. I am for keeping GO11 paragraph as is for now. I am for editor concensus also. Maybe Rjensen might have a few ideas on the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Grant's headquarters was in Holly Springs Missouri Mississippi. could be signifigant since Missouri was a contested state Missouri secession and Confederate government of Missouri during the Civil War. Was Missouri under complete Union control in December 1862 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been told several times now that Holly Springs is in Mississippi NOT Missouri. And no I do not support this or other changing of the paragraph, Grant's quote in the 1868 section is enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay...Then Grant was in Confederate territory when GO11 was made since Mississippi was part of the Confederacy...I believe that is signifigant... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No. To him, he was in United States' territory but more important, the context is clear from where it is in the article - no one's going to believe he suddenly moved the Army of the Tennessee to Maine or Wisconsin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

What sources say Mississippi was United States territory in December 1862 ? Pemberton controlled Vicksburg. Van Dorn destroyed Grant's supply line. Sounds more like a war situation then territorial control by either north or south. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The context of the article is already clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you can push for the inclusion of the location when you don't even know where it is, yourself. It obviously didn't affect your understanding of the material. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that was a personal attack...I was corrected. I corrected my mistake. Mississippi was not in Union control in December 1862. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's a legitimate question. How can you say the location is important enough to require inclusion when you, yourself, have twice misplaced the location? Clearly, that fact that you've moved it from Kentucky to Missouri to Mississippi hasn't changed anything about how you want to present the information about Grant, has it? --Coemgenus (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I am using Catton (1960) The Civil War pages 117-119, 291, 292 as a source...Grant's Vicksburg campaign was started on November 2, 1862 after capturing Holly Springs, Mississippi. Grant's army afterwards slowly advanced to Grenada. Forest attacked and destroyed Grant's communication lines on December 13, so Grant was not able to comminicate directly to Washington D.C. Grant issued GO11 on December 17. Three days after GO11 on December 20 Van Dorn captures Holly Springs and military supplies. GO11 was issued during the Vicksburg Campaign and prior to the order he was under attack by Forest. This is not mentioned in the article. Also this might explain why the order was done in haste. Was Grant in Holly Springs when he issued GO11 or advancing in camp towards Grenada ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So we don't even know where he was? Maybe we should nail that down before even thinking about adding it to the article (I still think it is superfluous). --Coemgenus (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not superflous that he was under attack by Forest four days before issueing GO11, nor the fact he was attacked by Van Dorn three days after GO11. Also not superflous that he had commenced the Vicksburg Campaign on November 2 1864. The article currently reads as if Grant was a peacetime General when he was actually being attacked by two Confederate Armies. The reader deserves better. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous date?

In the Breach with Johnson section it says:

Throughout the Reconstruction period, Grant and the military protected the rights of more than 1,500 African Americans elected to political office and overturned the first black codes in 1867.

Grant was still a Commanding General in 1867. How does Grant 'overturn' anything of this sort if he was not President? This general claim, regardless of date, is also not consistent with what it says in the Historical reputation section:

Foner adds that by 1875 Grant had given up rescuing the blacks, saying the public was tired of them, concluding that "Grant's unwillingness to act reflected the broader Northern retreat from Reconstruction and its ideal of racial equality."[321]

How does Grant, "throughout the reconstruction period", protect the rights of 1500 African Americans while being "unwilling to act"?? "Throughout"? Is this yet another example of what was 'approved' by FA reviewers? In any case, someone needs to check and/or fix the 1867 date and perhaps look beyond Foner for the correct explanation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Retreat ? Grant was the first president to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The reconstructed states were taken over by Democrats, who opposed Civil Rights for blacks. Grant was the one who tried to keep Civil Rights going when the nation North and South and the Supreme Court was giving up on civil rights. Brands (2012) and Smith (2001) support Grant's efforts concerning Civil Rights. He was sending in troops during the Election of 1876 to keep the peace and Grant and Sherman during the Election crisis kept the U.S. from breaking into a second civil war through troop deployment. Brands (2012) says the nation was secure when Grant left office. Foner Reconstruction work was published in 1988. The 2014 version apparently is the same book as the 1988 version. McFeely (1981) at that time very dominant in terms of negative views of Grant and his administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

1) How? Military government.

2) 1867 is different form 1875, by 1875 the nation gave up and Grant was the nation's leader. It's clear that his presidency failed to turn the country to continued improvement in this respect. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello? We're talking about the wrong date here. Grant did not overturn anything in 1867 simply because he was not president then. Smith, the cite for this claim, doesn't say anything about Grant turning over anything in 1867, and again, Foner's claim (i.e.unwilling) is not at all consistent with Grant's effort "throughout the reconstruction period", as Smith claims. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What does Smith say then on those pages? That's an entirely different issue, if that sentence is not supported by the cite it is not supported.

The Reconstruction period is roughly 1865-1875. The first sentence mentions black codes early in that period -- which when Grant was the general in charge of the military, he had allot to do with how the south in the 1860s was run under military rule and it mentions black legislators, who generally won and kept seats during reconstruction in the 60s and into the 1870s. The other sentence is about 1875, the end of the period, when the country and Grant no longer took measures to protect black involvement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Points well taken, but again, Smith says nothing about Grant overturning anything in 1867. Our article says that Grant 'overturned' black codes in 1867, as if he was the President. We might want to rephrase the sentence a bit to be clear on that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not know who wrote that about black codes, but it does appear there was an early attempt to have black codes, which were then nullified by the military in the post-war 1860s. [4]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure the military can 'nullify' anything without an executive order or some sort of directive from the President? The source you linked to doesn't even mention Grant. In any case, Grant was not President, and Smith says nothing in regards to Grant on that. I did a search for "black codes" and "overturn", separately, in Smith's book and these phrases aren't even used. If there are no objections I'll strike the last part of the sentence (...and overturned the first black codes in 1867) until we are clear on matters here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers why strike before this issue has been resolved ? Congress was overiding Johnson's vetoes I believe starting in 1866 the first being the renewal of the Freedman's bureau. I believe that law was meant to prevent African Americans from being enslaved i.e. the black codes. I agree that the sentence needs more clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Black Codes were overturned by Congress over Johnson's vetos by the expansion of the Freedman's Bureau in 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The black codes were initially put in by Johnson's South Carolina provisional governor Benjamin Perry in 1865. The military supported the Freedman's Bureau and enforced voting Rights. Grant was head of the U.S. military or was the enforcer of Reconstruction laws passed by Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Source Matthew Lynch (2012) Before Obama: A Reappraisal of Black Reconstruction Era Politicians, Volume 1 page 270 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the 1867 clause was striken only, simply because it was in error, wasn't consistent with Foner's claim of Grant being "unwilling" and wasn't supported by the source. That was all that was needed to strike. Once again, Grant did not "overturn"anything. Seems you took the ball from there, which, upon cursory examination, looks okay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the new language is fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)