Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 43

This is an archive of past discussions about Ulysses S. Grant. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

New book, 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago149 comments7 people in discussion

A new book about Grant, by Donald L. Miller (Simon and Schuster, Oct. 2019) is slated for release on October 29: Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy. Hopefully there will be a review that tells us what this book has to offer that previous such works have not, if indeed it does so. Simon and Schuster has a review, however, it's more of a generic promotional piece than an unbiased review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Book is now available on eBay. Some of books are up for bidding, starting around $10 - a chance to beat the $28 (and higher) regular purchase price . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m reading it now. It’s good, but I caught a few minor errors that could have been easily fact checked. Carmelsuttor (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Carmelsuttor: — Good looking out. Can you give us a 'for instance'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The one I caught was saying that Grant and Sherman had been "classmates" at West Point. Arguably almost correct, as they had been just a couple of years apart, so had crossed paths, but classmates is a stretch. A review on Amazon ^[1] caught a few more, such as where Grant was when he learned he was a general and also the idea that malaria is contagious as opposed to mosquito-borne. These relatively small errors led me to question his defence of the veracity of the "Yazoo Bender," especially in that he cites Ron Chernow as one of his sources. I tweeted a query to Brooks D. Simpson about that, and his reply was "Don is entitled to his opinion. Some stories seem so good that biographers/historians just can't let them go," so a little unclear@Gwillhickers: Carmelsuttor (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

^ https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/1451641370/ref=acr_dp_hist_3?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=three_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

@Carmelsuttor, Cmguy777, Coemgenus, and Bruce leverett: — Good research. Thanks. Yes, malaria is not contagious. The term "Classmates" is actually a general figure of speech, so I wouldn't try to ascribe any rigid meaning to it in terms of being in the same physical classroom. Accounts of Grant's drinking were mostly exaggerated, and sometimes completely fabricated by the press and envious contemporaries of Grant's, so it doesn't surprise me to see yet another account being mulled about. At least Miller can cite another source. I was a little disappointed on Miller's account of Grant's General Order 11, expelling the Jews from the cotton trading. His cursory coverage on the issue is pretty much a milk-toast account and hasn't anything new to offer. In any case, I'm always mindful of the varying accounts about history overall, and will keep these things in mind while reading and referring to this book. Many thanks for your efforts! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(Is) (Are) there (an) any issue(s) with the current narration in the Vickburg campaign section ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Miller gives us a neutral assessment, a statement to that effect that was just included to the section. There was one existing statement, however, that I have reservations over, that, i.e. "The Northern press strongly condemned Grant's anti-semitism", as if what the press was claiming is an established fact. The term anti-semitism, a reference to race/ethnicity, should be in quotes. Grant's exclusion of the Jews in the district, all things considered, very likely was a hasty broad-brushed cautionary measure in the midst of an active war, since it was widely reported that Jewish speculators were operating in the area in an alarming capacity. To say, as fact, that Grant was "anti-semitic" is like saying Grant hated Jews for no other reason than race and/or ethnicity, which is inconsistent with his sympathies for oppressed Blacks, not to mention his benevolent character. Anything claimed by the press, then and now, should be heavily scrutinized and presented in neutral terms and in quotes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if we should say something about the fact that Grant "left most of his supply lines behind" (White) when he crossed the Mississippi at Bruinsburg. This was, I gather, the main risk of his plan, but I don't see where we are mentioning it now (unless I am missing something). I would add this myself, but since you asked ... Bruce leverett (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Concerning anti-Semitism and Grant, we should not present this like a court case, proving guilt or innocence, but say what the sources say. The article does not say Grant "hated" the Jewish people. The expulsion issue is complex. It also involved Lincoln's cotton trade policy, that I believe both Grant and Sherman opposed. But we can't get around the fact that the order specifically was to expell Jewish people from his district. The order was anti-Semitic. The order was in part enforced. Bedford Forrest's attack on the Union telegraph communication line(s) prevented full enforcement before Lincoln revoked the order. The Northern press was against the order. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, your proposal sounds good. I'm not sure what sources you have available, other than what can be viewed on line, and too often the pages needed are not viewable. I own nearly all of the major works on Grant. If you can come up with a proposal I'd be happy to add a citation from Miller, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Cm', I agree that this should not be presented like a court case, but objectively. The statement in question isn't worded objectively, but as a forgone conclusion, and only on the basis of one war time act, in the middle of a siege. This is why I'd recommend that we put the highly charged label in quotes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

We could say Grant's order was anti-Semitic, he received criticism, and Lincoln revoked the order. That would be neutral. I don't think there is a need to put that in quotes. In this case Bedford Forest looks like the good guy. But that is just my opinion. We could say: "To alleviate what Grant considered an illicit cotton trade, Grant issued his anti-Semitc General Orders #11 that expelled Jewish families and Jewish traders from his military district." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The article already mentions criticism, and Lincoln's directive to revoke the order. I would either put the divisive label in quotes, or simply remove the term, letting readers decide whether Grant's General Order amounted to what people today consider "anti-semitic". In any case, we should do something in the way of making the statement more neutral. Saying the entire newspaper industry in the north called the order anti-semetic, is not only an over generalization, it's very likely an error in terms of Grant's feelings about Jews. As Miller says, no one knows for sure, so we should give the biography here the benefit of the doubt, as controversial issues go.

"To alleviate what Grant considered an illicit cotton trade, he issued his General Orders #11 that expelled all Jewish people from his military district." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I like the above sentence. The order was anti-Semitic. We could add that modern scholarship considered the order anti-Semitic. I don't think we should say directly that Grant was anti-Semitic but is order was. Another issue is that I don't think the term "anti-Semitic" was used during Grant's time period. It would certainly help to have the New York Times article that covered the topic: Gen. Grant and the Jews. Jan. 18, 1863. The NYT called Grant's order: "odious" and an "unrighteous act". I believe the Jewish committee that visited Lincoln wanted Grant removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

To alleviate what Grant considered an illicit cotton trade, he issued his General Orders #11 that expelled all Jewish people from his military district. Lincoln revoked the controversial order, but did not dismiss Grant. The New York Times said the order was: "bad writing", "odious", and an "unrighteous act". Modern scholarship considers the order anti-Semitic. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a note using the New York Times article that is critical of Grant. This adds neutrality, context, and clarification to the article. It was published January 18, 1863, so it gives an accurate view of the standards of the times concerning anti-Semitism. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it best that the term "anti-Semitism" can be put in a note and/or in the historical reputation section. The term was coined in 1879 prior to Grant's General Orders #11. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The section covering this topic reads better. However, the assessment regarding the ethical character of the Order should be in the main text. It's perfectly neutral, objective and makes a good closing statement on this topic. Grant's first concern was the disruption caused by the trading and any money going towards the Confederate war effort. Grant no doubt would have made the same broad-brushed call regardless if the ethnic group in question were Chinese or Eskimos. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We need to mention Lincoln's cotton policy that brought this whole event about. Grant and Sherman did not want any trade. Why Lincoln had this policy that worked against the war I don't know. The cotton trade prolonged the war. But we can't get around that Grant singled out Jewish people. Why ? That is not known completely. I took out "anti-Semitism" because the term was not used at that time. Regarless, from and modern world view, the order contained anti-Semitism. We should not sugar coat the issue. I put in the New York Times to add the perspective of January 18, 1863. We can put modern perspective in the historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no sugar coating here. We flat out say Grant expelled the Jews. We do the opposite of sugar coating when we attach modern day stigmas/labels to the topic. It's best simply to state the facts and let readers take matters of opinion from there. Thanks for removing the subjective and highly questionable label. I've no objection about mentioning Lincoln in the manner you suggest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Modern day assessment of Grant and General Orders #11 should be in the historical reputation section, including Miller (2019). The New York Times (01-18-2019) offers critical assessment of Grant in the note. We need to be neutral. The Lincoln issue might be more complicated. From what I gather Lincoln wanted good will from the Confederates so he allowed a cotton trade. But the trade aided the Confederate War effort. That is what I understand. Lincoln is difficult to figure out at times. I don't think Grant understood Lincoln completely. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times coverage then was clearly grand-standing, and doesn't even hint at Grant's pressing war time concerns, or acknowledges the numerous reports of Jewish speculators, two of which showed up at Grant's doorstep, with his father. They are assuming Grant believed all Jews were swindlers, and in so doing the NYT maligned Grant and asserted its own prejudice, and right in the middle of an important campaign. We already cover their slant in a lengthy footnote, which borders on a neutrality issue. I'm sure the Confederates got a big kick out of their 'coverage' about Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the New York Times article says is the New York Times. We can't edit the article to make Grant look justified or unjustified by the order. Even Grant could not adequately justify what he did. But I am for the added information on Lincoln and the cotton trade. Speculators followed the war. How can you run a war when people are trying to profiteer where ever the Army moves, giving away troop location? In my opinion, historians are very protective of Lincoln. The cotton trade was Lincoln's policy. More needs to be said on that. As far as the NTY goes, I believe what I added in the note is neutral. It offers critisism of Grant, justified or unjustified. Again, we should not label, in this section, that the order contained Grant's anti-Semitism, since the term did not even exist at the time. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

editbreak

No one wants to remove the NYT, but only that we be mindful of this one newspaper and not ascribe too much weight and coverage about a publication trying to sell newspapers and appease its major supporters. Remember, it's a newspaper, so typically any facts are going to be cherry-picked and things are going to be exaggerated and twisted. In any case, thanks for trimming down the footnote. So far we have an objective and brief comment from Miller – seems we could say more along that line. Also, it's understood that Grant had reservations about his sweeping Order, but his latter words were mostly apologetic for offending Jews as a people. In any case, let's remember this is Grant's biography, not an outline on the cotton trade and all it involved politically and financially. I believe the best place to get into in depth coverage of the illicit cotton trade altogether would be in the Vicksburg campaign article. Your last edits look fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We could put the New York Times comment in a note along with Miller. That would reduce the weight of the NYT article. I reduced the note. I added more background information. I am still not sure why Lincoln wanted to trade with the Confederacy. It seems counter productive to the war effort. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

A general statement about criticism from news papers, along with Miller's neutral and general statement should be in the main text. Specific and judgemental opinions should go in a footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I am neither contesting Miller (2019) nor the New York Times (January 18, 1863) article. The opinions should be in notes. Grant really had nothing to do with the NYT's article. Miller's opinion is in the 21 Century, far removed chronologically from 1862-1863. It is your opinion Miller is neutral. I am not saying Miller is not nuetral, but rather, an opinion. Adding Miller's opinion adds neutrality, but Miller's opinion belongs in a note. We can't say Miller's view as fact. The reader jumps from 1862-1863 to 2019. I don't want an edit war over this. Not worth it. But I respectfully believe my format was better. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Miller offered a completely neutral statement, that no one can say for sure. How does one get anymore neutral than that? The NYT's assessment, a newspaper, was highly opinionated, with no words about what Grant was dealing with in the midst of a war. War. An idea I suspect that is abstract to the so called modern thinker. You once complained that even McFeely, 1981, was not the "latest scholarship" (must I resurrect the actual talk session?) -- now you seem to be taking exception over Miller, 2019. Let's remember, US Presidents are, and have always been, subject to partisan slants, exaggerations and complaints. Facts belong in the main text, opinions should take a back seat. Certainly you're not suggesting Grant was actually "anti-semetic", as if it were a fact. All things considered about Grant, it would seem at this late date that we would know better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

How can Miller be assured that nobody knows why Grant made the order? Only Grant knows why he gave the order and he never directly said why. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I don't think the term "anti-Semitism" can be applied to Grant, since, the word or term did not exist until 1879. The order itself needs no explanation, the removal of Jewish people from his district. Why did Grant make the order ? Possibly he could have been getting back at Lincoln for allowing trade with the Confederacy, profiteering, and traders giving away his troop location to the Confederacy. It is all speculation. Possibly Grant at that time was a racist against Jewish people, maybe jealous, prominent Jewish traders were apparently getting rich off the war that Grant was waging against the Confederacy, or appeared to be getting favoritism by Lincoln. He wanted to make a statement to his father. Maybe Grant wanted to reform the war and stop the profiteering. This was total war. Grant would do anything to win the war. Maybe Grant believed Jewish people were Confederates or had Confederate sympathies. Again, it is all speculation. Grant made the order. He knew why he made the order, but never gave an explanation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Grant was angry at Lincoln for allowing McClerland to be the person in charge of capturing Vicksburg, not Grant. It was Grant's way of getting back at Lincoln. Who knows ? Grant does. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can agree the order was the lowest point of Grant's military career. From the sources I have read I would conclude the order was given due to multiple reasons: racism-jealousies-reform-drinking. These are just my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is odd for us to quote someone as saying "Nobody really knows ..." etc. Miller is correct, but instead of quoting him, we should just not say anything about why Grant said what he did. That's the best, most effective, way of communicating that nobody knows :-)

What does it mean when we say the "Lincoln allowed" the illicit cotton trade? I did not find confirmation in White or Perret, or in our Wiki article about General Order No. 11 (1862), that Lincoln played a personal role in "allowing" the cotton trade, although his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, played a major role. I have not been able to find the cited sections of Flood or Sarna. Moreover, technically, whatever was allowed by the government was not illicit; thus it is confusing for us to describe this activity as "illicit" and "allowed" at the same time. Rather than really trying to fix this, I propose to just excise the phrase, "allowed by Lincoln".

Not directly related to the article, but I found this potential source: [1], to be eye-opening. There are tales of Jewish families being shipped up or downriver, or being imprisoned in stockades, etc., which reminded me of the seriousness of the stakes in this matter. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is questioning the seriousness of this matter. The permits had to do with Grant's military district, so Lincoln, Commander-In-Chief, allowed the trade. I believe it was Lincoln's cotton policy, who hoped trade would cause loyalty with the Southerners, but the traded ended up helping supply the Confederate Army. The Southerners in Grant's military district were not loyal at all even under Union control. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"in July 1861 Congress gave the president and Treasury secretary the right to issue “such trading licenses as the public good might require.”" Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"To complicate matters further, Washington’s official policy rarely translated perfectly in the field, where generals and Treasury agents pursued their own agendas, even when they ran at cross purposes to the president’s."
"Government officials and military officers were bribed to shut their eyes. As the historian Ludwell Johnson wrote, “Cotton permits were sold on the streets of New York; soldiers were bribed; traders were blackmailed; Treasury agents were disgraced.” Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"In January 1863 Charles Dana, who was a special investigating agent for War Secretary Edwin M. Stanton, wrote from Memphis, “the mania” for cotton had “corrupted and demoralized the army.” Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"Things were more straight-forward in the South. Confederate armies were so desperate for essential supplies like salt for food preservation that they had little choice but to accept the benefits of trade despite official prohibition. The historian James McPherson summarized, “The Davis administration looked the other way out of necessity; the Lincoln administration looked the other way out of policy.”"

Source: Trading With the Enemy Opinion by Phil Leigh October 28, 2012 New York Times Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I read the rest of the article, and it's fascinating, but of course, in a short biographical article about Grant, we are severely limited in how much we can say about the cotton trade. I see that you are trying to rewrite it to give some of the flavor, and I will wait to see what you end up with. But may I recommend that a fuller description be added to General Order No. 11 (1862), while the context we provide in Ulysses S. Grant should be much sparer. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln needs to be mentioned, along with Chase. Grant was not an independent general. There was an illicit cotton trade. I put in the article that it was not the "intention" of Lincoln and Chase for a corrupt cotton ring to flourish. Grant had to deal with it. Although Lincoln meant it to cause loyalty to the Union in the South, it caused corruption and profiteering. That is human nature. Grant over reacted. I used the term Ring because it is my own word. An illicit trade is a Ring. All of the traders were blocking Grant's troop movements. The Confication Acts allowed Grant to confiscate property. It is possible Grant used that to justify his removal of Jewish people. The complication was there were Jewish Confederates. Maybe Grant did not have a way to know whether Jewish people were loyal to the Union. But in my opinion, his order was in part inspired by racism. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, you maintained that Miller is correct in saying no one knows for sure, but objected to the quote, and removed it instead of rewording it. By simply saying no one knows for sure, we tell the readers there is only one item of circumstantial evidence to support any notions of Grant being anti-Jewish, or anti-semitic. We spare ourselves the opinionated arm-wrestling and say what the sources say. We have conjecture from a newspaper saying Grant was being anti-Jewish. Let's also remember there are dedicated articles to cover in depth the illicit cotton trade and General Order No. 11. The section in question is about Vicksburg campaign and its effect on the outcome of the Civil War, per Grant's involvement. We already give plenty of weight, perhaps even too much weight, to an issue that really doesn't involve the campaign itself. We have three footnotes in a row, including Smith's which refers to the General Order as the most "blatant" anti-Jewish act in American history. Yet we leave out Jewish historian Sarna's claim that there were only 100 Jews expelled from the district - speculators mostly. A few brought their wives and kids along. No one was uprooted from their homes and communities and driven away as if an exodus was occurring. The Order can and has been viewed like that, so we need as much objectivity on the topic as is practical. Miller helps greatly in that end. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with you about taking it from our sources. I would draw your attention to this summary of the effects of the order, from Groom's article:

In effect, the order banished not only Northern Jews who traded and speculated, but long-established non-trading and non-speculating Southern Jewish families from Memphis to Louisville, from Lexington to Paducah, and all points in between. Most embarrassingly, on its face the edict also included Jews in Grant’s own army.

Grant’s subordinates, some overly enthusiastic, went to work uprooting entire Union-loyal Jewish families from their homes, often in the dead of night, and shunted them onto steamboats up the Mississippi, or to Cincinnati and other towns across the Ohio. Horror stories abounded, including that of a baby, tossed bodily into a boat, without its parents, bound for the Ohio side of the river. Other Jews were imprisoned in stockades.

I also agree emphatically that we must make better use of the in-depth articles about the General Order and whatever others. We should not have more than three sentences about General Order No. 11 in this Grant article.

I doubt that I will be able to persuade you of how unintentionally amusing it is to be using the Miller quotation. So, I won't continue with an edit war. But, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the General Order No. 11 article, not here. We are doing a lot of apologetics here, taken from our sources: Grant did this terrible thing, but ... he was temporarily taking leave of his common sense (Perret) ... he made amends in later years ... the term "anti-Semitism" hadn't even been coined yet ... blah blah blah. It is common sense, and is probably explicitly stated somewhere in the Wikipedia guidelines, that we should just let the facts speak for themselves. To this effect, we could omit the excuses, and omit both the quotation from Smith and the quotation from Miller, with a clear conscience. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of moderation. It still seems we need a word of objectivity in light of the three footnotes in question, and esp in regards to that inflammatory "blatant" quote from Smith, which disappoints me in terms of objective historical assessment. Imo, there's room for Miller's assessment in the section. i.e. It's one statement, not a lengthy 'overture' of any sort. The issue needs a strong point of neutrality and objectivity, and it seemed Miller's assessment, the latest scholarship, was it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777, Grant overall was motivated by pressing circumstances, not "racism". If there was any actual racism towards Jews involved, no one can say for sure, esp since there is only the one Order to support that pessimistic notion. The Order was issued in response to numerous reports regarding the capacity of their involvement. When two major Jewish speculators showed up, the Mack brothers, with Grant 's father no less, Grant was convinced, it seems, that a swift and sweeping Order was called for. It was in the middle of a siege -- no time to interview individual speculators, as if that crowd pleasing effort would have solved any problems anyway. One of Grant's existing staff members was Jewish, and as President he appointed Jewish people in a capacity unprecedented. Grant explained fully, and convincingly, why he acted as he did. See his letter of explanation in the General Order 11 article, in the Letter of explanation section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

All the reader needs to know is that there was actual corruption in the cotton trade, unintended by Lincoln and Chase. The cotton trade was a failure. Grant over reacted. I don't think we can discount racism, whether the Jewish people were loyal to the Union or Confederates. Grant was fighting a guerrilla war. He really did not know who the enemy was. In my opinion, racism was involved, since the order was only in effect for Jewish people and their families. The reader can conclude Grant was a racist by the order alone. The best view of Grant was that he was a reformer trying to get rid of corruption in the cotton ring. Grant was in a dilemna, enforcing a failed policy of Lincoln and Chase, or completely stopping trade. Grant finally convinced Lincoln to stop trading with the enemy. Grant was fighting total war. The order was one that followed a total war strategy. Are there any real rules to war other than to win ? Did Grant believe he was using racism to win the war ? That is a all speculation. Let's just state the facts in the article and use the sources in the most neutral tone as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Insert : The reader needs to know more than just about the illicit cotton trade if we are going to cover Grant's General Order – or were you suggesting that we not mention the Order at all? I doubt that Grant even thought for a moment about any "racism" when he issued the Order. btw, Grant's reference was to "class" not race. Again, his Order was issued in light of numerous reports and in an expediate manner -- no time to interview individuals to see whose feelings were getting hurt. What would historians say about Grant if he put ethnic sensitivities over the lives of soldiers dying in the field in a war that was being prolonged by speculators? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as Miller (2019) goes I think we are giving the source too much weight. In essense we are taking Miller (2019) as fact. And in agreement with Bruce leverett that do we really need to be told nobody knows for sure. Is Miller (2019) really saying anything historical ? Also we go from 1862-1863 to 2019, a difference of 3 centuries. Quite a leap. Miller (2019) would be appropriate for the Historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Three different centuries are involved, but the Civil War ended only 154 years ago. Are you suggesting that we only use sources published in Grant's day? We give Miller one statement, to balance out some of the opinionated assertions, and to let the reader know the matter is not carved in granite. We did not present Miller's comment as a fact, but as his view. Are we taking Smith's "blatant" comment as fact? Smith was published in the 21st century. Is that "quite a leap" also? Are you also suggesting we put Smith's comment in the historical rep section, along with the NYT's coverage? It seems that section should only be used for things that had a real effect on Grant's reputation. Grant was elected President, twice. The General Order it seems is not even a blip on that radar screen. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

editbreak1

I never suggested removing the order from the article. I don't like words attributed to me being put in the talk page I never said. The cotton trade was what instigated the order: profiteering off cotton, extending the war, while Grant condemned the trade, Lincoln did not. The order of course needs to be mentioned in the article. Grant over reacted. The order was racist, though the article does not say so. We can't get around the racism of the order. Miller (2019) apparently does not take an opinion on why Grant issued the order. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether that was you intention or not, it seemed you were suggesting that when you said, "All the reader needs to know..." Any "racism" is a matter of opinion, so we should emphasize the facts and not try to breath any life into such a notion, all things considered during the war. Grant was in the field, Lincoln was not. Lincoln wanted to keep the cotton trade alive as a way of keeping the door open to southern farmers to return to the Union and continue doing business. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The cotton trade was corrupt and underminded the war effort, including the blockaid imposed by Lincoln and the Union Navy. Lincoln overestimated the loyalty of the Southerners and underestimated human nature to make profits. Even "good men" participated in the illicit cotton trade. Grant was fighting a guerrilla war. He did not know who to trust. Historians view the order was racist including Sarna and Smith. Miller (2019) by itself is undo weight in the that Vicksburg campaign article section. Historical assessments of Grant belong in the Historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

General Orders No. 11 (1862) Amy Hill Shevitz (2005) Antisemitism A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution Volume 1 Richard S. Levy (2005) Page 256. This source says Grant was prejudiced against Jewish people, but he was frustrated over smuggling, and his father's involvement in the trade. He singled out the Jewish people. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We should say in the article that Grant held common prejudice against the Jewish people during the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a book out The Jewish Confederates that mentions Jewish mothers and daughters acting as Confederate informants. There were also Jewish Confederates who fought in the war. Grant was fighting a guerrilla warfare meaning he did not know who the enemy was. Could this have prompted General Orders No. 11 to go after civilians, since Confederate civilians were going after the Union Army ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Chapter 5 The Jewish Confederates says Confederate Jewish women, the young, the elderly, and men who could not serve "contributed to the war effort and suffered through the war alongside their neighbors". How could Grant tell civilians who were loyal to the Union and who were loyal to the Confederacy ? In other words, was General Orders No. 11 against the civilian population who were aiding the Confederates ? That does not take away that Grant's order was anti-Jewish. It might add some context to the General Orders No. 11. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone suggested above that Miller does not see the Order as racist, that is not what Miller says: although we don't know for certain why the order was issued over the strong objections of Grant's aide-de-camp, we know for certain, according to Miller, Grant by his own Order treated all Jews in line with the ancient scapegoating of all Jews. Miller also highlights, that the order was the most anti-Jewish official act in American history.Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The order was prejudiced against Jewish people. Yes. I am not against saying that in the article. The book The Jewish Confederates says Jewish people were Confederates and Confederate Jewish civilians were part of the Confederate war effort. White says Grant was combating civilian obstruction and guerrilla warfare. Grant's order, in essense, attacked civilians who were aiding the war effort, although he singled out Jewish people. Is their any evidence that all of the Jewish people were Union supporters in Grant's district? How could Grant tell the difference ? All I am asking is that it be mentioned Jewish people were Confederate soldiers and Confederate Jewish civilians aided the Confederate War effort. The current narration suggests that all Jewish people were Union supporters. That is not true. It is true that the order did not distinguish between Union Jewish people and Confederate Jewish people. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I added that Jewish Confederate civilians aided the Confederate war effort. Rosen The Jewish Confederates page 220 was the source. I think it added neutrality to the article. The main contention with Grant is the "as a class" in General Orders No. 11. Was Grant removing civilians who aided the Confederate war effort ? The article should say Grant was prejudiced against Jewish people. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

~~I hope other editors will add input into this section concerning General Orders No. 11. Thanks~~ Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your addition is not appropriate. No connection is made by the source to the General Order, the general order was aimed Jews as a class, not rebel Jews, which would itself be antisemitic, because why rebel Jews and not rebel Methodists. Jews were on both sides in the war just like Methodists and Catholics and everyone else. Eg. the cotton traders who worked with Grant's father were Unionists. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I had offered the subject up for discussion. I requested more input from editors in the talk page. There was nothing inappropriate about the addition. I put it in the article to be neutral. White said there was civilian obstruction and guerilla warfare. The source Rosen said Confederate Jewish civilians supported the war effort. That is all I put in the article. The reader assumes that all Jewish people in the South were pro-Union. That is not true. I never disagreed that the order was anti-Jewish and I was the editor who put in the article that Grant was prejudice against Jewish people. He was. Then had Grant removed all civilians that would have been an appropriate order ? This was a war situation. Are there any rules to war other than winning? What about Shermans march to the sea ? Grant approved. Devastating damage. No controversy there. What about Lincoln's approval of exploding bullets ? No controversy there. The reader does not automatically know there were rebel Confederate Jewish, rebel Confederate Catholics, nor rebel Confederate Methodists who were fighting to keep black people enslaved just like Robert E. Lee was. The main issue of the war was slavery. And how was Grant suppose to fight civilian obstruction and guerilla warfare ? George Washington attacked Catholic Hessians at Trenton who got done celebrating Christmas the previous night. Is Washington labeled anti-Catholic ? It was a war. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would the reader assume such a thing? I as a reader do not. But more importantly the sentence does not belong because the source does not connect it to the General Order, and our connecting it (See WP:NOR) makes little to no sense because the cotton traders were unionists, as for gorilla warfare, where do you get the extraordinary idea that there were all these Jewish gorilla fighters, let alone all these Jewish gorilla fighters in the Mississippi Valley, certainly not from that source, nothing about what is known of the Order connects it to alleged Jewish gorillas. There is no appropriate purpose in singling out Jews, even if rebels, as that edit does, particularly when there were many more non-Jews.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not defending Grant's General Orders No. 11 and please don't imply that I am in the talk page. White (2016) on page 235 said Northern illicit cotton trade angered Grant and that he withdrew the line between civilians and soldiers in the summer of 1862. General Orders No. 11 does mention trade regulations. Grant said that non-combatants, i.e. civilians pretended to be pro-Union, but actually supported the Confederates. Also Grant wrote he wanted to expell all civilians or " all discontented citizens" from Union lines, not just Jewish people. And yes pro-Union Mack brothers are mentioned, leading the reader to believe all Jewish people, were pro-Union. Yes. Grant's order was anti-Jewish. Yes. Grant was prejudiced agaisnt Jewish people. That is not the arguement here. I am addressing neutrality of presenting or leading the reader to believe all Jewish people were pro-Union and anti-slavery, by ommission, in the article. Do the Mack Brothers represent all Jewish people during the war ? We don't know who the geurrilla fighters were, their faith, race, or national identity, since apparently, they were not officially enrolled in the Confederate army. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I think our positions are clear. You have not provided sufficient sources to make the alleged connections you wish to make in singling out Jews in the proposed edit. I'll let others discuss it with you, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I made an edit with Rosen as the source. I gave the page number. Rosen singled out Jewish people in his book. Not me. The book is titled The Jewish Confederates. Again your talk is attacking me rather than addressing the neutrality of the article. I did not single out Jewish people in my edit. I was saying what Rosen said in his book. I supplied the source and page number. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

~~I was not making any connections as you claimed "I wished." I just put in information supplied by Rosen. The reader can maker their own decisions.~~ Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That source does not connect the information to the Order, only your edit does -- it makes no sense to connect them, trade in the Mississippi department is what is mentioned Order, not what anyone says some Jews across the whole of the South were doing -- the order was not aimed at Jewish rebels, let alone someone's unsupported idea that there were all these alleged Jewish gorillas in the Mississippi, the Order expelled all Jews, regardless of what they did or did not do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The book Antisemitism A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, written by Amy Hill Shevitz, appears to be a highly biased and unforgiving source where Grant is concerned. What would you think of a source written by a Palestinian who accused Israel of being "racist" and "oppressive", etc? We need unbiased and objective statements. We should not present speculation as fact. Shevitz's estimation of Grant presented as fact was in direct contradiction to Miller's neutral statement, and the fact that Grant had a Jewish staff member before the Order was issued, and who later appointed Jewish people to positions in Government. Mild forms of prejudice exist everywhere, even between different Christian sects, but it's not presented as some hateful occurrence unless there are overwhelming facts, not just an isolated fact that occurred during a war time emergency, to support it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

~~What information then can be presented in the article ? Rosen deleted now Shevitz~~ Cmguy777 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

At this point we should just stick to the facts as sourced by Grant biographers. As controversial issues go, we should scrutinize any sources that are biased and whose subject is narrow, specialized, one sided and highly opinionated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Smith (2001) said Grant's order was blatant anti-Semitism. Does that go in the article ? I was trying to make the section neutral by allowing other views in the article. In essense, a civilian side of the war. Grant made no distinctions. He did not trust Southern civilians were loyal to the Union and believe the civilians supported the Confederate Army. White (2016) is the source page 235. We can't get around that civilians were part of this war. Guerrilla warfare was part of this war. Prior to General Orders No. 11 Grant wanted to expel all civilians. Grant made no distinctions between race at that time. Rosen (2000) The Jewish Confederates said Jewish civilians aided the Confederate war effort. There were Jewish people who aided the Union War effort as well. White (2016) said Grant was battling Southern civilian obstruction. No one is singling out Jewish involvement in the war. The current section makes no distiction between Confederates civilians and Union civilians. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Smith, to my disappointment, makes an exaggerated and highly subjective claim, not consistent with other facts about Grant noted above, and based on one isolated war time incident. I'd be just as critical if Chernow or anyone else made such a hyper-claim. As has been said many times over about controversial issues, we should stick to the facts and let readers make any "blatant" judgements if they are so inclined. That is neutral, completely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant is singled out and villified for his anti-Semitism by historians, more anti-Grantism. I had put information that Jewish Confederate civilians supported the Confederate war effort. Yet the information on Jewish civilians aiding this Confederacy, supplied by Rosen, a reliable source, The Jewish Confederates, was taken out of the article, making Grant look like a cold hearted corrupt racist monster. Were there other faiths and races who supported slavery, yes. Information on all the faith and races who supported the Confederacy, is difficult to find and should be included in this article, and/or in the main article on the American Civil War. Let's not forget the Confederacy, and/or the South, singled out blacks to be perpetual slaves, for hundreds of years, from the moment they were born, and condemned their children to be perpetual slaves, subject to whippings, and that the Confederate leader, General Robert E. Lee, subjected a black woman and male to whippings, before the war, and inflicted more damage and pain by putting brine on their wounds. Grant, who freed his slave while he was broke, for nothing, and the Union Army were fighting to end this perpetual slavery of blacks, their women, and children. And that Grant prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan, that did unspeakable violent acts to blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

We relate what sources say Grant did good and bad in the article. The Jews, no Jews, forced Grant to issue that order. As Miller writes his aide-de-camp begged Grant not to issue it, and even Julia, his loving wife called the order "odious", that's not the judgement of some "anti-Grant" historian, that is his wife. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Grant's Order is historic according to the multiple reliable sources. We already have established before on this talk page that Smith is consistent with multiple reliable sources. I'll list some, again:

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

And we have all agreed on this before. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Have we all agreed to make Grant be a villian ? Grant was fighting a war against the Confederacy, not Jewish people. The Confederacy or the South was fighting to protect slavery. According to Rosen, Jewish civilians were Confederates and supported the Confederate War effort. Yet this neutral information has been removed from the article. Jewish people did take sides in this war supporting the Confederacy and the Union. Wikipedia is suppose to be a neutral article. True. Rosen does not link this information to Grant. But it is reliable information non-the-less. Did civilians, regarless of race, who supported and aided the Confederacy, have rights in a war, when guerrillas were attacking Grant ? Grant made do distinction between civilians and soldiers. This he made clear before General Orders No. 11 was issued. Lincoln arrested Confederate sympathizers without trial in Balitmore to keep Baltimore in the Union. Was Lincoln a villian too ? We are forgetting the fact this was a war situation. The current article is taking a pro-Confederate position, destroying Grant's reputation, and disregarding black enslavement in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

~~Yes. General Orders No. 11 was anti-Jewish. That is not in dispute, but can we give Grant an impartial trial, before his conviction ?~~ Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Are we arguing over whether or not to cite Smith's "most blatantly anti-Semitic" quotation? Just checking -- sometimes I jump in at the wrong time, when the argument has shifted.

Elsewhere in this talk page, I have suggested that both the Smith quotation and the Miller quotation could be omitted "with a clear conscience". It's easy to rely on our sources for facts, not so easy to rely on them for judgments. But may I make a more moderate suggestion. Both quotations could be cited in the article General Order No. 11 (1862); then the citations could be dropped from Ulysses S. Grant. If a reader were interested enough in this topic (the Order) to navigate to that article, he would very likely be interested in the judgment of historians such as Smith and Miller. But for a more casual reader, someone who just wanted to brush up on Grant, these judgments would be off-topic.

This could be done in two stages. First, somebody find a way to cite these references in the Order article; then, somebody decide how, or even whether, they can be removed from the Grant article. Any takers? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I unconditionally "drop the stick" on Rosen (2000), The Jewish Confederates, a great book. I have said my opinion and will bother no one else. I don't have any agenda to push. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosen (2000), The Jewish Confederates, book source, has been removed from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

editbreak2

I removed two notes. One was awkard. The other used a term that was not invented until 1879. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The Miller note should be quoted. Unclear to the reader and should be free of editor interpretation. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I replaced the Miller note with an actual quote from Miller, not McFeely. Any McFeely quote should be from McFeely's book on Grant, not reduced version from Miller. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am finding the current Historical reputation section to be extremely negative toward Grant, throwing his reputation in the gutter. He is being portrayed as an American anti-Jewish racist ~~and a skin head~~ white nationalist, disregarding his presidency. General Orders No. 11 lasted maybe a month, it was overturned by Lincoln, and the order only applied to his district, not to the entire American continent, and it was never fully implemented. Does Grant deserve criticism for General Orders No. 11. Yes. But the section goes to far and lacks neutrality. It applied only in his military district during a war situation fighting civilian combatants and guerrilla warfare. There is also no sympathy for Union soldiers who died to set African slaves free. The nativism comment is complete unfounded. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, this section is supposed to describe what reputable, popular, historians have said about Grant, not what we, the lowly editors of Wikipedia, have to say about Grant. This section isn't supposed to be about Grant, it's supposed to be about Grant's reputation. My own quick reading of this section suggests to me that it is doing what it is supposed to do, albeit not always in the best-organized way. For instance I found the sentence about nativism somewhat confusing, as I had not seen anything about nativism in the sources I had read or even earlier in this article. So there's room for improvement. But remember, this section isn't us rendering the verdict of history. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, Cmguy, YOU put that nativist quote in the historical reputation section[2] !?! -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. But the anti-Jewish and nativist quote make Grant look like a modern white nationalist ~~skin head~~. Grant was a nativist when he was poor, but he set his slave free, when he was broke. Grant prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan, he appointed Jewish people to federal offices, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the first President to do so, but the younger Grant is emphasized, the Grant who lived in poverty. And yes General Orders No. 11 took place during the American Civil War. It was not done just to punish Jewish people, it was done to defeat the Confederacy, right or wrong. He was fighting a guerrilla warfare, which is a type of warfare that could be considered criminal in itself, just as much as General Orders No. 11, but somehow the Confederates who fought dirty get a free pass. It was that drunken evil villian Grant, a racist white nationalist, who gets the spot light and center stage. Grant was fighting to end slavery and he incorporated African Americans to be part of the Army. His administration desegregated the Post Office and the Washington D.C. Navy yard. That Grant is not emphasized in the article. I made a mistake in putting the nativist quotation, to much emphasis. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the whole section needs a rewrite. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you see where this constant rewriting goes? You re-wrote and put that in the historical reputation section. Sure rewrite, until the next re-write and then the next and on and on, and the text just churns and churns. The anti-Jewish quote was also probably put in by you in the historical reputation because it was originally, in the text we agreed on in Mediation in the General Order section Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant. The historical nature of the General Order should not be erased from this article. But the continuing issue with the article is apart from that, the text just churns and churns, rewrite and then rewrite again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Miller says we don't know why Grant issued the order against Jewish people. The historical reputation section should emphasize Grant's accomplishments as President. Appointing Jewish people to federal office. Prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan. Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

And you argued above that Miller was undue, and also misrepresent Miller by stopping there, as I showed above. (I think Miller is fine, as long as the full Miller is used. I think I said back in 2015, we can't know Grant's heart, but we do know for certain he issued that anti-Jewish order, widely condemned in sources in his day and now, and historic according to historians -- Miller again shows that the historic nature of the order belongs, here). The historic reputation section cannot be a litany of his successes, it has to cover, the equivocal, the good, and the bad in sources. But more importantly, you seem to be avoiding your responsibility for the current state of the things you have done, and the article is unlikely to improve by this change because it will just change again, whenever you change your ideas. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Grant should not be painted a racist white nationalist, from a 21-Century perspective, in the reputation section while his Presidential accomplishments should be ingored. George Washington, the man who owned hundreds of Black slaves, women, children, and men, who were imprisoned at Mount Vernon, worked them with the whip and shackel, was ranked America's number 1 President by the Sienna 2018 presidential survey. FDR who imprisoned Japanese civilians by Executive Order 9066, an order that was never overturned, was ranked number 2 President by the Sienna 2018 presidential survey. In the 2010 Sienna presidential survey, FDR was ranked number 1. Maybe historians are biased against Grant or show favoritism to their pet racist white nationalist Presidents. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you even reading the reputation section, it contains quite a bit if good things about Grant. I don't care and no one should care about what you think of modern historians. And it is of course false that it is just modern historians, many people in Grant's time criticized the General Order, including his own wife. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The quotation about nativism was added here: [3], by User:Rjensen. It was added in the "Presidency" section, in the "Later Reconstruction and Civil Rights" subsection. This placement was inappropriate, because the quotation mentions only Grant's writings and actions "as a general", and his pre-Civil-War years. Items should not be casually thrown into a Wiki article, but should be placed carefully.

You (Cmguy777) moved it to the "Reputation" section. In doing so, you were getting it out of the frying pan, putting it into the fire. You are right to regret that it is in that section. It does not appear that the changes in Grant's reputation over the years have had anything to do with his espousal, or not, of nativism or anti-Catholic prejudice.

What should we do with this quotation? I do not see any reference to Anbinder's ideas or his article in White, which was published 21 years later. Is there anything in Smith about anti-Catholic prejudice? If Grant's anti-Catholic prejudice is unimportant to his major biographers, I would think that it's unimportant for us, too.

By the way, I think discussion in this talk page would be more productive, if we could avoid deliberate exaggeration, such as "... make Grant look like a modern white nationalist skinhead". Anbinder's article is not crazy. Grant was subject to the prejudices of his time, and we have already noted, that these include anti-Jewish prejudice that nowadays makes us blush. We are trying to sort out what is important in Grant's life and career, to present to readers what they are likely to be interested in. We are not trying to weigh Grant in the scales of historical justice. We don't get to play God that way. Take that stuff elsewhere. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks of the correction. Rjensen made the edit, not me. Why is Grant judged so severely when FDR's Executive Order 9066 apparently gets a free pass by historians? FDR has ranked between 1 and 3. Grant's highest ranking was 21. FDR banned thousands of Jewish immigrants.Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, FDR's Wikipedia article has a paragraph about internment (Executive Order 9066). So Wikipedia is trying to be fair! As for those rankings, they're not Wikipedia, so I don't care about them :-) Bruce leverett (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy: You edited it into the reputation section, and then you accuse others of representing Grant as a skinhead!?! (How shameful of you) If I know, @Rjensen: he is generally careful, and Anbinder discussed it in relation to his presidency. But we will not get anywhere with your wild and unsupported accusations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make this personal. Your edits toward me have become hostile. Executive Order 9066 is well documented but FDR gets a light touch and his order was upheld by the Supreme Court. Grant's General Orders No. 11 gets severe treatment. He is castigated for anti-Semitism. He is labeled a white nationalist, in my opinion, by Ambinder. FDR feared Jewish immigrants were spies, so they were banned from immigration, but he is not castigated for anti-Semitism. The FDR article really gives a light touch on Executive Order 9066 and does not mention Jewish people being banned by FDR from immigration: The U.S. Government Turned Away Thousands of Jewish Refugees, Fearing That They Were Nazi Spies Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You're the one who has been hostile, with your exaggerations and unbelievable, unsupported skinhead claims. This is not FDR's article, so your comments have gone to irrelevance, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That was my own interpretation of Ambinder of Grant, not "other editors" or Rjensen. Editors can have their own opinons. Both FDR and Grant were Presidents. FDR was used only for comparison. It's your personal hostile remarks toward me I find hostile and should be toned down. "shameful of you" "your wild and unsupported accusations" Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It is shameful of you, you put that in the reputation section and then you accuse others with grossly false skinhead claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not accused other editors of being that word. My comment was only critical of Ambinder's assessment of Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

the problem is that Grant as president of the United States, in a major speech to veterans in Des Moines Iowa, came across as a "white nationalist skinhead". He warned the veterans that America again faced an enemy-- religious schools. the hot issue at the time was whether states that were requiring children to attend school should provide taxpayer money to religious schools, most of which were run by Catholic parishes. (the German Lutherans also had schools – the development of fundamentalist religious Baptist schools, very common in the late 20th century, had not yet started because the southern states did not have compulsory education for children.) Grant was in a fighting mood and he aroused the veterans by warning of the NEXT civil war in the "near future": it would not be between North and South, but will be between "patriotism and intelligence on the one side and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other" Charles Calhoun The Presidency of Ulysses S Grant (2017) p505 states : at various points in his life, Grant had bristled privately at what he considered religious communicants' thralldom to a domineering clergy, but he did not specifically mention Catholicism in his speech. Still, Catholic journals decried the president's seeming exploitation of religious bigotry." at this time the Catholic vote was very heavily Democratic and the school issue was fully politicized, with Republican leaders like Garfield warning that the Catholic Church posed a threat to modern civilization. Calhoun specifically cites Anbinder on p 680 #55. Grant did reverse himself regarding the Jews, but he never reversed himself regarding the Catholics and their threat to American civilization. Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen for the appropriate commentary on President Grant and religious schools. The differnce between the two, in my opinion, is that Grant was President while he spoke to the veterans in Des Moines Iowa, but General Orders No. 11 was ordered during a war, that included guerillas and civilian obstruction, while he was commanding general fighting the Confederate Army in December 1862. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's a recent scholarly analysis >Steven Green (2010). The Second Disestablishment: Church and State in Nineteenth-Century America. Oxford University Press. p. 293.

While few Protestants criticized Grant’s proposal, no one misunderstood his motivations. Grant’s administration was racked by corruption, and his political future, as well as that of the Republican Party, depended on diverting public attention away from the revelations of the Whiskey Ring.....Grant’s proposal was also a way to align the Republican Party more closely with the Protestant cause. Evidence suggests that Republican strategists seized on the Catholic/immigrant issue (as manifested in the school question) as a substitute for the “bloody shirt” when public interest in Reconstruction began to wane. Even the Republican New York Times acknowledged that an “appeal to religious passions was worth twenty-five thousand votes to the Republicans.” Grant likely sought to capitalize on this trend as a way of propelling himself into a third term as president. This fact alone did not make the proposal anti-Catholic—Grant’s remarks criticized sectarianism along with “pagan” and “atheistical doctrines”—although he decried “superstition, ambition and ignorance,” which were code words for Catholicism. But Grant and the Republicans knew that the proposal would appeal to the prejudices as well as the noble instincts of voters. The Catholic Standard characterized Grant’s speech as “an attack on the Catholics of the United States” Rjensen (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Rjensen, for filling in some details about the anti-Catholic issue, because I don't have Anbinder or Calhoun at my fingertips. I would indeed be grateful if you could include a sentence or two about that speech in the "Presidency" section of the article. The present text, which quotes Anbinder's summary of what he thought Grant was like, leaves me hanging -- it doesn't help me understand what was going on. But your summary and analysis above hits the nail on the head! Bruce leverett (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

All this shows Grant was a polititian and used tactful toned well selected language in his speech to inspire constituents. I think reading into the speech as anti-Catholic is going a little too far. Code words ? Maybe Grant was refering to Mormonism, which we know he was against, and that his administration prosecuted for poligamy. Grant certainly would not have wanted money to got to Mormon churches. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"Code words"? "Tactful..."? We should not be reading own imaginative misgivings into matters, and concentrate on the facts, per sources. Grant's positions on the various religions and such is a blip on the radar screen where his legacy and reputation is concerned. Grant's reputation overall is mostly the result of his Civil War involvements – yet the Historical reputation only gives this superficial coverage. We need to step back from the bitty-minded editing and look at the big picture. The Historical reputation needs an overhaul and a lot of trimming after the months of meddlesome misguided edits it's been subjected to, mostly by one editor. The term Civil War is not mentioned once in this section. HELLO ??? The opening statement starts of with a bit on "contradictions in Grant's life", rather than anything about his major accomplishments. There are at least eight references to his presidency, largely unsuccessful, and only one about his being a general, and only in regards to writings he did then. i.e.No mention of Vicksburg or Appomattox, two major episodes that were responsible for Grant's fame which was soley responsible for his winning the presidency. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
ASW, I share your concerns about the constant rewrites, as I once complained about the constant changes and often meddlesome editing. My approach to a rewrite in this case would be a general reduction in much of the text, using only general references to historians in basic terms. As it is, we mention about ten different historians by name, along with Bill Clinton's opinion of Chernow's book. Grant's reputation overall is the result of the Civil War, and that should be the main focus of the section, with due coverage to his presidency. Again, historians should be referred to in general terms, per the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. There is a glaring due weight issue in the Reputation section, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Insert:I am not trying to be critical Bill Clinton's opinion of Grant. I am not sure it should be in the reputation section. Clinton is an impeached president by the House, over a salacious extra-marital affair at the White House, something Grant probably would have found repugnant. Plus he was impeached by the House, right or wrong. He is not a historian. Clinton had been fined $25,000 and his law license (Arkansas) was suspended five years. Clinton resigned from practicing law rather than face disbarment from the U.S. Supreme Court. Clinton received a pardoned by Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1977 for not showing up for military duty during the Vietnam-Era draft, considered a felony. In essense Clinton was the first pardoned felon to serve as President. With respect to Grant, I believe it is best to remove Clinton's assessment of Grant from the article. Source: Was Bill Clinton a ‘Felonious Draft Dodger’? David Mikkelson January 6, 2003 Snopes.com Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Historical reputation section rewrite/reduction

A reduction of the text in the Historical reputation section has been made. A better opening statement was added with its focus on the Civil War. Most of the historian's names were removed with a couple of exceptions. There is no one sided opinion on any topic. e.g.Previously all we had was an opinion of a Jewish historian about how "notorious" Grant's General Order was. All issues are addressed in general terms and neutral statements. There is a dedicated article for Grant's reputation if anyone wants to take a given issue further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This may be a better starting point than what we had; thanks. I have found some nit-picks, will try to peck at it when I can. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this statement: "Criticized by the south for using excessive force, his overall military reputation stands intact.", I have seen this discussed somewhere, both the claim that he was a "butcher" and the fact that his battle tactics and strategy are still taught at West Point, and I will try to create citations, but you may get there first.

Regarding the reference to General Order No. 11: on the one hand, even historians who are rehabilitating Grant, such as White and Smith, still criticize this heavily; but on the other hand, I don't think we would normally mention single incidents in this "Historical Reputation" section. For example, we don't mention Cold Harbor, though it was a terribly bloody debacle, which Grant acknowledged blame for. So I would be tempted to cut this sentence out altogether; but perhaps someone can come up with a more creative approach. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It should go back to where it always belonged within the General Order section, and the historic nature of the order should be the focus: Historians have assessed the order as the most anti-Jewish official act in American history. We can cite Miller, Sarna and Smith (and/or any of the others I cite above -- when it passed Featured Article, it had Smith, when it went through mediation, it had Sarna). As it stands now, that would fit right after the Jews-as-a-class sentence, and gives context for all that follows related to the order in the weeks and years after (it's also similar to the way Miller does it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)(added, Chernow calls the order "the most egregious decision of his career" and "It was the most sweeping anti-Semitic action undertaken in American history" (p.233) and describes it as "notorious" several times).-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, let's put it in the GO11 section and leave the historical evaluation for the broader trends. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Are editors allowed to question historical evaluations? Was the order part of Grant's overall effort to defeat the Confederacy, i.e. stop smuggling, or did the order have nothing to do with the Civil War or smuggling, but was only motivated by the racism of Grant against Jewish people ? The reader is left confused. Miller said why Grant made the order we will never know. Are we also forgetting that millions of black people, that included men, women, and children, because of their race, were slaves in the South or Confederacy, had no freedoms, forced to labor from the day they were born, and that Grant was fighting to end slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No. You're not better than reliable sources, nor historians. Your not a reliable source, your not Chernow, Smith, Sarna, nor Miller (who you again misrepresent by cherry-picking just one sentence). Your statements are also irrelevant. We discuss the enslaved in the article already and no one is even proposing using the word "racism" in the article, and no one is proposing not saying that Grant was facing war, and a trade issue in the section. You just don't seem to know what you are doing. Gwillhickers suggests below, you should just leave the article alone, perhaps, you should consider that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Insert : "motivated by the racism of Grant against Jewish people"? You clearly have a POV and prejudice of Grant if you are speaking as if he in fact was a racist to the extant that his only motivation for the Order, in the middle of the war, was "racism". Once again, you should leave your racial issues on the curb before editing in an objective and neutral manner, esp in the Reputation section. The only thing that will "confuse" the readers is the sort of assumptions and one sided view you seem eager to put into the main text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Insert: My comments had to do with this discussion. The reader is suppose to be told Grant's order contained "anti-Semitism", forgetting the fact he is fighting a war against the Confederate army, civilian obstruction, smuggling, guerrilla warfare. Also my comment was a question. Is the reader being told that Grant's only motivation for the order was "anti-Semitism", rather than smuggling, or guerrilla warfare, or citizen obstruction, completely seperate from the Civil War ? That is the problem with mentioning "anti-Semitism" in the article. It makes Grant's only reason for issuing the order was racism. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Entirely false, and again demonstrating severe problems with your editing. No one has ever proposed to say anything was Grant's only reason, that has never happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Always resorting to personal attacks "severe problems with your editing" does not help create a collegiate environment in the talk page. You are not the controlling editor of this article. It is my opinion, the reader will conclude, by inserting "anti-Semitism", that Grant's only motivation for issuing the order was racism. All that other reasons will appear moot. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No personal attack, the problems with your editing is not a personal attack, it's problems with your editing that others have noted too. And again, no one has insisted here that we have to have the word "anti-Semitism" in the article. We still have to relate what sources say though, whether you imagine something in your head that no one says, or not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I have edited 5,818 times on this article. No editor has a perfect track record. I don't claim to be perfect. Grant is labeled a drunkard, a butcher, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic. And yet he prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan. He appointed Jewish people to federal office. He signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. I have edited neutrally with established sources since 2009. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Cmguy777, That's the problem, the article keeps changing because you keep changing it often for the worse, making mistakes. It's just not good enough to claim you make allot of edits so you make allot of mistakes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Guys, enough already. I think you both know that this is not good dialogue. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree Bruce Leverett. Alanscottwalker needs to cool the rhretoric against me. Wikipedia articles are fluid and are suppose to be changed to keep the article updated and neutral. They are not articles run by a controlling editor or set in stone. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Arrgh. "Enough already" means "don't reply to this"! :-) Bruce leverett (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Now that I have looked through the mediation, which was about the GO11 section, I would be reluctant to rehash the arguments that went into it. You all had presumably read Smith and Sarna at that time. Now, since then, White and Chernow have been published, so it would be reasonable to consider tweaking the section if they had added crucial new insights. But otherwise, churn and rehash bad, stability good.

White calls the Order a "colossal misstep". I think this characterization is OK, but is it a crucial new insight? We tell the reader that the Order was rescinded ASAP at the insistence of Lincoln, and that years later, Grant found it necessary to "make amends" -- might the reader not reasonably infer that the Order was a major mistake? So it would be optional to quote White on this.

There is a subtle distinction between Chernow calling it "notorious" and White calling it a "colossal misstep". Chernow is implying that his fellow historians are in agreement. He's saying something about Order's reputation, rather than about the Order itself. This distinction might be useful in the article about the Order, but probably not in the article about Grant.

I still am in favor of removing that sentence from the Reputation section. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Order in itself was prejudicial -- that is already made clear by the fact that Jews only were banned from the District. Otoh, it was the result of numerous reports about Jewish speculators operating in a capacity that revealed itself when the Mack brothers showed up with Grant's father. Since then, the Order has been used as propaganda by special interests groups and has been referred to as "notorious", etc, when in fact, only 100 Jewish people were forced to go back to where they came. No one was forced to leave their community and homesteads - they were speculators, some with family members, in a war district for the purpose of speculating. Perhaps we should mention this situation, and the number, so readers are not confused about how "notorious" the Order actually was in reality. The only thing notorious about the Order is the symbolic value some individuals have placed on it. In practice, it was a practical war time move, as Grant simply didn't have the time to interview individuals, assuming they would even sit still and wait for an interview. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Well if Smith, Chernow, White, etc. are wrong, and you are right, well then, excuuuse me. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think we have agreement that it should go out of the historical rep. section. As I and Coemgenus said it should go back to the GO11 section, where it was. I don't think anyone is requiring that we must use the words "notorious." We have Smith, Chernow, Sarna and Miller, etc., on the "in American history" assessment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to revise what I said above about the mediation process. The outcome of that process was some "mediated text", which was put in the GO11 section, and I was under the impression that that text had been largely respected since then. But it hasn't; the quotation from Sarna has been removed. Unless this was done with consent of all four parties, the mediation is toast.

The implication of the mediation being dead, is that we are essentially back to where we (or I should say you) were before the mediation. If four highly active, intelligent, editors are all working on the same section of text, without being inhibited by any kind of formal process of consensus, they are guaranteed to churn, not only because they disagree with each other, but because they change their own positions over time. Instead of an encyclopedia we then have something more like a diary. This is essentially a complete failure. Sorry to break the news. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm with yah, the churn is a problem, but we are where we are, going back somewhat is at least a modest stab toward anti-churn. I have said before that with new publications, unless there is something totally new or shattering, it should at most lead to minor-tendential shaping, if anything. (As an aside, my position has, I think been pretty consistent, it has always been and is focused on the 'in American history' assessment of historians with respect to the order.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing context

We're still missing a couple of points of missing context. As it is, coverage of the topic tends to lead the reader into thinking that Grant up and excluded Jews for no reason. Several important factors are missing which would more than help to illuminate Grant's thinking and motives. Grant was not the first to issue an order expelling Jewish speculators. According to Albert D. Richardson, 1868, pp. 276-279 -- "Colonel [John V.] Dubois, commanding at Holly Springs, twenty-five miles north, found these people so troublesome that he issued an order expelling "vagrants and Jews" from his district. When Grant received it he said : — "This is manifestly unjust. We can not exclude any whole class, or any religious denomination as such." i.e.Grant was initially opposed to such a sweeping measure, and needs to be covered in our article. There were also numerous reports coming in about Jewish speculators trading in gold. According to Edward Howland, 1868, p.123, "Grant's first desire was to suppress all trade, and he was especially severe upon the Jews, particularly the German Jews, who followed our camp, and having no nationality, felt themselves in no way bound by oaths or obligations of any kind, but pursued their own private interests regardless of every other consideration. The speculators were also giving the Confederates constant information as to Union troop strengths, positions, etc. By the time the Mack brothers showed up with Grant's father, which we mention in something of a stand alone statement, Grant had had more than enough. According to W. Church, 1897, pp. 184-185, "General Grant was so greatly annoyed by this, that when at Holly Springs, in December, 1862, he got himself into trouble by an indiscreetly-worded order expelling from his department within twenty-four hours " the Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also department orders." This was revoked three weeks later by orders from Washington, and it has made the basis of unjust charges of religious prejudice. Grant declared that he had not found one honest man following the Army as a trader, and, be he Jew or Christian, he hated a thief." – Taking Vicksburg would divide the confederacy and was the key to victory. There should be little wonder why Grant acted as he did at that time.

Here are some excerpts that shed additional light on Grant, what he was dealing with and his motives. There are more sources, but this should suffice for now.

Sources covering General Order No. 11 and Grant's motives

Ulysses S. Grant -- General Order No. 11

James Sanks Brisbin, 1868, pp. 123-124 :
Some German Jews had, in their anxiety to trade, so often violated General Grant's orders, that at length his patience, completely exhausted, he excluded them from his department. This he did from no prejudice against their class, but because some of the Jews, then trading within his lines, were known to be aiding the enemy. He could not get hold of the guilty parties, and, although he feared some innocent persons might suffer with the guilty, such was the situation of affairs in his command that any aid or comfort, or, still worse, information given to the enemy would ruin him, and lie was, therefore, compelled to issue the order against the Jews as a measure of safety to his military operations.

W. Church, 1897, pp. 184-185 :
As soon as an advanced position was obtained by the Army, the Government, greatly to the annoyance of the military officers, sought immediately to extend trade to the limits of the military line. General Grant was so greatly annoyed by this, that when at Holly Springs, in December, 1862, he got himself into trouble by an indiscreetly-worded order expelling from his department within twenty-four hours " the Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also department orders." This was revoked three weeks later by orders from Washington, and it has made the basis of unjust charges of religious prejudice. Grant declared that he had not found one honest man following the Army as a trader, and, be he Jew or Christian, he hated a thief.

Louis A. Coolidge, 1924, pp. 115-116 :
Dishonest and disloyal traders from the North infested his department, drawn by the lure of cotton speculation, and at last in desperation he ordered the expulsion of "Jews as a class" a drastic step which raised a storm of protest in Congress and the press till Lincoln countermanded it Lincoln, who knew Grant's feeling toward the traders in necessities of war, his old friend Leonard Swett, of Springfield, having once been ordered out of Cairo on pain of being shot because he tried to force on Grant a questionable deal in hay. When Swett sought Lincoln at the White House with his protest, Lincoln said, "Well, Swett, if I were in your place, I should keep out of Ulysses Simpson's bailiwick, for to the best of my knowledge and belief Grant will keep his promise if he catches you in Cairo." Amid distractions such as these Grant worked out his daring plans for seizing Vicksburg.

Edward Howland, 1868, p.123 :
The subject of trade in the insurrectionary states, after they had been brought within the lines of the Union army, had become a matter of great importance. The Treasury Department had laid down rules for its management, but they were in many cases deficient ; while it also required very stringent military supervision, in order to prevent such traffic being made a means of affording aid and comfort to the enemy. Grant's first desire was to suppress all trade, and he was especially severe upon the Jews, particularly the German Jews, who followed our camp, and having no nationality, felt themselves in no way bound by oaths or obligations of any kind, but pursued their own private interests regardless of every other consideration. For some time he [Grant] rigidly excluded them entirely from his department;

Albert D. Richardson, 1868, pp. 276-279
At both places, traders were detected trying to get through with gold, and also to smuggle quinine, groceries, clothing, and boots and shoes. These offenders and most of the cotton-buyers were Jews. Head-quarters were at Oxford. Colonel [John V.] Dubois, commanding at Holly Springs, twenty-five miles north, found these people so troublesome that he issued an order expelling "vagrants and Jews" from his district. When Grant received it he said : — "This is manifestly unjust. We can not exclude any whole class, or any religious denomination as such." Thereupon he countermanded the order. But a few days later* one of his relatives arrived, having first telegraphed him from Holly Springs, and secured passes to the front for himself and " a friend." The friend proved to be a cotton buyer of Israel. Grant was excessively angered, especially as that day's mail brought a batch of letters, some anonymous and others signed by the writers, which Halleck had referred to him, and which represented that Jew speculators had full sway in the department. Grant instantly issued this order : [text of General Order No. 11] The purpose was not to expel Jews residing within our lines. Those, engaged in legitimate business were generally loyal and patriotic ; many had helped the Union cause with their money, and some with their muskets. But the General determined to cut off the speculators and smugglers by a rule so stringent that it could not possibly be evaded, and to make exceptions of all individuals who could bring satisfactory proof that they were in any honest pursuit, and could be relied upon not to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The order was sent to Columbus and Corinth, but to no other posts. So many representations of its injustice poured in that Grant was about to withdraw it, when the President countermanded it.

Stoddard, 1886, p. 173 :
...All the cotton that could be had was wanted, and permits for its purchase were in the hands of many men through whom the Confederate leaders obtained continual information of the position and movements of the Union forces.

Better coverage on the circumstances Grant was facing and some events leading up to the issuance of the Order is needed here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would be very embarrassed, if we ended up using sources from the 1860's, 1890's, 1920's, etc., that had been deliberately ignored by Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow, etc. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I would be twice as embarrassed if we ignored these factors, regardless if what you claim is entirely true. Jewish historian Sarna, 2012, says only 100 Jews were expelled. We've ignored that too. Older sources are used throughout Wikipedia, and in numerous featured and good articles, including this article. Don't want to discuss dates of publications, but the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason this isn't just WP:OR? In Wikipedia, "facts" are what we get from Reliable Sources. So you think these musty old remnants are trustworthy, but professional historians rejected them. Is there some reason I should favor you over the professional historians? You're asking a lot. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

editbreak4

"Musty old remnants"? Grant's memoirs are "musty ole remnants". Look at the bibliography of Chernow, White, McFeely, etc, and see how often they refer to "Musty old remnants". We're discussing Grant's motives. If you have any information that undermines anything that has been presented here please bring it to the table. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You're underlining my point. The serious researchers have been rummaging around in the same closets you have, and they've done their best to figure out which materials are OK and which are bogus, and they've used the ones that they decided were OK. Good enough for me. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your statement is so general it's, frankly, ridiculous. Sorry, don't mean to be nasty, but the "serious researcher" refers to primary and older sources constantly. It is a gross assumption that they reject the sources that they list in the bibliographies. Instead of trying to indict older sources with blanket assumptions, you should try to refute any given statement with sources that will do this. So far I've seen nothing but the assumption that older sources are, somehow, "musty" and generally useless. The older sources don't offer anything that is not consistent with the newer sources. Having said that, no source, old or new, is above scrutiny and should be evaluated on a per source basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources, continued

White, 2016, pp. 239, 251 covers how many reports, coming from officers, about how Jewish speculators in particular, were undermining the war effort. "Criticism of Jewish traders permeated the army". Again, Grant's Order was not without cause. Readers should not have that perspective about Grant's motives withheld. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Chernow, 2017, p. 232-233, covers Grant's concerns about how speculators were supplying the Confederates with military intelligence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Miller, 2019, p.259 — "Grant had waged a war of words with Northern speculators who followed his army in order to purchase cotton from reputably loyal planters. Grant suspected profits were being channeled to the confederacy government to buy arms and ammunition to be used against his own men. ... His frustrations boiled over two days later when he received in the mail a pile of complaints about Jewish traders in his department."

I read the same passage in White, and I understand it to mean that anti-Jewish prejudice was strong in the army (regardless of how strong it might have been in the general population). If you are trying to offer an apology for Grant's error, I would not recommend that you choose this one. But, as has been discussed here since before I was a Wikipedia editor, we are not here to offer apologies for Grant's behavior. Just the facts.

Yes, just the facts. All of them. No "apology" is necessary. All the important facts and considerations are necessary to understand why Grant issued the order at the time he did. If you prefer to believe it was nothing but the product of blind prejudice then I don't know what else to tell you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

He made a mistake. He was smart enough to realize, not long afterwards, that it was a mistake. A guy should be able to make a serious mistake, during his 4 years in the war, without all of us editors getting bent out of shape. He also made mistakes at Shiloh and Cold Harbor, but are we losing sleep over them? Let's try to move past this. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

White doesn't mention prejudice, and we can't assume all the reports and military criticism was without any basis, having no motive other than blind prejudice. You seem concerned about painting all Jews (even though we don't) with a broad brush, but seem to have no concern about painting the entire US military, including Grant, with a broad brush. Yes, it is common knowledge that Grant later felt that the wording of the Order was a mistake. We should be clear on that point also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, when we say that he rescinded the order, and that later he "made amends", some readers might take the cynical position that he was just doing what he had to. So we could try to clarify that, as some of our sources have done. I don't have much appetite for that, however. At the risk of repeating myself, it's comparable to his mistakes at major battles such as Shiloh and Cold Harbor. He learned from those lessons, but we don't dwell on what he learned, presumably because most readers would not be interested. This is the sort of thing I would prefer to sacrifice to keep our article down below book length. But, tastes differ. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Btw. Grant won the battle at Shiloh, regardless of any mistakes. Don't recall any battle where mistakes were completely absent. I digress. In any case, all I hope to do is clarify Grant's motives a bit more. Don't want to fill up the section with another paragraph, nor do I want to makes Jews as a people some sort of scapegoat. Jews, like the Italians and Irish, had their pockets of corrupt business people. No one is trying to indict an entire group of people based on their religion or ethnicity alone. I'm assuming you know this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuing discussion at the bottom of the Talk page so any newcomers won't overlook new developments. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/1451641370/ref=acr_dp_hist_3?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=three_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

[1]