Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Grant drinking reputation continued

Agree with Cmguy and Coemgenus. We already have at least five statements that touch on drinking that are presented in context with the given topics. I've no problem with mentioning Grant's efforts to keep his drinking in check in his earlier life, i.e.facts, and how it may have strengthened his character, i.e.speculation. However, this is a biography, not a historiography, so I am strongly opposed to adding more than two or three extra statements, in addition to existing coverage. There could be undue weight and pov issues, per the many sources who cover Grant's alleged drinking in context. Again, drinking never got in the way of Grant during the Civil War. He was always surrounded by his staff and other officers during the various campaigns, was promoted time and again, and went on to win major campaigns and the civil war. There are a list of statements I have ready that discuss rumors by people not around Grant, that could also be added, if it comes to that. Overall we should present the facts, and mention that opinions vary. If we want to expand on historical speculations we now have a dedicated article, with a dedicated section for this sort of thing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I would not oppose adding the bit at the end about how Grant's "struggle for self-discipline enabled him to understand and discipline others; the humiliation of prewar failures gave him a quiet humility that was conspicuously absent from so many other generals... Because Grant had nowhere to go but up, he could act with more boldness and decision and commanders who dared not risk failure." That's a valuable insight that could be added, for example, in the last paragraph of the "Chattanooga and promotion" section. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this is a summary article and not a book, it is difficult to speculate Grant's motivations for fighting the Civil War. He was a fighter. Frémont, a military outcast, saw that in Grant, and promoted him to Cairo. I have no doubt Grant was drunk a few times during the war. Maybe it was to take the edge off all of the violence and human casualties. This was the 19th Century and there was limited help for alcoholism. It seems we are getting a bit "preachy" in describing how bad alcohol is, in my opinion. Grant was drinking during the Mexican American war. He had no issues until Buchanan forced him to resign. I am sure Grant's fall from horses a few times was to do with alcohol intoxication. But that is speculation. It's ironic that Grant really only received support from Frémont known for his insubordination. McClernand, Grant's supposed rival, was the only General to support Grant's risky Vicksburgh campaign. I think we are putting weight too much weight on Grant's alcoholism. Grant himself was insubordinate like Frémont, and that is what made his successful. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If this puts any perspective on Grant, Andrew Johnson was rumored to have a drinking problem too : Andrew Johnson: A Biographical Companion (Glenna R. Schroeder-Lein, Richard Zuczek, 2001) Also, Grant suffered from migrains and maybe alcohol was used as a medication. A Brief History of Presidential Drinking Christopher Klein (February 13, 2015) Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Johnson was totally drunk on his inauguration as VP in March 1865 and gave an incoherent speech before hundreds of top national leaders and reporters. Rjensen (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Our job is to report what the RS say and the overcoming-problem them has been set out by numerous scholars and denied by zero. Keep in mind the point that his popular reputation = drunkard and that sets the scene for many readers. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job to change the reputation of Grant by the general public. Over emphasizing Grant's drinking problem or alcoholism could only exacerbate the issue. Klien says Grant drank brandy to overcome migraine issues. There are two issues here. 19th Century medical treatments were extremely limited. Was alchohol Grant's problem or was Buchanan Grant's problem ? I think it was both. Why was Buchanan's reaction to Grant's drinking so martinet when Buchanan allowed other officers to drink ? Did Grant ever go to a Sober Houses, the treatment for alcoholism that started in the 1840s ? The first single purpose treatment center for alcoholism was started in 1864 in New York: History of Rehab Facilities. Keeley institutes did not start until 1879. I have recommended that your paragraph Rjensen on Grant's alcoholism be put in Grant's reputation article. Coemgenus gave a paragraph compromise for Grant's bio article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I added Rjensen's paragraph on Grant's drinking to the Ulysses S. Grant historical reputation article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Insert :The section in that article is way too large, even five times as large is the Presidency section. There is not much coverage about the many incidents of rumors made by rivals and others which is largely what inflated Grant's "reputation" as a heavy drinker, not actual accounts, as there were none to speak of. There is only one account of "slurred speech" yet the section more than suggests Grant slurred every time he drank. Being unable to hold his liquor is also a subjective claim, and runs contrary to the fact that Grant functioned at the paymasters desk when it was reported that he had been drinking. The section needs to be trimmed down considerably and needs a lot of rewriting. It should have been presented as a draft before this huge amount of text was just stuck in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there support for information on Grant's drinking suggested by Coemgenus to be added to the Chattanooga and promotion section ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

yes, good idea. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Since Grant's biggest struggle with alcohol was after resigning in 1854 it seems mention of this would be better placed at the end of the Pacific duty and resignation section. Somewhere in there Grant also participated in a church group and discussed the perils of excessive drinking. Will have to check again for the name of the church and date. Who knows, maybe this was the predecessor to Alcoholics anonymous. (jest) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I think Sober Houses were the only treatment for alcoholics in the 1840's. How bad was Grant's drinking at Fort Humbolt ? Did Buchanan overreact? Why wasn't he given a demerit as the other officer mentioned ? We will never know. There was no court martial where all of this would have been brought up. How could a drunk actively look for work in St. Louis and hold his family together ? Speculations and unanswered questions abound. I don't mind treating Grant as an alcoholic in the article if it is viewed in terms of disease or inability to metabolize alcohol. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Grant was not a drunk in Saint Louis as there are no accounts to that effect. The fact that Grant did function, worked in many places, albeit not very successfully business wise, and indeed held his family together, should put any such notion to rest. Grant had an affair with over drinking in 1854. He got over it, and from then on any account of Grant drinking, when he drank, was incidental and commonplace in terms of average men who drank with no problems. Drinking was only an issue for Grant during the Civil War when various individuals tried to make it an issue for their own sordid reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

no--it was a lot more than "rumor" in 1853-4. Lt George McClellan spent a month in 1853 living with in Grant's shared house at Vancouver and was disgusted at his drinking, and the RS say McClellan "never forgot it." [Smith p 83; Brands p 73; Bonekemper p 9-10; White p 117; Buntin p 31; Charles King 1914 p 137; The notion that Grant's drinking after 1854 that was "incidental and commonplace in terms of average men " is not stated by any of the RS. Average alcoholics drank a lot and were often drunk. Grant worked enormously hard to do zero drinking. That was very unusual behavior and made him a better general say the experts like Dorsett & McPherson. This emphasis gives Grant a lot of credit and helps explain some of the mystery of how he was so self-confident as a general. Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

According to White, p.117, the account about McClellan comes from Henry Hodges. Another second hand account. Did McClellan speak of the matter himself? We know he declined to see Grant during the beginning of the Civil War because of this incident. Like many other officers, I don't doubt Grant did some drinking in those days and had an encounter with McClellan, but the accounts are still elusive in terms of how much and how often Grant took to drinking, and to what extent it effected him. We don't know if Grant 'struggled' with alcohol all his life. Grant already had natural self confidence, even as a boy, with horses, and with making long journeys carrying passengers to other towns, etc, before he was ten years old. The idea that Grant 'became' confident because of trying to resist alcohol puts the cart before the horse. If he had to struggle with alcohol and did "zero" drinking, it was because Grant already had a strong constitution. He resorted to drinking in 1853-1854, being alone for a long time away from Julia and his children, idle, with not much to do around the fort during peacetime, and there are no accounts to what extent. The men around him claimed that an unfriendly Buchanan was making a big deal over a minor incident. If Grant was an actual drunkard it seems he would have not gotten the support from the men around him at the fort. All other accounts of Grant drinking thereafter occurred in public, on occasions or with a friend here or there, and indeed was a common form of drinking. After 1854, rumors are largely what have kept the idea of Grant's drinking alive and are greatly responsible for the "reputation" this functioning, committed and accomplished man has been saddled with. Like the sources say, rumors were spun from the 1854 incident, and the evidence remains elusive. All else has been speculation, regardless if it comes from an individual with a Phd. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No -- Hodges is an excellent reliable source--he was there, he knew everyone, he was a friend of Grant, and historians trust him. He stated clearly that McClellan saw the binges in person and always held it against Grant--note that McC was a major power in Dem politics after 1864 so the Dem party attacks in 1868-72 were based on solid evidence. Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. That is all speculation. We don't really know what went on in 1854 because Buchanan did not file a report. Certainly Grant deserved a reprimand from Buchanan, but why did Buchanan insist that Grant resign? We don't know all the times Grant was drinking or not drinking. We do know through circumstanial evidence, and possibly a few witnesses, that Grant drank and sometimes got drunk. Buchanan never witnessed Grant being drunk. From the information we do have I think it is safe to say Grant was an alcoholic who knew he could not hold his liquor and he made successful efforts to abstain alcohol after 1854. In my opinion Buchanan did not like Grant, possibly was jealous, and the drinking was an excuse to get rid of him. I don't think Buchanan had Grant's best interest in mind. A similar case took place between Frémont and General Kearney. Frémont was humiliated by Kearney, arrested in 1847 and forced to march back to Saint Louis from California. Frémont lost the court martial in 1848, but was reinserted into the military and given a partial pardon by Polk. Frémont resigned in protest. Why am I mentioning Frémont, because Frémont was Grant's commanding officer and gave him a promotion to Cairo. Frémont knew all to well the visciousness of army gossip he had to endure at his court martial. He sympathazied with Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

. Well, you say we don't know what went on in 1854, then turn around a say "certainly" Grant deserved a reprimand. Buchanan got the rumor second hand, and by the time the rumor reached him it no doubt got embellished along the way, as is typical of rumors. This is no doubt why Buchanan didn't commit himself to something that could have come back and haunted him as perjury, ruining his career. It was know grant was depressed and longed to leave the army. Seems Buchanan took advantage of that idea. As long as we're speculating, let's consider all probabilities. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the sentences in question deal with Grant's triumph over adversity, it makes more sense to but them in the section where he actually triumphed, winning major battles and being promoted over his detractors. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree Coemgenus. But we need a few sentences for the proposed section. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned, I'm not opposed to mentioning Grant's efforts in his dealings with drinking after 1854 -- just as long as we don't say this struggle lasted his entire life. Aside from the account with the Sons of Temperance, and a church group, after 1854, there is nothing more than speculations about any life long struggle. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"Speculation" that every single Grant biographer credits to some extent. All of the reliable sources discuss Grant's struggles with drinking after 1854. When you say "All else has been speculation, regardless if it comes from an individual with a Phd.", I can't disagree more. Our job is to summarize the reliable sources, not to give our own opinions. When you dismiss the analysis of a wide swathe of historians, you're substituting your judgement for theirs. Surely you can see the problem with that. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

More succinctly: you seem to be looking for truth; Wikipedia seeks verifiability. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is speculation Grant was an alcoholic or had a drinking problem by most historians, but the extent of his drinking is speculation. Grant admitted he had a drinking problem. Accounts of his drinking are from witnesses and hearsay. We know Grant fell and injured himself while riding horses. He could have been drunk, but don't know without sobriety testing that did not exist until 1981. I am not against a brief paragraph that mentions Grant made efforts to stop drinking and stay sober. His drinking may have been used as a 19 Century medication to relieve his migraine headaches. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see what RS's articulate Grant's "struggle" after 1854, more over, during the Civil War. There are no actual accounts. From what I've read, in a good number of sources, drinking after 1854 is mentioned only in passing, often presented as rumors after the fact, or when e.g.McClellan declined to see Grant at the onset of the Civil War, because of an incident in 1854. Again, Grant's several promotions in rank, per his continual performance, seem to negate any speculations that he was struggling with alcohol after his service in California. After California, most if not all Grant's biographers have nothing to say about any relationship with alcohol in terms of actual accounts. None of them have committed paragraphs, or a chapter, on the idea. Likewise, we should do the same, proportionately. i.e.We have a giant sized section in the reputation article. What biographers do mention are allegations from individuals like Halleck, and from disgruntled reporters, as occurred at Shiloh, along with eye witness accounts from people surrounding Grant which maintain that rumors which surfaced during the Civil War were BS. McFeely maintains Grant has been wrongly stereotyped, and actual evidence is elusive. Again, rumors are largely what have inflated Grant's reputation in modern times as an excessive drinker. This idea seems to have been roundly ignored here in Talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Giant Sized section in his article on his reputation ? How can that be ? His reputation of drinking caused his forced resignation at Fort Humbolt and seven years of financial stress. His reputation for drinking caused him not to be admitted to the military on the onset of the Civil War. It was Frémont, who had himself endured a humiliating court martial, that empathized with Grant, and gave him a break. We can't sweep how damaging the rumors of Grant's drinking ruined his early military career under the rug. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

reputation versus reality on drinking

Reputation and reality are different dimensions. There is no doubt among historians that Grant's reputation during the Civil War, during his presidential campaigns, and in recent decades was severely adversely affected by widespread statements about his drinking behavior. We have the interesting case of General Eisenhower – whose own military-political career most resembles that of Grant – firmly believing Grant was a drunkard until he looked into the matter. The debate in 1862 included top generals as Halleck and McClellan, and finally had to be resolved by Lincoln himself. Grant ran twice for president, and made a third try in 1880. Each time his drinking reputation was a significant weapon used by his opponents. As for our own times, we have multiple recent statements by scholars (like Waugh) to the effect that his popular reputation includes a major drinking factor. The reality issue is somewhat different, and I think includes two propositions: a) did Grant ever get drunk? the RS historians we have been citing agree that the answer is yes. b) Grant's drinking ever affect a major decision? . RS agree on "no" c) Did his battle against alcoholism make him a better general? Here we have multiple historians who agree that indeed it did. We have zero RS who deny this. This of course is a very favorable theme for Grant's reputation. Given the general public view of the importance of the drinking issue, I think it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to clarify the situation so that a reader will understand the issues and have a guide to the RS for possible follow-up, for example by student term papers. Downplaying the issue in Wikipedia tends to leave the public misperception in place, which I consider an unfortunate result. Rjensen (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The extent of Grant's drinking is speculation. I don't mind seperating rumors versus realities if it can be done. It was war that made Grant a better general. He focused. His object was to defeat the enemy. He had a "will to kill" like Robert E. Lee. His men dying on field battle did not bother him. He faced death at Belmont during the retreat. He faced death routinely during battles. Did he drink to take the edge off at times? I would say yes. But we really need a proposal. Endless talk on Grant's drinking is not helping the matter. Where is the brief paragraph ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Insert : -- We don't really need a paragraph, but a good statement. If it's well written the idea can be expressed with one or two sentences. The statement should express the idea as something subjective, not factual, with at least two sources, ideally, from biographers, not from an account that roundly puts down historians and biographers, past and present, that does little more than assert opinion, with no new facts to offer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

the war made everyone a better general--previously almost no one (except Scott) had commanded large units or fought big battles. but Grant was very special in his learning ability because he had less to lose say the RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with your first point -- the war made everyone a better general, but I fail to see where Grant had nothing to lose. What about his family, his reputation, the respect of family, friends and fellow officers? What about his own self respect? Seems all the biographers say he had a lot of that. Which source(s) actually explains how Grant had less to lose?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• For whatever it's worth, your last few edits to the Reputation article are fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I added Rjensen's paragraph to the Grant's reputation article. What is the difference between a statement and a paragraph ? Grant's reputation article needs to have room for expansion. That is why it was started in first place. Where is this statement proposal for editors to address for Grant's bio article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I made myself clear about one or two sentences for this article. Call it a paragraph if you prefer. Coemgenus might be better to ask regarding your other question. The Drinking section in the Reputation article is far too big. Grant drank, opinions vary. We don't need an entire page+ of text to cover that. The article looks ridiculous, with a Presidency section only a few sentences long, while the Drinking section has Grant under a microscope with a lot of subjective text. The Presidency section is what needs to be expanded, greatly. Time to step back and look at the bigger picture, as historians and biographers have done. We cover drinking in context and in proportion to their coverage. The jest of the coverage on drinking has improved, but it needs to be condensed. Grant is famous for winning the Civil War and ascending to the Presidency for two terms, not for any drinking he may have done. We need to correct this flagrant undue weight problem. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. One article at a time. Did you have a paragraph or statement proposal for this article on Grant's drinking ? As far as Grant's Presidency goes, historians are critical of Grant's administration abilities, and his handling of the economy, but give him more credit for pursuing equal justice, according to the 2017 CSPAN Rankings. Historians are critical of Grant corruption scandals and his conservative response to the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Lede statement not supported by text

The below lede statement seems to pertain to the Fifteenth Amendment, not the Fourteenth Amendment, which is not even mentioned in the text. The Fifteenth Amendment is what is mentioned, at least eight times.

After the disenfranchisement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment removed the political rights of many Southern leaders who supported the Confederacy, Republicans gained majorities, and African Americans were elected to Congress and high state offices.

Should not we reword this passage like so?:

After the disenfranchisement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment outlawed removed the political privileges rights of many Southern leaders who supported the Confederacy, Republicans gained majorities, and African Americans were elected to Congress and high state offices.

Also, there was no such constitutional "right" -- seems we should specify privileges. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

1) It's clause 3 of 14th amendment: No person shall ...hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. that applied in every state; they could still vote. 2) Secondly, many of the southern and border states tried to disfranchise all ex-confederates so they could not vote in any election. #2 deeply divided the GOP and Grant usually opposed it. Rjensen (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Fourteenth Amendment is not mentioned in the text, while the Fifteenth Amendment is mentioned eight times -- yet the Fifteenth Amendment is not mentioned in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As stated by Gwillhickers, the entire text needs to be removed because it has no presence in the article body. Mitchumch (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Grant played little role re 14th but he played major role re 15th and it needs to be in the lede. the 14th is essential background & is best covered in separate articles like "Reconstruction" Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Content in the lead only summarizes content in article body. I didn't make the rules. If not in body, then remove it. Mitchumch (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No there is no "rule" only a flexible guideline that says: " Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." 14th amendment is a basic fact covered in every textbook. Rjensen (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RjensenThat is not a basic fact. It needs to be sourced and stated in article body. I've asked three times now for citations. Mitchumch (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

the 14th amendment is online at https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=390 What do you suppose "basic fact" means -- the Constitution is pretty basic in articles on US history it seems to me. Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen For the whole sentence, not fragment. After the disenfranchisement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment removed the political rights of many Southern leaders who supported the Confederacy, Republicans gained majorities, and African Americans were elected to Congress and high state offices. Wikipedia:Verifiability - " verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Please stop playing games lol. Mitchumch (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

the text in the lede has been revised, and the cites needed are at footnotes 219-222 Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Questions about sections of a lead paragraph

Sections of the third lead paragraph are in question. Specifically, the following:

• "He also used the army to build the Republican Party in the South".

Where in the article body is this stated? And what citations support this claim?

Grant's army propped up the Republican governments of several states. "The Republican governments, the first of which did not appear until 1868, were propped up by the Republican dominated federal government, northern Republican money, and the presence of an army of occupation. " says Richard K. Scher - 2016 https://books.google.com/books?id=c8KlDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT89

• "After the disenfranchisement of some former Confederates, Republicans gained majorities, and African Americans were elected to Congress and high state offices".

The term "disenfranchisement" isn't used in the article body. This sentence implies Republicans gained majorities because of their disfranchisement. Where in the article body is this stated? And what citations support this claim?

it's now stated as the disfranchisement clause of the 14th amendment Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen It's still not clear to me where in the article body this is stated? And what citations support this claim? Perhaps I'm overlooking it. Mitchumch (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• "In his second term, the Republican coalitions in the South splintered and were defeated one by one, as a faction of white Southern "Redeemers" regained control of Southern state governments using violence, voter fraud, and racist appeal. In response, Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 into law".

To my knowledge, the 1875 Act had nothing to with political violence. Again, where in the article body is this stated? And what citations support this claim? Smith p 552-53

Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's in Brands 552-53 he told Congress in January 1875 he could not, "see with indifference Union men or Republicans ostracized, persecuted, and murdered." He asked Congress to act. "Grant's appeal produced results" says Brands-- and he signed the 1875 law.Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Whites in the South did not accept blacks as citizens. Violent tactics, threats of intimidation, were used to scare blacks, who were denied motels or other public places. It shows that laws can't change hearts and stubborn pride. Grant had to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan to keep blacks from violence. Blacks who stayed at whites only motels were subject to being lynched. Thousands of blacks were lynched in the South in the 1860s and 1870s because they were not considered citizens by whites. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern about the sentence in the article surrounds the disconnect between the violence described in the first sentence and the legislative intent of the CRA 1875. The entire quote from Brands states, "'... persecuted, and murdered on account of their opinions, as they now are in some localities.' But to continue his defense of equal rights and to have a prayer of success, he needed a show of support from the legislative branch." This excerpt implies (at least to me) a different motive for the CRA 1875 - "to continue his defense of equal rights" not to prevent violent attacks upon African Americans.

No matter the interpretation of Brands excerpt, the sentence in the article doesn't inform the reader that the act was not crafted to address violence, but racial discrimination. I was confused by the article sentence, because I knew what the CRA 1875 was designed to do. It needs to be rewrote to match the clarity of the content in the article body. Mitchumch (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

there are two separate issues: a) what was the 1875 law designed to do by its sponsors? (ans: more equality esp public accommodations) and b) what did Grant want (end to violence against Republicans says Brands and also Smith p 567 and especially White p 555--that is the thrust of his special message to Congress Jan 13 1875 that does emphasizes election violence, atrocities & murder. It contains no call for general equal rights re public accommodations. The new law was not what he asked for --so maybe we should just drop any mention of 1875 law. see http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=70440 ). This article is about Grant and what he wanted so we should go with b). Rjensen (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say the article is about Grant and what he did. Signing the CRA 1875 is an often noted deed, so retaining it should proceed. However, it is not integrated into the lead paragraph clearly. A simple rewrite should suffice.

To piggy-back off your idea "This article is about Grant", the only sentences in the lead that do not describe what Grant did are,

"After the disenfranchisement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment removed the political rights of many Southern leaders who supported the Confederacy, Republicans gained majorities, and African Americans were elected to Congress and high state offices. The Democrats and Liberal Republicans united behind Grant's opponent in the presidential election of 1872, but were unable to defeat his reelection."

Mitchumch (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch, what would happen to a black who stayed at a hotel room with whites in the South? Violence or the threat of violence would be the result because whites did not view blacks as citizens. Grant was trying to prevent violence againt blacks and whites who supported black citizenship. 1,000s of blacks were being killed between the 1860s and 1870s from white violence. The law's intent was to stop violence against blacks. It was not an enforcement act like Klan Act of 1871. It was a civil rights act, the first to be signed by a President of the United States. But what is civil rights? The freedom to stay at a hotel or go to the theater without the threat of violence or intimidation. The article merely says the Act was a response to violence against black citizens in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"To say that the murder of a negro or a white Republican is not considered a crime in Louisiana would probably be unjust to a great part of the people, but it is true that a great number of such murders have been committed and no one has been punished therefor; and manifestly, as to them, the spirit of hatred and violence is stronger than law." Ulysses S. Grant (January 13, 1875) Special Message Blacks were being killed without punishment. There was lawlessness in the South and the Civil Rights Act was a response to restore law and order. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of the act. However, the legislative history of the act is unrelated to the violence in the South. And it appears the passage of the act in Congress is less connected to Grants message to Congress, than to the passing of Charles Sumner. Mitchumch (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote the sentence "To protect blacks from discrimination in the South, Grant signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1875." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

it was not the bill Grant asked for --he wanted protection against election-day violence which it did not provide--and he played no role beyond a one-minute signature. Rjensen (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen His signature was not an autograph. It's part of the law making process. Along with the Enforcement Act of 1870, First Enforcement Act of 1871, and Second Enforcement Act of 1871 the CRA 1875 constituted the bulk of his legislative accomplishments to extend and protect the rights and privileges of citizenship for African Americans. No different than the civil rights legislation of Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson. Mitchumch (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Congress rejected the law he wanted and gave him something he never supported. Mentioning it misleads readers into thinking he supported it. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen When a president signs a bill, instead of veto or pocket veto, that means the president supports it. Besides, reliable sources routinely mention the bill as part of his accomplishments as president. It is not our job to cherry pick, only summarize. Mitchumch (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"support" only in the sense he did not veto it--but you don't get much encyclopedia credit for that. Congress refused the authority he urgently demanded and passed a law he cared nothing about. Grant gets no credit from Smith (who has no mention of the 1875 act) or from McFeeley p 418 or Simpson ("Reconstruction presidents" pp 180-8` who stresses how Congress refused to give him authority to suppress violence. Simpson says the 1875 act was "an empty declaration" p 181 Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Grant did want the South to accept blacks as citizens and stop sectionalism. No one forced him to sign it. The article does not directly say Grant supported it. But we can't tell the reader he vetoed the bill when he in fact signed the bill. That is not true. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen, I think you are extrapolating Grant's assessment of CRA 1875 when the authors you cited were silent on the matter. Simpson's statement "an empty declaration" is Simpson's assessment of the CRA, not Grants. You need to find a source to support your claim "gave him something he never supported". You failed to mention Brands pp. 552-553. It provides more substance than the sources you cited. I'm not asserting you're wrong, I only saying you have not provided a source that states explicitly either way.

As to your point about "Congress rejected the law he wanted". According to Xi Wang, The Trial of Democracy (1997) beginning on pp. 115–119, "The new enforcement bill (H.R. 4754) was introduced into the House by John Coburn (R-Ind.) on February 18, 1875. The original bill had thirteen sections and largely reinforced federal power over elections - but with important improvements." Wang goes into greater details about the legislative history of that bill. Obviously, the bill was never signed into law, but I think we need to calibrate our language to reflect what happened. One could infer from your statement "Congress rejected the law he wanted" that no action was taken what so ever. Mitchumch (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Congress did not pass the bill Grant urgently wanted--and instead passed one he did not want--he never mentioned the 1875 law and he never tried to enforce it. Giving him "credit" is highly misleading in my opinion. The law had almost no impact on people at the time and was declared unconstitutional. Meanwhile Unionists & Republicans were getting shot and Grant was really angry about that. Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We can't deny that Grant signed the legislation, ambitious for its times. It certainly is not the legislation Grant wanted. He wanted another stronger force act. But is was ground breaking. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 emulated some of the language from Grant Civil Rights Act. It also serves as neutrality for the article. The legislation ultimately failed, but we don't want to put too much weight on the redeemers, without mention the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that Grant signed into law. It does not matter if he supported or was against the law. Once he signed it then it was the law of the land. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Grant never enforced nor commented on 1875 law says John Hope Franklin, "The Enforcement of the civil rights act of 1875" Prologue (1974) 6:225-35. Historians agree it was designed primarily as a memorial to Charles Sumner, who was Grant's most bitter enemy (and whose career Grant helped destroy). Grant's Justice Department ignored it and did not send copies to US attorneys, says Franklin. Many judges called it unconstitutional before the Supreme Court shut it down. Franklin says public opinion North and South was strongly opposed; only blacks supported it. Franklin concludes regarding Grant and Hayes administrations, "The Civil Rights Act was never effectively enforced." [p 235] Rjensen (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It was the "law of the land" that no one enforced -- it never actually operated. Rjensen (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as anyone tried to enforce it, the Supreme Court overturned it (1883). --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If I understand this dispute correctly, according to most sources the Act was a 'dead letter', which means we cannot represent it more than it was. However, if most sources give credit for it to Grant, we can give whatever credit there is for a 'dead letter' -- on the other hand, if most sources do not, we cannot - related, my recollection is that Grant's 'civil rights' reputation in sources comes from his first term -- during his second term, reconstruction, at least in favor of blacks, irretrievably fell. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It was enforced but it got overturned. It was only "dead letter" when the Supreme Court overturned it in 1888. There may have been a few cases of enforcement before it got challanged. This is very odd Wikipedia editors are saying that a law signed by a President is not a law. Are Wikipedia editors in mutiny or of denial of federal laws ? The talk page is not to encourage the breaking of federal laws or challanging federal laws on the books. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 incorporated the much of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. As far as I know the Civil Rights Act of 1964 public accomadations is enforced by the Department of Justice. In that sense the Civil Rights Act of 1875 has been revived or reimplemented. I am a U.S. Citizen. I am not allowed to break federal law. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No--Franklin says it was never successfully enforced in court. - there were some cases --Franklin summarizes them--but the plaintiffs lost. the Supreme Court waited 8 years to overturn it. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Laws are either enforced not enforced. It does not matter if the plaintiffs lost and the judges were racist and refused to enforce the law. It was an act signed into law by Grant. That is all that matters for this article. Does Franklin advocate not to obey laws that are signed into law by a President ? That is a seperate issue. Will readers assume that any laws signed by the President are "dead letter" and not to be obeyed ? It was an ambitious law. McFeely links it to the 13, 14, and 15 amendments. When the South rebelled, all the Union laws were "dead letter" to the Confederates. The South then was in rebellion during Grant's Presidency. Is Wikipedia saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is "dead letter" too ? What is the difference ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

the law was a symbolic act to honor Sumner (who had been Grant's #1 enemy). No one enforced it, the media was almost unanimous in opposition, calling it unwise and unconstitutional. Plaintiffs who tried to use it lost in court (did they ALL lose? that is my impression from Franklin's article) It had little or no impact on anyone. So why mention it at all--several biographers follow Smith in totally ignoring it. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That last point is the most important one. Can we emphasize what the biographers ignore? We cannot. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Brands and McFeely, you know the man who one the Pulitzer for his Grant biography, both mention the CRA1875 in their respected biographies. So now we are ingoring McFeely won the Pulitzer. Can we emphasize what biographers put in their books ? Yes. It's true Smith and White suprisingly ignore CRA1875. And no, we can't reference Smith and White on CRA1875. Editors can reference Brands and McFeely. Pulitzer prize winner historian William S. McFeely writes, "The three postwar amendments to the Constitution, the civil-rights legislation of 1866, 1870, 1871, and 1875, and the creation of the Justice Department were monumental achievements." Can Wikipedia editors ignore a Pulitzer prize winning historian such as William S. McFeely ? I think not and dare say no. Since CRA1875 was a monumental achievement, it should be kept in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned the passage of three civil rights laws by Grant. Took out direct mention of CRA1875 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Franklin source

@Rjensen: I can't seem to locate the John Pope Franklin source you just employed in one of your most recent edits. The Enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 is not mentioned in his biography either. Would like to get this source into our Bibliography with all the related info (i.e.publisher, url), if possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

the cite = John Hope Franklin, "The Enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1875" Prologue (1974) 6:225-35 there is an online version at http://studylib.net/doc/8205613/the-enforcement-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1875 it's not copyright-- PROLOGUE is a government document published by the National Archives; see https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue Rjensen (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. This source can be used to expand the Civil Rights Act of 1875 article. 172.77.29.110 (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

New book

A relatively new book on Grant came out : Timothy B. Smith, 2016: Grant Invades Tennessee: The 1862 Battles for Forts Henry and Donelson that might be of interest to editors. No viewing available, but it might be a good addition to one's library. Much of Grant's success in the Western theater can be attributed to the Navy. i.e.Foote, Porter, Farragut, Phelps. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Frémont and Department of the West

I think there needs to be more information on John Charles Frémont and the Department of the West, that was in chaos at the begining of the Civil War, when Frémont took control. I don't want to expand the section too much. Frémont was trying to keep Missouri from succeeding, a heavily entrenched slave state. The Department was without organization, trained recruits, or war materials. Frémont chose Grant over senior officers to be in charge of Cairo. The Confederates were planning on invading Illinois and Springfield. There no mention of the Battle of Wilson's Creek. Maybe this information could be mentioned in a note or the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: "After the Union defeat of the Battle of Wilson's Creek, the Confederates took Columbus and planned to advance into Illinois. To prevent Confederate northern invasion and start a Union advance on the Mississippi River, Frémont sent reinforcment troops to Cairo." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Was Nathaniel Lyon Grant's commander prior to Frémont ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good addition to the John C. Frémont article, but not needed here. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The reader has no idea of the situation in the Department of the West. Grant was part of the Department of the West, and there is no answer why he was appointed to Cairo by Frémont in the first place, to protect the North from invasion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I could also see a reason to add it to Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War, where there is room to grow. Readers who want to know more could visit that page. I think you ought to get a good cite for the idea that the rebels planned to invade Illinois, though. That's not how I recall it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevins 1931 page 22 says the Confederates menaced Cairo. That is why Frémont gave Grant the job of defending Cairo over Grant's superiors because he believed Grant was an aggressive General. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Nevins 1939 page 521 Volume 2 Grant took Paducah because it was very close to Cairo. Polk was about to seize Paducah. What else could this be but to invade Illinois ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Frémont himself wrote to Lincoln that Polk was going to attack Cairo. Nevins 1939 page 522 Volume 2 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Coemgenus. This should go to those other articles. We already say enough for this article about why Fremont sent Grant to Cairo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is zero explanation why Grant was given command of Cairo or why capturing Padach was vital or that the objective of Polk was to attack Illinois. Grant was fighting for the Union Army. It's clear the Confederate Army was the aggresive army and the article does not present that. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. It does say why Fremont posted Grant, and is keyed as appropriate for the biography with its focus on Grant's qualities. And it does sufficiently explain why Peducah, to establish Union supply. That events in war are attacked or be attacked, take ground or give ground, is no mystery to anyone, and needs no more ink, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those sources say that the Confederates planned an invasion of the North. The 1931 encyclopedia article says Fremont's army was menaced by superior rebel forces. They did invade Kentucky, which had proclaimed itself "neutral," but there is no evidence that a march into Illinois was planned in 1861. And, again, such details, even if they were accurate, would belong in sub-articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Why were the Confederates in Columbus ? To have a picnic ? Grant was put in charge of Cairo to prevent a Confederate invasion. Frémont was not given any instructions from Lincoln or Scott one how to run the Department of the West. Frémont had limited number of troops and he sent reinforcements to Cairo. Grant was put in charge of Cairo as a base to launch an offensive down the Mississippi River. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The key to victory in the west was control of the Mississippi, which at that time was controlled by Confederates who were well dug in at Columbus, situated on high bluffs surrounded by numerous batteries, making passage on the river further south almost impossible for the Union. Fremont selected Grant over Generals Pope and Prentiss because of Grant's strong character and determination. Don't think we should expand coverage too much, but it wouldn't hurt to edit the existing statement, esp since this statement occurs in the opening section to the entire Civil War:

Control of the Mississippi River was the key to victory in the west. Believing Grant was a general of "iron will", Major General John C. Frémont assigned Grant with this objective in mind, giving him command of troops near the Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois, by the end of August.<Smith, p.117>

This would explain the 'what and why' of Grant's objective, which is not noted in the opening section. The piped link to Mississippi River campaigns would cover all specific objectives involved, including Columbus, Forts Henry and Donelson, etc, which in turn are summed up, per topic, further into the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to your edit Gwillhickers. It shows the Mississippi was just as important in 1861 as was 1862-1863 during Grant's Vicksburg Campaign for both the Union and Confederacy. My above edit was to show that the Confederacy was being the aggressor in planning on attacking Cairo. The Lost Cause believes the Civil War was one of Northern Aggression. This is evidence at that as early as 1861, the Confederacy was planning to invade the North, at least in the West. Had the Confederates taken Pudacah, then Cairo was the next city to be attacked. In other words, Grant taking Paducah was a defensive strategy win, rather then an offensive one. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In the early years of the war Jefferson Davis's approach was defensive in terms of deploying troops in the north above his 1600 mile barrier that stretched west from Virginia to New Mexico. His famous quote is "The south wants only to be left alone". (Fort Sumter was in 'southern territory' and they simply wanted the Union out.) Confederate positions at Columbus and New Madrid, both on the Mississippi, were wholey defensive. -- At First Bull Run, Beauregard, who won the battle, believed he could have marched on to Maryland and even to D.C. and win the war had Davis simply given him enough supply, but Davis relented, not wanting to provoke the Union to that extent, which p'offed Beauregard to no end, causing him to write letters to newspapers, politicians, etc. That was the general pretext dictated to the Confederate military early on. i.e.Grant was sent to Cairo to stage the Union's war into the South, not so much to guard against a Confederate invasion into the north. It's enough that we simply add general context to the opening section stating that control of the Mississippi was the key to getting Union troops into the south. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest "The Union's control of rivers was key to its plan for suppressing the rebellion." Followed by your other sentences. I would prefer to preview all the subsequent river action - and the Union's superiority on the rivers -- but not get too ahead of 1861 at this point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Grant took Paducah before Polk did. It was a defensive counter to Polk taking Columbus. According to Frémont Polk was planning on taking Paducah and attacking Cairo. Frémont sent reinforcements to both Cairo and Paducah. As mentioned before I am for Gwillhickers edit. It is true taking the Mississippi was part of the Anaconda Plan but things were out of control in Missouri and the West. "Suppressing the Rebellion" might be a bit of an overstatement. There was only one Western Union victory under Frémont in 1861 at Springfield. The Rebellion was suppressing the Union in 1861, i.e. Polk taking Columbus and menacing Illinois at Cairo. The Union defeat at Wilson's Creek. Confederate guerillas attacking Union loyalist counties in Missouri. With that said, I accept Alanscottwalker's suggested sentence also. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your theory is just as supportive of the Confederates taking Columbus because they feared Cairo's troops would take it. At any rate, I don't support, and I am not seeing support for more here on those Missouri detail issues, Fremont detail issues, etc. So, let's move ahead, with the bit more intro on rivers strategy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'll agree to that. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I put this in conversation before making any edits. The Confederates were in rebellion against the Union. Kentucky never was officially part of the Confederacy. That makes taking Columbus an aggressive action by the Confederates. The Kentucky government petitioned the Union Army for assistance. Kentucky was a platform to lauch an attack on the North. The Union Army was in no position in 1861 to defeat the Confederates. The army was on the defensive. Even Frémont's victory at Springfield was a recapture of the Springfield. In essense, Frémont sacrificed Lyons at Wilson's Creek to protect Cairo. Additionally, the Confederate Army was allowed to escape. I am not against Gwillhicker's or Alanscottwalker's details or edits from being added to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Civil War 1861 Confederate forces enter Kentucky Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for the opening section we only need to mention general context. Kentucky, though neutral, was a slave state and there was already much secession support, esp in Columbus, which is largely why the Confederates had no problems securing that riverfront position. Both the Union and Confederates were deploying troops at various points in the state, with the Confederates at Columbus. All the Mississippi River campaigns i.e.the Battle of Island No. 10 -- Battle of New Madrid -- Fort Pillow naval battle -- Battle of Memphis -- Vicksburg Campaign -- Red River campaign, required that Navy gunboats and troop transports were able to get past Columbus. But these are all details that are (or should be) covered further into the narrative. Control of the Mississippi River was of course the key. While we're at it, we might also want to say Fremont selected Grant over Generals Pope and Prentiss. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason why I started this discussion was that I felt there was no sense of urgency in the narration concerning the Union War effort, especially after the Battle of Wilson Creek, how Frémont chose Grant out of the urgency of the situation, had Cairo fell there would be no River Campaign for the Union. Grant did not wait for Frémont's order to capture Paducah. That was really a turning point in the War, giving the Union a much needed supply station. I appreciate all editor input. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

editbreak2

Well, the Battle of Wilson's Creek, fought in Springfield, Missouri, while giving the Confederates a victory, never posed any sort of threat to Cairo, which was hundreds of miles east, across the Mississippi River, in Illinois. I'm sure the battle was noticed, but Grant wasn't sent to Cairo because of this battle, which occurred several months earlier, but to Belmont, which was across the Mississippi from Columbus, a major Confederate stronghold, preventing Union access to the Mississippi. The main context we need to concern ourselves with here is that the Mississippi river was the key to Union victory in the Western theater. The urgency of Fremont is understood. It was war time. Grant's first objectives were Belmont and Forts Henry and Donelson as explained in the Belmont, Forts Henry and Donelson section. Once these forts fell, Polk knew Columbus could be outflanked from the east. Polk set up shop in Columbus, not to invade the north, but to defend the Mississippi. Gott, 2013 covers this well, but again, these are getting into details that don't concern the general context of the opening section to the Civil War. Columbus and the Mississippi were the major concerns, which is why Grant at first was across the river, moving on Belmont. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Wilson's Creek was seperate, but indirectly related. Rather than send Lyon reienforcements Frémont sent reinforcements to Cairo. The Confederates taking Cairo would have been detrimental to the Union Mississippi campaign, that is why Frémont sent reinforcements there. Frémont himself said they were going to attack Cairo and Paducah. I put in the article what White said that the Confederates planned an invasion into Southern Illinois. That would have been devastating to the Union War effort. Grant prevented invasion by the Confederates into Southern Illinois by taking Paducah before Pillow could get there. Yes. Polk taking Columbus was meant to control the Mississippi, but Kentucky never officially joined the Confederacy. In fact, Polk taking Columbus was a blunder because the Kentucky legislature voted to stay in the Union. The Governor of Kentucky was pro confederate. It was a complicated situation politically. Kentucky would have been invaded regardless of neutrality. Frémont's spy told Grant Pillow was going to attack Paducah and invade Southern Illinois. That is why Grant took Paducha. Had the Confederates invaded and sacked Cairo and taken Paducah, the Union Campaign would have been destroyed. There would be no Belmont, Fort Henry, or Fort Donaldson victories. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole war is complicated. That's why we have whole articles dealing with it, including Grant in the Civil war - we should not expand on that here, every little rumor or sidetrack is just going to bloat this article. Your argument makes Grant's taking of Paducah entirely defensive, when it was not, it was offensive - and its offensive nature is by far the more important to the thrust of the biography. Grant was focused temperamentally, patriotically, morally, and strategically to make the rebels unconditionally surrender not hold ground. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Grant took Paducah because he was told by Fremont's spy Pillow was planning on taking Paducah and invading Southern Illinois. Grant beat Pillow to it. Taking Paducha ended up being a defensive counter to the Confederates take over of Columbus. Yes. The whole war was complicated. Again, White 2016 supports this view. The article does not state Grant was going on the defensive. Taking Paducah was eliminating a Confederate threat. I added two sentences. No I don't want to expand all of the sections on the Civil War. I believed more information was needed on why Grant took Paducah and why Cairo was vital to the Union cause as an Union Army and Navy base to lauch a Mississippi campaign against the Confederates. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The opening section looks fine, and we've accomplished it by including more than one item of context, and without bloating the narrative. Comprehensiveness comes first. Extended details go beyond that, in dedicated articles. Thanks are due to Cm' for looking out and bringing the issue to the table. The Civil War is the cornerstone to the Grant biography, and it had a couple important perspectives that were missing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

At the beginning of the War the Western Department was in chaos. The Union Army as a whole was on the defensive, even Lyons at Wilson's Creek. Grant's move on Paducah was a vital defensive counter move, but maybe there is a fine line between defensive and offensive. There was no resistance. Taking Paducah was not a battle, but it shows that urgency of the situation. I did not put anything that said it was a defensive counter move. That was my own opinion. The best offense if the best defense. Grant acted proactively and quickly not waiting for the Confederates to strike. I think that is the best way to look at it. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

That certainly was a consideration at that point in time, but overall, control of the Mississippi River, which Polk and Johnston at Columbus were trying to maintain, was the big consideration. The various Mississippi River campaigns that immediately followed all depended on getting past Columbus. Do you still feel more needs to be added to the section? I believe we've covered all the major context in the opening section nicely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No I don't feel more needs to be added. I never wanted to make a large edit, just show the urgency of the situation, Grant's quick thinking by taking Paducah out the reach of Confederates. White (2016) is a good reference and confirms or supports what Nevins and Frémont said. I wonder if there would have been a Shiloh had Frémont been in charge instead of Halleck. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Many factors led to Shiloh, including Johnston, who initiated the fighting, yet was never referred to as a "butcher", at least not like Grant was. Let's not forget Lee at Gettysburg, he never got the "butcher" label either. It's more than obvious that the South was determined to fight, almost to the last man it seems. If Shiloh didn't occur then the battle(s) would have occurred elsewhere. Perhaps if the Union just sat back, watched the country become divided. (And soon conquered by our 'friends' waiting in the wings -- tea?) Where would we be today? It's always easy to sit back in our progressive easy-chairs and point a finger from afar, not that you have. Seems to me Fremont would have done something besides sit on his hands. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The Battle of Wilson's Creek was mostly a fight to bring Missouri into the Confederacy. After the battle the Confederates were too disorganized and in need of supply to pursue the Union forces. After the Confederates regrouped General Price pushed north to Lexington. Moving on Cairo across the Mississippi in another Union controlled state was not even a consideration. Three months later, Fremont no doubt would have still recognized Columbus as a major factor in that theater and would have moved on Belmont, just as he had Grant do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I would not underestimate the Confederate Army in terms of invading the North in 1861. Frémont had no issues with Grant taking Paducah and he said the Conderates were going to attack Paducah and Cairo. Robert E. Lee had no problem crossing the Mason Dixon line and taking it to the North at Gettysburg. The Confederate Army was not timid. It boldly took over Columbus. There was every reason to invade the North to prevent the Union Rivers Campaign. That is why Grant taking Paducah is very important. It prevented a Confederate invasion of Southern Illinois. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In the Western theater any Confederate designs on invading the north in 1861 were short lived. After Wilson's Creek the Confederates were pushed back into Arkansas. They had a serious supply problem that existed throughout the war. There was no Confederate army in place to even entertain an invasion on Puducah and/or Cairo, save that at Columbus, which again, was a wholly defensive position. They would never have pulled the required numbers of troops, and supply, from Columbus to go invading the north leaving that important objective compromised. During that same period Columbus was being undermined with the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson. After Wilson's Creek, the Confederates were in overall retreat in the West, and it remained that way for the rest of the war, with one defeat after another. Yes, the Confederates were bold, however, after their initial successes in the east (Bull run, etc) every major attempt at offensive operations thereafter ended in disaster. e.g.Shiloh, Gettysburg, etc. If Fremont was concerned about an "invasion" in 1861 it was short lived. No doubt Wilson's Creek confirmed for him that there was no such threat, which is why he sent Grant to Belmont only three months later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, maybe this is all hyperbole. To take Padacah would have cost the Confederates nothing. Columbus and Paducah were extremely close to Cairo. The Confederates must have known the Union and Frémont were going to make a joint Union Army Navy river campaign. Grant did not have enough troops to attack Columbus, so it is not out of the question the Confederates would plan an attack on Cairo had Paducah been taken by Pillow rather then Grant. In other words Grant's quick actions saved the day. I am not sure there is anymore need for discussion. Coemgenus removed information on the Union spy telling Grant of a planned Confederate invasion. Maybe that could be put in a note. Thanks. We can go onto other issues. I think this one is exhausted. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It's only worth a note if an attack on Puducah was a viable undertaking and the Confederates came close to doing so. If it would have "cost the Confederates nothing", which is a little unrealistic to assume, they would have at least mounted for an attack, but that never happened. Evidently, Fremont didn't put too much stock into his spy's warning, probably because he knew better. Grant took Paducah without a fight, as the opening section already says. Yes, the Confederate generalship, naturally, knew the importance of the Mississippi, hence their extensive fortification at Columbus. The Confederates had stuck their necks out at Wilson's Creek, moved north to Lexington, (not Puducah or Cairo) and in short order were sent packing back down to Arkansas. From that point on they remained on the defensive, losing one battle after another. Any designs on Puducah by the Confederates were fleeting and had long been forgotten about. Puducah only merits the coverage we are now giving it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The Confederates were driven out of Missouri after Wilson's Creek, only to invade Kentucky. Here are Frémont's own words: "As the rebel troops driven out from Missouri had invaded Kentucky in considerable force, and by occupying Union City, Hickman, and Columbus were preparing to seize Paducah and attack Cairo, I judged it impossible, without losing important advantages, to defer any longer a forward movement."Nevins (1939) page 522 Volume II Paducah was free for the taking and would have been used by the Confederates to attack Cairo, but Grant took it first before the Confederates could get there. Frémont sent reinforcement troops to Paducah. General Smith was put in charge of Puducah and Grant was in charge of Cairo. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Fremont thought the idea of invading Puducah and Cario, the latter being a major Union stronghold, impossible -- and Grant took Puducah without a fight. Aside from the opening section, I wouldn't mind a statement in the Belmont' section that says the Confederates entered Kentucky with designs on Puducah and Cairo, even though it didn't amount to much. At least it made Grant and Fremont act more quickly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft statement added to existing text :
-- After the Confederates moved into Kentucky, with designs on Puducah and Cairo, Grant, under Frémont's authority, advanced on Paducah, and took the town without a fight, setting up a Union supply station.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I think that is a good edit. It links the importance of taking Paducah and it did get Frémont and Grant moving faster. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit tweak: "After the Confederates invaded Kentucky, with designs on Puducah and Cairo, Grant, under Frémont's authority, advanced on Paducah, and took the town without a fight, setting up a Union supply station. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Simply saying Kentucky was "invaded" sounds like quite an overstatement, giving the impression that the Confederates just rompted through the state, esp since their invasion plays were short lived. Best just to say they moved into the western part of the state. How about this? :

• After the Confederates moved into western Kentucky, with designs on Puducah and Cairo, Grant, under Frémont's authority, advanced on Paducah, and took the town without a fight, setting up a Union supply station.
  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think invaded is more accurate but I can accept moved into out of compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a couple of points of context. Also, McFeely, p.91, uses the term "invaded". Since it was a war, and since we do specify 'Western Kentucky', I've no objections with the term after all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

New Grant biography

Ron Chernow has just published a new book, 2017, simply entitled  : Grant, 1104 pages It won't be available until October 10th however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Kirkus Book Review Grant by Ron Chernow Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Chernow will give more insight into the Grant scandals : "Recounting the dreary scandals that soiled his administration, Chernow emphasizes that Grant was disastrously lacking in cynicism. Loyal to friends and susceptible to shady characters, he was an easy mark, and he was fleeced regularly throughout his life. In this sympathetic biography, the author continues the revival of Grant’s reputation." [1] Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can't wait for the book to hit the 'book stands'. Grant, like Lincoln, came from a solid and humble background, which on the one hand was an assent, but unfortunately, his unassuming nature was played upon like a piano by various corrupt individuals, ala Black Friday, etc. Chernow, at the very least, it seems, will provide us with added context for the Historical reputation section/article. Am hoping Chernow brings some new/ignored/buried facts to the table as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)