Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Cabinet infobox removal

I am for removing the Cabinet infobox to free up space in the article. This could allow more information on Grant's cabinet. The infobox and photos are in the Grant presidential article. My only condition is for mentioning all of Grant's cabinet in the article rather then the infobox. Any objections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing it would be fine with me. Which cabinet members do we not mention already? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Grant cabinet
Office	Name	Term
President	Ulysses S. Grant	1869–1877
Vice President	Schuyler Colfax	1869–1873
	Henry Wilson	1873–1875
None	1875–1877
Secretary of State	Elihu B. Washburne	1869
Hamilton Fish	1869–1877
Secretary of the Treasury	George S. Boutwell	1869–1873
	William A. Richardson	1873–1874
Benjamin H. Bristow	1874–1876
Lot M. Morrill	1876–1877
Secretary of War	John A. Rawlins	1869
	William W. Belknap	1869–1876
Alphonso Taft	1876
J. Donald Cameron	1876–1877
Attorney General	Ebenezer R. Hoar	1869–1870
	Amos T. Akerman	1870–1871
	George H. Williams	1871–1875
Edwards Pierrepont	1875–1876
Alphonso Taft	1876–1877
Postmaster General	John A. J. Creswell	1869–1874
	James W. Marshall	1874
Marshall Jewell	1874–1876
James N. Tyner	1876–1877
Secretary of the Navy	Adolph E. Borie	1869
George M. Robeson	1869–1877
Secretary of the Interior	Jacob D. Cox	1869–1870
	Columbus Delano	1870–1875
Zachariah Chandler	1875–1877

I believe the following Grant Cabinet members are not mentioned:

• James N. Tyner
• James W. Marshall
• Alphonso Taft
• Lot M. Morrill
• J. Donald Cameron

Taft could be mentioned in the Election of 1876 as Attorney General and a replacement for Belknap as Secretary of War. Robeson served as both Secretary of Navy and Secretary of War for about a week after Belknap resigned: something like a pre Secretary of Defense. Morrill could be mentioned as replacing Bristow. Cameron could be mentioned as a replacement for Taft. Marshal could be mentioned as a replacement for Creswell. I added infobox to the talk page so editors could find their repected articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

If we can mention the Cabinet appointments with dates of appointments and resignations in the narrative, which should have been done long ago, per Grant's involvement with his Cabinet, then I'd go along. Otherwise, I have to object to this tendency to delete information for no other reason that to "save space", esp when info-boxes do not count towards readable prose and page length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of those guys did nothing especially noteworthy, or else they would have come up in the narrative already. They all served for less than a year. I would hesitate to jam them in to a narrative without reason--seems like undue weight. Better to keep the list than screw up the writing. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There's an alternative I think would satisfy everyone. If some of the Cabinet members had terms that were short lived and not noted for much of anything then I've no strong feelings about not mentioning each and every one in the text if we keep the Cabinet box. However, since Cm' is concerned about space, we could always put the Cabinet info into a collapsible box, or make a template out of it and simply link to that template. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I care about the size of the article (which I just got back down to 99kb of readable prose after the last few additions pushed it over the 100 kb line) but not so much about visual space. The way the box was paired with the cabinet picture and the portrait of Grant before was fine. If there were consensus to delete the box, I'd go along with that, but if the choice is more prose about obscure cabinet members who did nothing of note versus an infobox: I'll keep the infobox. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the Cabinet box, for reasons mentioned -- it mentions all Cabinet members with dates of appointments & resignations and offers the readers a timeline in terms of Grant's Presidency as related to his Cabinet members. It also provides a link to each one of them. As a compromise we can place a link to a template in a noticeable place. This would not impact readable prose count and would conserve visual space. Cabinet of President Ulysses S. Grant -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning the rest of the Cabinet would improve the narration, regardless of notability, a term that is subjective to POV. I am getting mixed messages. It really would not take much to add these persons into the narrative. Removing the infobox would free up space to add more on Grant and his family or his personal relationships. I am sensing resistance to free up space in the article. I don't want a continued arguement loop that serves no purpose. Why not add a link to the Infobox in Grant's Presidency article, and then added minimal information on the Cabinet members not mentioned in the article. Why duplicate Grant's Presidency article and Grant's bio article ? It appears that compromise on this article is next to impossible. I was hoping for more. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Cm', a compromise was just offered. No one is going to get everything they want. None of this was an issue until I simply moved some existing information from one place to another. Since then you've created and added other issues to the mix. The info box already mentions each cabinet member, with a link to each, and dates. If you want to do more than mention a given cabinet member I suggest to present a proposal for each, one step at a time, with an explanation as to why it should be covered beyond a mention. Meanwhile, you can always cover less notable Cabinet members in the dedicated Presidency article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hiding the infobox will not reduce the size of the article. Duplicate information is in the Presidency article. It looks like there is not concensus on removing the infobox. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

For the third time, removing the Cabinet box will not effect readable prose word count. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The box is 2030 bytes when added to the talk page. That would reduce the size of the article if taken out. Why have duplicate information ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't reduce the size of the readable prose word count. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Removal of the infobox as has been said does not make room for more prose. Whether we mention things in the prose should be decided on sources, due weight, summary, etc. not on whether we have the infobox. As I said, I would support the infobox gone but in essence my position is more like coemgenus. (If we do remove the box, I could see replacing the Grant sitting at the table picture, with the portrait, if we still want the portrait but that is a side issue). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

How can that be when adding the infobox to this talk page added 2030 bytes to the talk page ? That would be 2030 bytes more in prose, if I am understanding this correctly. Cabinent members are mentioned in the infobox but not referenced in the article. The Presidential portrait could remain where it is or removed from the article since it is in the Presidency article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the page Gwillhickers linked above, you have your answer: "Readable prose is the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections [...] diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up."

Infoboxes contribute to the article size, in this article 2030 bytes. How can this be ignored ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you won't read the page in question, I'll repeat the relevant passage again with bolding: "Readable prose is the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections [...] diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up." --Coemgenus (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I read what you posted Coemgenus. I am not referring to readable material or prose, but to the overall size of the article, i.e. the 2030 bytes. You wanted to take the infobox out, now you are advocating to keep the infobox in the article. I added material on Grant's cabinet and that was excluded from the article. It was from White (2016). Grant even received death threats and that was not considered irrelevant. Who appointed you to be 4 star general editor of this article ? And please stop treating me like a little child. I am 52 years old and college educated and have a B.A. in History. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, but everyone else was talking about readable prose. That's what the page length guideline is about. Why bring up a completely different measurement? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I only brought up the removal of the infobox, not readable prose. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That seems a bit unfair - your initial proposal conditioned removal of the box on getting more prose, and then you further argued that getting the box removed means more prose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Removing the box would have removed 2030 bytes. Those bytes would have been converted to readable prose. There is no limit on readable prose only guidelines. I was looking for cooperation, but editors seem bent on edit hawking, even barring more information on Grant cabinet. It is like hawks on a fence post looking for prey. There are cabinet names in the infobox but nothing is said about them. When I tried to add more information on cabinet members it was deleted. I call it edit hawking where editors live in fear of minor edits being overturned, having to plead with editors for making an edit. I have allowed many edits to be made by editors, with the exception of the Infobox being moved to the front for the Presidency section by Gwillhickers. I felt that was a major change in article structure done without article discussion. I expect more compromise then hawking on the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Come now, again that seems quite unfair. Yes, we have had repeated discussions of summary style for this biography -- it is not an issue that is going away. You are well aware of them, but examine how your editing generally seems to go -- I do not know for sure, this first part, but it seems like you read something in a book and then decide to add it - if that is the way it goes, it is quite unfortunate, because what any of us should be doing is researching an issue in multiple sources (not one) before we even think about adding to such an advanced article as this (we really are here, to summarize the broad survey of scholarship, really). Second, and I can be rather more informed about this second part: it seems like one week you add, then the next week you add something else, and then the next week you add, and then the next week you add, etc. Do you not see all those add up? (And then it always seems to be termed a 'minor edit!', well if it is minor, it probably does not have to be made at all). That's a problem, but it also is frankly, really disconcerting, because this article is so advanced -- we should already have done our research, know what we want to say, and have said it (with a tweak here and there) not discover something "critical" that needs to be added, now!, like every week. I hope you read this in the spirit it is meant -- and I hope it makes some sense to you, so as to reduce the times you seem to get really bothered by the rest of us regarding your additions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

edit break2

Cmguy777, I've no objection of adding a major detail that was overlooked, which can happen, given all the history over a great period of time involving Grant, but do so with the idea that other editors have concerns that can not be 'ignored'. Simple issues become compounded if a given editor frequently asserts one principle one day, abandons it the next, ignores reasonable compromises completely, and creates other issues before present ones are resolved. It's also tries the patience of editors when they have to repeat themselves or have to make lengthy explanations on things that should have been well understood by an experienced editor. We have an easy to navigate Cabinet box, with links and dates for all members. As others have mentioned, we can't cover each of them beyond a mention unless they are noted for something in Grant's biography. e.g.Fish is covered for obvious reasons, as is Rawlings and some of the others. The infobox however mentions everyone, without creating undue weight and readable prose issues, and again, provides dates and links to their respective pages. All of us have gone along with many of your proposals, and have compromised with you time and again. I made a template with a compromise for you in mind, but now I'm hearing we're just hawking you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The whole way these edits came about is wrong. You wanted to add something and found a couple of sentences in one of the sources to justify it. The way good articles are written is the opposite: we read the sources, see what themes and facts are consistently emphasized, and summarize them. The fact that we never included these minor cabinet members before is significant--none of them play an important role in Grant's life. The cabinet list is a good compromise, and in keeping with other presidential articles (which also do not mention every single cabinet member). --Coemgenus (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I was only going by White (2016) on adding more on Grant's cabinet. White said his replacements are often forgotten page 560. So I make an edit citing White (2016) the most current research on Grant, noting Taft, Cameron, and Chandler. I gave the page numbers on White (2016) pages 578-579. Just normal standard editing, and then I get hawked and the edit is immediately removed. White (2016) whole chapter on the Election of 1876 is referred to as a Centennial Crisis, i.e. new research. So I am using standard methods of editing, but if some editor does not like the edit using White (2016), who thought it important enough to include Taft, Cameron, and Chandler, this gets removed quickly. Not allowing current research into the article is censorship. I believe personal POV is getting in the way of compromise. "none of them play an important role in Grant's life" is POV. White (2016) does not think so. I have worked well with editor BillMcKern on Grant cabinet articles and some have gotten to good article status. Editors should not live in fear of their edits being hawked especially when the edits are coming from the White (2016) biography of Grant. That is unfair. I have not objected to Coemgenus reducing the article size. The infobox says nothing on Grant's cabinet other then their names. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Controlling the article narration is wrong, censoring White (2016) is wrong, ganging up on an editor is wrong, establishing editor control is wrong, and editor bullyism is wrong. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Grant scandals and neutrality

Are Grant's presidential scandals being treated neutrally in the article ? I think for the most part the scandals are treated neutrally. I think it is best to just mention the scandals only once in the article rather then in several sections. I had moved the Crédit Mobilier scandal information from the Gilded Age corruption and reform section to the Election of 1872 section. Are there any scandals that should be added ? The edits I have recently made were meant to establish neutrality and chronology of the scandals. Editor opinion is appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that you want the article to be neutral, but I think it's already decent in that respect. That late administration mini-scandal you added? I'd just as soon delete it. Not because I want to sugar-coat the Grant administration's record, but because I think we already have enough scandals in the article to give people the flavor of the problem (also, we're back up to 101k of readable prose and something needs to be trimmed). Being balanced and comprehensive doesn't mean we have to mention every crook in the administration, does it? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Schenck was not charged of any crimes by the congressional invesitigation. He was going to be sued in England and he was critisized for inducing the people of England to invest in the Emma Silver Mine. Fish advised Schenck to drop his stocks in the Emma Silver mine on November 27, 1871 and Schenck did on December 6, 1871. To take Schenck's place Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was appointed Minister to England and Secretary of War Alphonso Taft was appointed Attorney General. The scandal directly affected Grant's cabinet. That is the other reason why I put it in the article. It answers why there was Grant cabinet shift. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the mention of the Emma Silver Mine scandal; mentioned Schenck's resignation causing Grant to change his cabinet; put in a note on cabinet changes. I know the article needs to save space, but I thought Schenck's resignation and Grant's cabinet changes were significant enough to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So this is just another run at mentioning every single cabinet member, no matter how minor? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

No. It is not. I gave Smith (2001) and McFeely (1974) as references. This is not OR or POV. It was not what the cabinet members did either. It is was Grant did in response to Schenck's resignation that caused the Grant cabinet shift. Why does foriegn policy have to end in 1875 when Grant was President until 1877 ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

How else will the reader know why Grant made cabinet changes in 1876 ?

Edit 01

Moved edit to talk page: "In May 1876, Grant's envoy to Great Britain Robert C. Schenck resigned office causing a shift in Grant's cabinet." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this information could be put in Grant's presidential article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Chronology

I made changes to the section to reflect chronology of events. There was no intention of the section to be "unwieldy". I don't believe it was. Other editors are welcome to improve or make the section better. The Democratic Congress met in December 1875. Delano and Williams resigned or were fired before that. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that those edits in particular were unwieldy, only that the section has been growing steadily for the past several years and had gotten too large and unfocused. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe editors can decide what scandals should be in the bio article and what scandals should be in the presidential article. Which scandals have bio priority ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Scandal priority

In an effort to reduce article size what Grant scandals belong in the bio article and what scandals should be moved to the presidential article, if not already in the presidential article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent changes have been useful in tightening the prose. I'm not sure which scandal, if any, should be removed completely, but I'll give it another look today. -Coemgenus (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. I believed the Sanborn Incident needed more clarification. I am concerned that the Kohn source is inaccurate or POV. Grant is mentioned that he pardoned those convicted after a few months in prison. The ring leader McDonald was not and in his book on the Whiskey Ring McDonald says Grant let him stay in prison too long. The obvious implication from Kohn is that Grant pardoned these people, when in fact Grant only repreaved thier sentences. I don't think Grant gave them full presidential pardons. I suggest taking this information out unless there is more clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Trimming

Just a friendly reminder to be more careful of the context/content removed in the effort to satisfy feelings about page length. I would first make reductions in areas already well covered in other articles, esp regarding the Civil War. Not only is there a dedicated article for the American Civil War and Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War, there are also dedicated articles for Battle of Shiloh, Vicksburg campaign, Overland Campaign, etc. Our article has bloated sections for almost every battle Grant was in command of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am for trimming down the Civil War section as long as context is retained. The Vicksburg campaign is complicated and maybe best to leave as is. That was Grant's hallmark campaign prior to the Overland Campaign. Grant was very aggressive, cutting off is his supply line, and eventually capturing Vicksburg. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree. The Civil War section is actually rather short in relation to the rest of the article, and of course it was his claim to fame and still is, mostly. The presidency section (we do have a whole article on his presidency) is what is long in comparison. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Some of the sections are very large in relation to Grant's overall biography. There's multiple dedicated articles for the material covered. Let's back up, there is no pressing need to reduce page length in the first place, and once again, there are exceptions allowed so long as discretion is employed. Between the lot of us, it would seem we have that part covered. I'm not calling for a major reduction of the Civil War section, it's Grant's trade mark, but only note that it's best to trim things that are covered in dedicated articles rather than trim things that are not covered elsewhere, and only recommend to make efforts to retain comprehensiveness and context. Comprehensiveness of a featured article, a well written article, should take precedence over a guideline for length, in a reasonable fashion. If comprehensiveness is depleted too much, we will in essence end up with a Good Article with a FA star on it. None of the thousands of readers have ever complained about an article that's longer than average, nor have any other editors not among us. Not going to argue any further. Please be careful. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not true--look at the FAC, people did mention the excessive length, and it was quite a bit shorter then. I trimmed the Civil War section slightly, but I didn't think there's much more to subtract there. I don't know what you mean by "be careful". --Coemgenus (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason why this article is so long is because of Grant's military career, Reconstruction, his eight year Presidency, and his World Tour. We don't want to loose context in the Civil War section. His presidency section is long because it both covers Later Reconstruction, Indian Policy, Three elections, and the Scandals. All of these areas can be trimmed or reduced in some manner. I asked what scandals should be included in this article and have yet to receive any answers in an effort to reduce the Grant bio article size. It will take cooperation among editors to reduce article size. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think the article is fine as it is, especially given that it has already reached FA status. Orser67 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It had 84 kb of readable prose when it reached FA; it has 99 kb now. I think getting back to 84 would be ideal, but I spend most of my time here keeping it under 100. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

How is readable prose calculated ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a script you can run. Details are here. -- Coemgenus (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks Coemgenus. It worked. The article is currenlty at 100 kb. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

General Orders # 11

Not trying to stir a hornet's nest again, but I think the paragraph in General Orders # 11 in the Vicksburg campaign can use some tweaking. I recommend putting Sarna's quote in a note. I think it takes away the narration. Also I would add more White (2016) perspective including adding that Grant's father's visit may have gotten him angry, i.e. his own father trying to profit from the war. McFeely (1981) mentioned this too. White (2016) says there was anti-Semitism in the whole country. Lincoln's delayed reaction may have been due to he just did not know Grant issued the order. I did not want to make any edit changes until I started a discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that paragraph is not as good as it could be, but it's the best thing we could agree on after those months of arguing. I'm disinclined to pull at any of the threads, lest the whole thing unravel. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I would hope discussion would keep the paragraph from unravelling. Coemgenus did say "I think that the paragraph is not as good as it could be..." I think the paragraph needs tightening up. I think all editors agree that the order was anti-Jewish. If the paragraph is not as good as it could be, then why not make it better ? Maybe a paragraph can be written in the talk page and editors can make changes to the paragraph. I think it is better to try something then to do nothing. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested paragraph

Along with his military responsibilities in the months following Grant's return to command, he was concerned over an expanding illegal cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort, funded the Confederacy, and prolonged the war, while Union soldiers died in the fields. Many Union Army generals were critical of Jewish involvement in the cotton trade. Grant was furious when his father Jesse came into Holly Springs requesting a cotton trading permit for a Jewish clothing manufacturer.. On December 17, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling "Jews, as a class," from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Jewish leaders complained to Lincoln while the Northern press criticized Grant. Lincoln, who had just issued his Emancipation Proclamation, demanded the order be revoked and Grant rescinded it within three weeks.

Comments or changes

In the above paragraph, I put the commentary in the notes, rather then the paragraph narration. I was trying to just focus on the actual event and background information. Comments are welcome. Feel free to make suggestions or changes. Hoping for editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Seems we're trying to fix something that isn't broke. I don't like the idea of sticking Grant's quote/explanation in a footnote. How about we put Sarna's opinion in a footnote instead? After all this is Grant's biography, not Sarna's. If anything we can add a point of context/neutrality. Following Sarna's lone opinion about "notorious" we should add, ...however, less than 100 Jews were actually effected by the order.<Sarna> We can also mention that Smith says that it was military interest, not anti-semitism, that motivated Grant. Otherwise, let's just leave the paragraph alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is what I thought would happen. The reason for the compromise after mediation was that we finally came up with something we could all live with, even though none of us thought it was perfect. I do not want to go through that again since we're almost certain to have the same result, just after more wasted time. Let's leave it as it is and spend our efforts on articles that could more easily be improved with less rancor. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is broke, that is why I started this discussion. I thought the subject was worth discussion. The current paragraph has too much commentary from Sarna and Grant. Then it jumps to his presidency concerning appointing Jewish persons to office. So the paragraph goes from the Civil War to the Election of 1868, to Grant's Presidency, and jumps into the 21 century Sarna commentary. I think it is all confusing to the reader. Putting the commentary into notes is the best solution, not just Sarna's. Grant's kid-gloves quote belongs in the Election of 1868 or in a footnote. There is no use in continuing if it leads to more confusion or rancor. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Coemgenus. The paragraph is already a fine summary with a good balance of major details in the main text, and links to the main article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant presidency article

I have been working on the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Editors are welcome to edit there and make that article better. The article is large now. Suggestions are welcome either here or in the presidencial article talk page. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education

Is is necessary to refer to Grant's horse injuries in the Early life and education section. I presume these injuries occured before Shiloh and Chattanooga. I think the narration is jumping ahead of itself. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"In his youth, Grant developed an unusual ability to work with and control horses. Later in life, he rode the strongest and most challenging horse available, however, he was twice injured while riding during military actions."

I recommend putting the last sentence in a note. The other issue was Grant drinking when he "fell off" while riding ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd cut it altogether. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That or return to only what is before the "however", and cut the rest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I would cut that last part of the sentence. Gwillhickers has not commented yet. I am not against cutting the whole sentence. I am for editor concensus or compromise. Grant being injured on horses always brings up a drinking issue during the Civil War. I don't think it is necessary to mention horse injuries in the Early life and education section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I found mention of this one incident a little out of place in the 'Early life and education' section which is why I suggested moving the entire sentence to a different section. Currently the biography mentions any given involvement with horses in an appropriate section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. I don't mind if horse riding issues are mentioned in the Civil War section such as Shiloh or Chattanooga. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2017

At the end of "Memoirs, pension and death", the sentence "His memoirs end with the Civil War.[433]" should be deleted. First, it is out of place in the structure of the section. Second, it is Inaccurate, the memoirs end with the conclusion of the civil war. 76.127.54.50 (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

McFeely pro Southern ?

I am not trying to belabor this issue, but in further reading of McFeely page 511 he says that Shelby Foote's account of the Civil War is the best "present day" account of the Civil War, completely bi passing Bruce Catton's monumental centennial works. Foote, from Mississippi, is notoriously pro Southern and pro Jefferson Davis. Foote also sidesteps the slavery issue as a cause of the War. Is it safe to assume that McFeely accepts Foote's pro Southern account of the war ? Should something be said in the sources concerning McFeely's view on the Civil War ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. We've been over it multiple times and it's just a deep misunderstanding of McFeely on your part that no Grant scholar (and no other Wikipedia editor) shares. I'll just restate what I said last time:

Compare Cmguy's POV to that of a Grant scholar, John Y. Simon. In the review of McFeely's book that we cite in this article, Simon writes that "McFeely makes a greater contribution to the study of the Grant presidency, an area where his research has more depth and his analysis has more balance. Grant's failure as a president, he argues, lies in the failure of the Indian peace policy and the collapse of Reconstruction efforts to achieve civil rights for blacks. [...] McFeely withholds full satisfaction to both Grant admirers and detractors, though the book should please the latter more." So what does Simon tell us? First, that McFeely's account was balanced, although not as pro-Grant as Simon believes it should have been. Second, that far from being "pro-Southern," as you say, McFeely's criticism of Grant was that Reconstruction did not change the South enough. He criticizes Grant from the left, not the right! That's why I call it the first truly revisionist biography of Grant, because instead of condemning Reconstruction and Grant's role in it, as earlier historians did, McFeely praises Reconstruction and criticizes Grant only insofar as he was unable to lead his party into continuing that process. (Rjensen made this point, too, the last time you accused McFeely of being a neo-Confederate.

Do you get that? McFeely's criticism of Grant is that Grant was not hard enough on the South. I don't mean to be rude, but having to explain this time and again is exasperating. McFeely was not pro-rebel, and you cite no source that suggests he is, while many sources (including our own Rjensen who knew the man) say the opposite. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not objecting to McFeely's biography on Grant. Maybe that is the misunderstanding. McFeely has a right to his own opinions on Grant, the Civil War, his Presidency, and Reconstruction. Foote's work on the Civil War is pro Southern and McFeely said that Foote's work is the best account of the war. That made me ask if McFeely was pro-Southern. Respectfully, I just wanted to address any McFeely-Foote association. If there is nothing to it, then there is no need for further discussion. I specifically cited McFeely as his own source on page 511 where he references Foote as being the best work on the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

'Best work on the civil war', in a note tells us basically nothing about McFeely - maybe he liked the way Foote wrote about war - and that is even a distinct topic from causes - more-to-the-point, it's not an endorsement of every thought Foote had. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

McFeely said, "Neither does Grant's story have the narrative thrust and rich texture of the best present-day account of the war, Shelby Foote's." He is referring to Foote's three-volume work The Civil War: A Narrative New York (1958-1974). I thought this sentence was significant enough for a discussion. I don't believe McFeely was from the left concerning Grant and Reconstruction. I think he was from the left concerning idealizing Grant as a war hero. I will agree with AlanScottWalker, there is no way to validate whether McFeely endorses Foote's views or all of his views. I have read Foote deemphasizes the slavery issue and idealizes Jefferson Davis as a great man. McFeely does not emphasize slavery as the cause of the Civil War in his book. With that mentioned, there is too much speculation. I appreciate any editors who have contributed to this discussion. Nothing further needs to be done or discussed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Knowing one is reading the words of Grant, there is a natural "thrust" that occurs to the perceptive reader, unmatched by any historian. Samuel Clemens thought Grant's work was exceptional. He noted a prose that didn't serve to exalt the writer, as was typical of the accounts from the various generals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Joan Waugh and environmentalist statement

This may have been argued before but I am not sure if there was any conclusion to the matter. I really don't see any reason why this 21st century environmentalist statement should be in the article. The first enviornmental law passed in the United States was Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 signed into law by Republican President William McKinley. Land speculation, cattle, and timber as far as I know are not illegal. Industrial pollution is allowed today within the United States, although it is regulated. Grant was a man of his times environmentally. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Waugh statement

"However, she argues:

... he approved of projects that took great swaths of land and opened them to timber, cattle, land speculators, and millions of settlers ... the idea of preserving the region's environment and concerns about industrial pollution were of much less importance to Grant ..."

Wasting Our Waterways: Toxic Industrial Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act Environment America Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it was argued before, two years ago. You wanted to put something in about Grant's involvement in setting aside Yellowstone Park, and we used Waugh to cite that. We also used that source to cite Grant's view on the environment in a larger context. Deleting the section you object to would leave just one side of the issue, which would violate out NPOV policies. So, what's there now was a part of a larger compromise among editors. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how inserting Waugh environmental POV into the article is adding neutrality or balance and her statement has nothing to do with Yellowstone, a park that was set aside and kept from the very things Grant was said to be for: pollution; timber harvesting; and cattle. The natural resources of Yellowstone were to be preserved. If Waugh is taken as is then Wikipedia is supporting Waugh's enviromental view that industry is bad for America because it creates pollution. That may be, but this article is on Grant, not on the promotion of modern environmentalism. From the 2009 article pollution is still a problem today in the United States. Was that Grant's fault too ? Should Wikipedia article be critical of Grant by a 21 Century environmentalist standard ? In my view that is POV and is violating NVOP policies. The article is not saying that by the creation of Yellowstone Grant was an environmentalist. There is no need for the Waugh statement. The only direct environmental damage Grant was responsible for was the slaughter of the buffalo. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I will say this, Waugh's quote is the only one (aside from one by Grant himself) that is given its own paragraph. Waugh's view should be included, but not as a stand alone quote with its own paragraph. Seems we can include Waugh's POV without quoting her in full and without placing the quote as a stand alone item, per undue weight. Gwillhickers (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus is correct - take it all out or leave it all in as was settled years ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Gwillhickers is in agreement concerning Waugh and POV. Grant never claimed to be an environmentalist, so why is he being singled out in the article as an anti-environmentalist, especially by a standard that did not exist during his presidency ? The article is not even saying Yellowstone was an environmental utopia or haven. Clearly it was not, with the possible exception of saving the buffalo from poaching, but that was more chance then effort. Environmentalism also concerned Indian policy, which is why Grant aggressively allowed the buffalo to be slaughtered, to keep Indians on their respected reservations. Grant's signature created the park and Delano was the first person to be its administrator. Interestingly Delano advocated Congress appropriate money to make a national park service to run the park. That did not occur until the 20th Century. In that sense the Grant administration was ahead of its times. Is there some other source that directly discusses Grant and Yellowstone ? There may be undue weight in having Waugh in a block quote. If editors are divided over this, I don't want to get into a prolonged discussion that serves no purpose. I just thought the issue should be rediscussed. Thanks for everyone's input. Maybe there can be an alternative edit replacement that addresses Grant, environmentalism, Indian policy, and Yellowstone. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The former debate linked to above in Archive 13 involved inclusion of Yellowstone, based on RS's and weight. However, in Archive 14 User:Cmguy777 originally supported inclusion of Waugh's overall perspective. If we include the quote, let's place it in among the text. This way we can keep the quote, while not presenting it in the same capacity as we do with Grant's quote. If there are still issues for some, good luck. Don't want to argue this at length. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Waugh quote in my opinion is overwhelmingly POV. I may have agreed out of compromise to keep in the article. Grant's environmental policy was linked to his Indian policy. It was also linked to the economy. The gold rush into the Black Hills took place during the deppression caused by the Panic of 1873, a depression that lasted into the Hayes Admninistration. The nation was desperate to support the gold standard and paper money was extremely tight. Why not just say in the article that Grant contributed to global warming ? Maybe there is some other source that offers clarification on Grant and environmentalism. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Empire Forestry and the Origins of Environmentalism Gregory Allen Barton (2004) page 132 This book counters Waugh. Grant created the first forester position in the United States. Deforestation led to climate change. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

POV accusations are typically levelled against editors, not sources. The sources are allowed to have their opinions! We aren't. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

To the larger point: the environmental criticism balances the environmental praise, and both come from a reliable source. I agree with Alan, either both should stay or both should go. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The position of paid forester was created by Grant. That is signifigant. A forester was appointed who believed deforestation caused climate change. Grant was shown this information before he created the position. Waugh's praise of Grant is empty while her criticism of Grant is inaccurate and harsh. As mentioned before maybe another reliable source, if one exists, that discusses Grant and enviromentalism would be good for the article. It might be better to take Waugh's environmental assessment out of the article, including the Yellowstone "praise". Cmguy777 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be glad to remove the whole thing if that's what the consensus is. I never wanted any of it in there in the first place. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Grant by the stroke of his pen allocates over 2,219,789 acres of land for natural preservation by the federal government and then Waugh says Grant opened up great swaths of land for speculation, timber, and cattle. Yes. I have no issue of this being taken out of the article. Please do so. I think Waugh's statement is inaccurate in light of Grant endorsed the concept that deforestation was bad for the enviornment creating the first federal forester position. I am for a statement that says although Grant created Yellowstone Park he allowed the destruction of millions of buffulo to enforce his Indian policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggested replacement sentence

While Grant created Yellowstone, America's first national park that allocated millions of acres for the federal preservaton of natural resources, he also allowed the aggressive distruction of buffalo to near extinction, so Indians would stay on their reservations. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The buffalo part is already covered in the section about Indians. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yellowstone needs to be mentioned in the article. It was the first federal park (3,468 square miles) in the world of its kind. Critical opinion of Grant and the buffalo has been mentioned to balance any mention of Yellowstone. All that needs to mentioned is Grant signed into law the creation of Yellowstone. Here is a neutral statement: On March 1, 1872 Grant signed legislation that created Americas first national park Yellowstone that allocated millions of acres of land for public use and preservation of natural wonders. An alternative version would be On March 1, 1872 Grant signed legislation that created America's first national park Yellowstone. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a neutral statement that Grant signed legislation creating Yellowstone National Park. I purposely left out preservation information to make a neutral statement. By signing the legislation Grant was a preservationist, but in light of Grant allowing the slaughter of buffalo to keep the Indians on their reservations, I just made a simple declarative sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Garfield assassination

I added information on the Garfield assassination. How is the reader to know why and how Arthur was in office ? I thought the information was essential for the narration. I prefer discussion in the talk page instead of venting a complaint in an edit note where other editors can't respond. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Chernow biography

There is suppose to be a new biography on Grant coming out this fall by Chernow. ‘Hamilton’ author Chernow has Grant bio coming in fall. This article even critisizes Grant's White House biography. Interesting. Looks like the General is getting another reinforcement bio article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Foreign affairs

I think this section in the article could use more context; clarification, and neutrality. The Alabama claims was Grant's most pressing foreign policy concern when Grant took office, not Santo Domingo, but Santo Domingo gets the lead. The Cuban insurrection was indirectly involved in the Alabama Claims settlement. Grant could not recognize the Cuban rebels and then claim that Britain could not recognize the Confederacy. When Grant claimed neutrality in the Cuban rebellion Fish was able to negotiate the Alabama claims. Simon (2002) is my source for this. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I think every biographer gives more space to Santo Domingo than the Alabama claims. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Why did Simon (2002) lead with the Alabama Claims and Cuban insurrection ? I said above that my source was Simon (2002). I did not say or write that, Simon (2002) did. But this article leads with a Grant failure. Simon went by Grant's most pressing foriegn policy need upon assuming office, not Santo Domingo. White (2016) starts off by lauding Fish and he first writes on the Alabama Claims and Cuba, not Santo Domingo. White (2016) mentions Santo Domingo after he writes on the Cuban Rebellion. Brands (2012) mentions the Cuban rebellion before talking about Santo Domingo. Smith (2001) talks about the Cuban Insurrection in detail before going onto Santo Domingo and mentioned Grant's most pressing needs in foriegn policy were Alabama Claims and Cuba. McFeely (1981) presents the Alabama claims and Santo Domingo on an equal level, but he does start off on the Alabama Claims first. McFeely goes into detail both about the Alabama Claims and Santo Domingo. Giving "more space" in a biography does not equate to starting out with Santo Domingo in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe the Alabama claims needs to be in the first paragraph including a brief mention that Grant declared neutrality in the Cuban Insurrection. Santo Domingo can be mentioned in the second paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

White, 2016, devotes roughly a half doz scattered pages to each topic. Smith, 2001, has about a doz pages covering Alabama claims, and about six covering Santo'D and annexation. Debating which issue was of more importance to Grant, and the country, would be a mostly subjective endeavor regardless. Makes little difference to me, and I suspect most readers, which topic is covered first, as there's no concrete neutrality issue here, if any, either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, Cmguy, you just want to change the order? What does that have to do with context, clarification, and neutrality? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not just change the order. Context, clarification, and neutrality has to do with order and bringing in Grant declaring neutrality concerning the Cuban Insurrection that allowed Fish to negotiate the Alabama Claims. Simon (2002) that is devoted to Grant's presidency discusses Alabama Claims, the Cuban Insurrection, and then Santo Domingo. The change would not affect the rest of the section. Narration tweaks would be necessary to fit the order of events. I put this in discussion because I just did not want to make a big change. Leading with the most pressing issues Alabama Claims and the Cuban Insurrection makes the section more neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested change

The most pressing foreign policy concerns when Grant took office were the settlement of the Alabama claims against Great Britain and whether to recognize Cuban belligerency. The dispute with the United Kingdom stemmed from the damage done to American shipping during the Civil War by the five ships built for the Confederacy in British shipyards including, most famously, the CSS Alabama. The Americans claimed that Britain had violated neutrality by building ships for the Confederate Navy. When the war ended, the United States demanded restitution, which the British refused to pay. Negotiations continued fitfully, a sticking point being the claims of "indirect damages" on top of the harm directly caused by the ships. Sumner opposed the Johnson administration's proposed settlement, which had been rejected by the Senate, believing that Britain should directly pay $2 billion in gold or, alternatively, cede Canada to the United States. Fish and Boutwell convinced Grant that peaceful relations with Britain were more important than acquisition of territory, and the two nations agreed to negotiate along those lines. In order not to jeopardize negotiations, Grant refrained from recognizing Cuban rebels who were fighting for independence from Spain, which would have been inconsistent with American objections to the British granting belligerent status to Confederates. A commission in Washington produced a treaty whereby an international tribunal would settle the damage amounts; the British admitted regret, but not fault. The Senate approved the Treaty of Washington, which also settled disputes over fishing rights and maritime boundaries, by a 50–12 vote in 1871.

Grant's success with Britain was undermined by his attempted annexation of the Dominican Republic, then known as Santo Domingo. Since 1846, the American government had advocated the placement of a U.S. Navy coaling station in the Dominican Republic. The Johnson administration recommended that Congress lease Samaná Bay as a naval base, but anti-imperialist Republicans in Congress rejected the plan. Grant secretly sent his trusted wartime confidant, Orville E. Babcock, to Santo Domingo and consult with Buenaventura Báez, the pro-annexation Dominican president. Although Fish did not give Babcock diplomatic authority, Babcock returned to Washington in September 1869 with a draft annexation treaty he made with Báez. Grant accepted Babcock's findings and sent him back to Santo Domingo, this time with the authority to negotiate treaties of annexation or the lease of Samaná Bay. Babcock returned to Washington and the two treaties were discussed at a cabinet meeting on December 21. Fish dismissed annexation, seeing the island as politically unstable and troublesome. According to a plebiscite held by Báez, the people of Santo Domingo overwhelmingly voted 15,169 to 11 in favor of U.S. annexation.

Grant supported the treaties and thought acquisition of the majority-black nation would allow new economic opportunities for African Americans while increasing American naval power in the Caribbean. He lobbied Senators to that end, even visiting Charles Sumner at his home in hopes of influencing him to help with passage of the treaties. Fish added to the effort out of loyalty to the administration, but to no avail; Sumner was set against annexation and on June 30, 1870, the Senate rejected the treaties. Sumner's opposition led to political enmity between him and Grant. A congressional investigation later that year by Senator Carl Schurz revealed that speculators also backed the treaty in hope of private financial gain. Unwilling to admit defeat, Grant convinced Congress to send a commission (including Frederick Douglass) to investigate. Although the commission approved Grant's call for annexation in its findings, the Senate remained opposed and Grant was forced to abandon further efforts." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions

I think the above edits makes the article more neutral and fits in better with the ordered priority of Smith (2001) and Simon (2002). I kept the information minimal on the Cuban Insurrection. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That's mostly fine with me. I'll make a few edits to your draft, if you don't mind. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I made some small edits. The only big change I'd suggest is cutting the line about the plebiscite, because it was so obviously faked as to be meaningless. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of compromise the plebisite can be cut from the article. I think it is difficult to determine the actual sentiment of the Dominican Republic peoples. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't quite see where neutrality has been altered, but the account here looks good, with one possible exception regarding this statement (struck above). According to a plebiscite held by Báez, the people of Santo Domingo overwhelmingly voted 15,169 to 11 in favor of U.S. annexation. Important considerations:

• Is there any other reliable account about the voting results? Pletcher is not a Grant biographer, not that I'm making an issue of that, by itself, but is this the best account?
• Does Pletcher claim or even suggest the voting was faked?
• Regardless of the ballot results claimed here, was the voting largely in favor of annexation? Any account of the sentiment in Santo'D regarding annexation? Clarity on that definitive note would be due, per a FA account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's been a free vote in the history of the world that's been that lopsided. Pletcher doesn't say so explicitly, because it's so obvious. This article discusses it more in depth and is explicit in saying it was not a free vote (see p. 31). [1] I agree that it shouldn't be in an FA, and I don't think it was there when the article was featured. I honestly can't believe it's been in the article so long. Anyway, it's tangential to Grant. -- Coemgenus (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There was a real plebiscite, but the contention is that Báez used threats of execution or exile to vote in favor of annexation. But according to Brands (2012a) pages 454-455 consular agent Raymond Perry was positive a majority of people in Santo Domingo were in favor of annexation. I had originally put it in the article for neutrality. For now I would leave it out of the narration until there is more clarification on the plebiscite. The overwhelming vote suggests intimidation was used. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not go as far as calling the plebiscite "farcical" in the above article, but it seems certain person's were intimidated by the Báez government. I would add the new section without the plebiscite. If the plebiscite is added later it should be done with more clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes

I added changes to the section per discussion. Put Rawlin's information in a note. Tried to trim sections. Please feel free to make any changes. I appreciate all editors involved in the discussion. Removed information on controversial plebiscite. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice writing. Good narrative flow - and without all the arm-wrerstling and prolonged debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Though I didn't see any actual neutrality issues, the section is more comprehensive. Some things to consider: McFeely, 1981, p. 337. says that Baez was out to make himself rich and was "shameless in his pursuit" of annexation, esp since he tried and failed to do so on several accounts with other countries. This would be consistent with the idea that the voting was rigged. Voting aside, a sentence to this effect would invite a bit of insight to the situation Grant was faced with. Grant inherited the problem of Santo'D, a segregated and independent settlement, from Lincoln/Johnson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. The neutrality is the priority of events. That is why I put Alabama Claims and Cuban belligerency in the first paragraph. Simon (2002), Smith (2001) and White (2016) address these issues. Báez plebiscite was one taken during a virtual civil war between Luperon. The island was so unsettled there was an immediate need to get the treaty passed as quickly as possible. Báez did not do much on his own behalf to help Congress pass the treaties. Maybe explaining more on the islands political instability would help. Annexation would bring in military internvention from Luperon. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Simon (2002) helped add structure to Grant's Foreign affairs section. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed some of the information on Santo Domingo using Simon (2002). Feel free to make any changes. Nothing set in stone. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Simply referring to Baez as, the corrupt Baez, or, the enterprising Baez, would help. -- Also, referring to Santo Damingo as the segregated and politically unstable settlement would help describe the overall state of that island settlement. McFeely could source the latter -- don't know off hand whom to use to source Baez's character. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• The changes look good with one exception. I restored this statement: Anti-imperialist Republicans had previously rejected a Johnson administration treaty to establish a Samaná Bay naval base. This one sentence mentions "anti-imperialist Republicans" and Johnson's failed attempt, which gives the section more political context, telling the readers Grant was dealing with strong and established opposition in government. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It is easy to label Báez as corrupt, or a clown, arresting an American Hatch who was supporting Báez enemy Luperon. But realize Lincoln arrested many people during the American Civil War who supported the Confederacy. Was Lincoln corrupt ? Was Lincoln corrupt for making blockades on Confederate ports ? The Domincan Republic was in a virtual Civil War when Grant wanted to annex the island. Grant did his best to support Báez using the U.S. Navy and cover up this Civil War. This is what upset Sumner. I believe a note on Báez arresting Hatch is good and mentioning the plebiscite under duress of imprisonment is important. Let the ready decide if Báez was corrupt. We don't have to state it in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Cmguy, I guess, although I'd rather not even have the note. Baez's character is no more important here than Santa Ana's or Jeff Davis's. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I put the note in out of compromise. I added the Hatch incident because Hatch was an American. I put it in a note because I did not want to expand the narration anymore then it is. There were various reasons why the Senate did not vote for annexation, not just the Hatch incident. There were Senators who voted for annexation. The reason why annexation was blocked was because of Sumner, not Báez. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My speculation about corruption was based on a rigged vote, not an arrest. The note is okay, but I'd prefer, sources permitting, a note about the rigged election, intimidation, or something definitive that shows us that Baez was "shameless in his pursuit" of annexation. McFeely's quote would help, but an example would be better, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The intimidation was word of mouth to the people. There was not actual edict of imprisonment if found not voting for annexation. I mentioned the election was reported to be rigged and that Luperon was rebelling against Báez. Grant believe annexation would somehow stabalize the island and improve the livelyhood of the Domincans. It was suspected Báez would take money to pay of the Dominican debt for himself or his cronies. As far as I know there was no actual intimidation, except for Hatch. The people apparently wanted to be annexed according to Brands (2012a). I don't mind if there is a quote from McFeely as long as the quote is attributed to McFeely. At the same time, I don't want to expand too much more in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Along with a naval port in Samana Bay the idea of annexation was considered also for its natural resources and because it would bring in much trade and commerce to the United States. Grant entertained annexation also with the idea that Santo'D would become a post war sanctuary for displaced blacks in the south. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that information can be added either in a note or the article. But the bottom line is Santo Domingo showed how much power Sumner had to defeat the measure. Sumner was the very Senator who fully supported annexation of Alaska. Báez imprisoning Hatch did not help his cause of annexation among Senators. Did Sumner go conservative back to his Democratic roots ? Grant in this case is the liberal or progressive. He wanted a state whose nationality was a majority of African Americans. I believe Russians in Alaska were considered white people. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Indian policy

I think the Indian policy first paragraph needs to be cleaned up somewhat. Maybe one or two sentences could be put in a note. Other areas could be looked at too and if needed cleaned up. Right now I would just focus on the first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it had gotten kind of rambling. I made some changes. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Publication dates

It's best to use original publication dates in the citations rather than a reprint date, which could change again in a few years. Using a reprint date can be misleading, as the reader is led to believe the work was actually a current release, and left unaware of when it was originally authored and published. e.g.If McFeely, 1981, was reprinted, it would be inappropriate to refer to the work as something created well into the 21st century. The source listing still links to the actual reprinted book, but the reader knows up front when it was authored without having to look elsewhere for this info. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Using the original date breaks the citation formatting. The links don't work. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Using orig date would require further editing to fix the links. The source is reliable, regardless of any printing date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Accounts vary

Head of Odysseus wearing pileus depicted on a 3rd-century BC coin from Ithaca

Comparatively speaking, the various biographers, new and old, are not 'exactly' consistent with their accounts of the amount of elapsed time between Grant's birth and actual naming. Am curious. Will look into any sources that sheds more reliable light on that note. What primary sources related this event? Letters most likely. Still, there is no contradiction here, just a variance in the accounts. Had one of the sources said, e.g. 'six months' had passed, that would be an inconsistency so great it could arguably be regarded as a 'contradiction'. Even so, it might be note worthy if there was basis to such a claim. Can live without the foot note for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I was just trying to avoid getting into the weeds. The note wasn't wrong, just too much information on a minor point, in my opinion. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose parents back then could wait and choose the name of their baby on their own time schedule. Formal naming of the baby came at baptism back then. When was Grant baptized or was Grant even baptized ? Standardization of birth certificates was not until 1902 in the United States. It was all informal in 1822 apparently. Naming of the baby in Grant's case involved his extended family, not just his father and mother. For his times he had an original name, Ulysses, the wandering Greek hero King. Hiram was Grant's grandfather. What is interesting is that Grant was born during the Romantic era. Maybe that was why he was named Ulysses. Ulysses is the Latin version of Odysseus. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hiram is the name of the Phonecian King of Tyre mentioned in the Bible: BibleGateway. So Grant was named after two Kings: Hiram I (Phonecian) and Ulysses (Greek). Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I know these are primary sources but Grant's name is listed in the U.S. Censuses : Ulysses S. Grant in the U.S. Census Records Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The name Grant is of English, Scottish, and French origin. Yes. More trivia but interesting. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesse was the one who placed the ballot for Ulysses in a hat, which was taken from a character Jesse admired in François Fénelon's novel, Telemachus which became the theme of his poem of 1833, Ulysses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Simpson, Grant's grandmother, not Jesse, recommended the name Ulysses after reading the French novel The Adventures of Telemachus White (2016) pp 9-10 . Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, according to White, pp.9-10 and Simpson, p.2, Sarah came up with the name first, but both Jesse and Sarah Simpson opted for Ulysses, and it was Jesse who lent Fénelon's novel to Sarah where she first encountered the name. It was also Jesse who declared the name would be Hiram Ulysses after the ballot for Ulysses was drawn. Jesse would always refer to his son as Ulysses, which became his common name. In any case, there's no mention of who-picked-what name in the section, yet we have enough info there to cover this topic adequately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That depends when to draw the line between trivia and weighted content. I suppose one could say Sarah and Jesse contributed to Grant's name Ulysses. In my opinion that would be trivia. Did Grant know he was named after the ancient Greek mariner King Odysseus ? Did that in anyway contribute to Grant's religious faith or world view ? Did Grant believe he was destined for greatness ? I think those are unanswered questions. I don't think any sources discuss this. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this is definitely trivia. I've never read another biography of a President or general that spent any time on where his name came from. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Many Grant biographers, new and old, cover this episode in detail. It's enough however that we mention the arrival of a first son, the gathering of the greater family and that 4-6 weeks transpired before a name was arrived at. This is unusual and unique to Grant and merits a good paragraph, but since there's a dedicated article, we can include any "trivia" there. I would image his father and mother somewhere along the line discussed Ulysses' name with him, which would be nothing unusual and not worth mentioning here, unless something highly unusual was associated with the event. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally think this information belongs in his early life article on how Grant was named. I had asked this earlier. Was Grant baptized ? I am not sure if waiting to name a child was so uncommon in the 19th Century. There were apparently no birth certificates to fill out and formal naming came at baptisms if the family was Protestant. Coemgenus is correct. Bio articles usually do not go into how a person was named. I don't see anything out of the ordinary either on how Grant was named. What is signifigant is that Grant was well educated for the standards of his times, compared to Lincoln or Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There is only simple mention of this major event here, noted by many Grant biographers. There is also mention of his nick name, and how his common name came about, so the bio is complete on that note. This is basic content, no matter how common it may have been for the times (most were named at or soon after birth). You can write about this in grater depth in the other article and investigate baptism if you think that's noteworthy. If you think Grant was well education for his time you can also highlight that idea somehow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned compared to Lincoln and Johnson, Grant was well educated. I might as well throw in Garfield too. I don't know of any sources that discuss Grant's education in detail or if there was any standardization of education at that time. I consider West Point a military college. Grant had an elementary and high school equivalent education, then being chosen to go to West Point. Right now it is just my personal impression that he was relatively well educated for his times. I believe naming a child is important, but I am not sure how one can verify Grant's naming timing was any different then other children. There were no standardized birth certificates at the time. I don't know if there are any sources that specifically cover naming children in the 19th Century. I always thought Protestant children back then were formerly named at baptism. Again. That is all speculation on my part. White (2016) does cover Grant's naming. I don't mind the information in the article, but I think it is interesting trivia. If naming is mentioned in the article then I would use White (2016) as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Cmguy, it's too much detail for the summary article and belongs in the sub-article, if anywhere. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln, Johnson, birth certificates, baptism, Grant being well educated, Grant's parents discussing the meaning of his name, etc, belongs in a article that can treat these topics with more depth. Basic mention of birth, unusual amount of time for naming, belongs in the biography, as does coverage of Grant's nick name and common name. This is basic and notable content well covered by most of Grant's biographers, and I will not be drawn into a long debate that once again has fragmented into different topics over one small item of basic content. Featured articles do not omit major details. Consensus, esp marginal consensus, can not override policy. If for some reason you have strong feelings for removing the mention of birth you can always propose a compromise or seek dispute resolution, RFC, or someone other venue. The article has been coming along, with content/context added, with trimming and mindfulness of page length and no long debates that leaves editors disgruntled. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Unstable article?

Once again we seem to be headed down the same path, with long winded and off topic talk, "ongoing edit wars"/repeated reverts, while the article continues to ignore or loses basic details. If this trend of instability and perpetual debate continues we should call for another FA review by non involved editors and request a 1RR rule so we don't fall into the same calamity all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you want, go for it. I promise to abide by whatever the FA reviewers require of us. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you know that's not the preferred course of action. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. I am more or less fine with the article, and don't foresee the need for anything major to be added. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

If what you're complaining about is my removal of the sentence about Grant's father not attending his wedding, (Grant's abolitionist father didn't attend their wedding because Julia's father owned slaves."), it has no citation and the citation for the sentence following it doesn't say that, either (it had the wrong page numbers even for what it actually did cite, which I've fixed.) Do you have the source for this? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not in Simpson or Brands, either. White notes that Grant's parents did not attend the wedding, but doesn't say why. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is not unstable and in fact has been stabalized in the Foreign and Indian affairs sections. It may have been talked about before, but a seperate article on Grant's family would be appropriate. This article is on Grant, not his father Jesse, or any other family members. I have been trying to avoid repeated reverts. White (2016) does discuss how Grant was named. It is interesting trivia, but I am not against it being mentioned in the article sourced by White (2016). I thought the Early life section was stable and did not need much attention. It has been mentioned that Grant has Irish heritage. I think that is important. In my opinion, I don't think it is worth going into any edit wars of how Grant was named or whether Grant's father Jesse did not attend Grant's wedding. I have never lived in the 19th Century. I don't claim to be an expert on the 19th Century. There are some things historians may never understand about the 19th Century, such as weddings, naming customs, or the timing of naming a child. We do not have to explain every 19th Century custom to the reader. Even if it is adequately explained, I don't think anyone can truely understand the 19th Century unless one lived in the 19th Century. There is no need for a new FA review. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus, as I noted in edit history, this item came from a website source used along with McFeely where I erroneously associated it with that source many days later in this article. It's a well sourced Smithsonian article, written by Gilbert King, 2012, that says Grant’s father refused to attend their August wedding, objecting not to Julia, but to her family’s owning slaves. with an impressive list of sources at the end of the article. Will look among them to see what's best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This information should go in the Jesse Grant article. It had nothing to do with Grant or Julia, but rather Julia's father Frederick. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Found two additional sources for this revealing item, a major detail in Grant's wedding, and directly associated with Grant, wife, father, and Grant's family association with father-in-law Dent. In depth coverage goes to dedicated articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Cmguy, it bleongs more to Jesse's story than to his son's, which is probably why none of Grant's biographers mention it. Let's leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If this article is going to be tighened up, then I think Grant's biographers should be used, including Simon (2002). Some important issues like the demise of the buffalo or Indian wars are special interest and may need alternative sources. Grant's family is important, but I believe additional information is best in their individual articles or as suggested before make an article on Grant's family. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Most Grant biographers mention that Grant's parents didn't attend the wedding. At least two of Grant's biographers tell us why, and are now used to cite this summary sentence : Broadwater 2012, p. 23; Waugh 2009, p. 33. This telling event runs consistent with the theme that Grant and his father often found themselves at odds, either conventionally or personally, and belongs in his biography. I would like to add a couple more sentences in the section. i.e.Grant entered West Point at age 17, and during the four years there he grew almost six inches, but weighed less than he did when he first enrolled, due to sickness.(!) Also, dyk, Grant once referred to West Point as a "necessary evil", and as we know was determined to leave asap. His model and favorite General was Winfield Scott. However, at this point it seems there's little to no desire to add these sorts of insights into Grant the person, but in a biography these are among the major details, well covered by the sources, and again, are due summary mention here, with any in depth coverage where ever. I was going to add these items but I'll hold back for now I guess. Agree, for the most part, Grant biographers should be used as a first reference choice, but not as an absolute rule. Happy Easter, talk Monday. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, as far as I know, no editors are questioning the reliability of sources. Even if the information is trivia, it does not mean that the information is unimportant. Trivia can be important. But in this I am in agreement with Coemgenus, editors can't just continually add information or the article will turn into a book. My main concern is presenting Grant neutrally as possible. This president has been castigated by historians as a corrupt despot for over 100 years. New biographies present Grant more neutrally and are giving credit to his policies and cabinet appointments. I have tried to focus mainly on the presidency section. I suggest the article needs to focus on Grant's policies as President, policies that affected millions of Americans, north, south, east, and west. His family relationships really only affected his family. At the same time I understand family matters are important, but the article should not be turned into a soap opera, such as Jesse not attending Grant's wedding. We are probably going around in circles on this. Happy Easter. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The information I've added was definitive, tying in with many aspects of Grant's life, personal and political. I wouldn't trivialize Grant's biographical life with presentist terms. This was a significant event, reflective of the times in terms of abolition, division and the looming Civil War, not to mention family differences. Much more could be said along this line, but at least we provide a comprehensive statement. If anyone has a mind to add the other items (e.g.Grant growing almost six inches while at West Point, etc) they have my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In reality the naming of Grant had nothing to do with Grant. It has everything to do with Grant's family. In my opinion the information takes away from Grant's biography and focuses on Grant's family. It is not that the information is unimportant. It is just about his family and not Grant. It is obvious Grant preferred Ulysses over Hiram. I don't think anyone called him Hiram after West Point. So I am not sure why there is such focus on his naming. He was only Hiram until he turned 17. Grant's VP Henry Wilson changed his name because he did not like it. The addition of the S to his name was a fluke. I think the narration on his naming could use some tightening up. The naming of Grant is important and interesting, but it does not fit into the narration on Grant himself. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Insert : We were discussing the wedding. Now you're jumping to another topic. The naming of Grant has everything to do with Grant, and his family, which also is directly tied to Grant. We "focus" on this event no more than to mention it in summary. This is due in depth coverage in other articles if someone is inclined. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It would make sense in the Early Life sub-article, too, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Insert : Gwillhickers. The naming cermony has been kept in the article, just tightened up. Grant's father not attending the wedding has more to do with Jesse, not Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The family gathering was about, and for, Ulysses. He was taken along on the journey to the gathering. The name was decided, for Ulysses. Ulysses was the central figure. The event would never have occurred without him. Everyone else are secondary to the event, even though the event involves the various people so named, and the ballot. That's all. I shouldn't have to be thanking you for not completely reverting, but thanks, (add:) I guess. You still removed a definitive point I had to replace. Will try not to be so radical with my proposals in the future. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not want to revert, but only tighten up the language using Grant's biographer White (2016) as references. I am not sure how Grant can be the central figure. The family made all the decisions or balloted his name. Grant had nothing to do with his naming. He was an one month old baby. Grant later dropped Hiram and just kept Ulysses. The S did not matter to him. The other thing is we don't really know what people who who knew him called him. He had a knick name "Sam". His father Jesse called him "My Ulysses". The name Ulysses seemed to fit him the best because his was a general, a president, and a world traveler, similar to Ulysses the Greek King. I think editors can work together rather then restart the FA process. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

These talk sessions always digress and rarely accomplish anything lately. I never wished to talk about anything more than simple coverage of Grant's name and should not have to recite the obvious, and not have such a simple statement edited a half doz times. All this other talk was unnecessary and only compounded the completion of this sophomoric task. Can we try to keep the talk simple and the reverts/edits a little less frequent? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I can. I thought the talk was productive. I just don't think it is necessary to have an edit war over the naming of Grant. Editors have contributed to the edit. I think Grant's name being drawn by a ballot is interesting. Apparently, it was only a chance he was named Ulysses. I think we have had far worse talk discussion then this one. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Frémont, Columbus, and Belmont

I think there should be more information on Frémont for clarification in the article. There is really no mention why he was fired by Lincoln and one of his last orders to Grant on November 1 was to make demonstrations against the Confederate Army stationed in Columbus, Kentucky. When Grant attacked Belmont, Missouri I believe he was making a military base to attack Columbus. The Confederates were forced to draw troops from Columbus to attack Grant and retake Belmont. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The article already contains the sentence "(Lincoln had relieved Frémont of command)". I think that explains it well enough for Grant's article. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Without explanation. I don't think it explains why Grant attacked Belmont. To make "demonstrations" against Columbus. Frémont was fired for insubordination. I don't think a lot needs to be added, just enough for better clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I added more detail from White (2016) who devotes a whole chapter to Belmont. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Grant actually disobeyed Frémont's order by attacking Belmont, but was the order still in effect if Frémont was no longer in command ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Page activity

The number of views per day for this article averages about 5,500. For some reason, on March 25th of this year, the number of views peeked to 225,000. The day before shows a significant peek also. There were only a few edits made that day, so this number is virtually all for viewers. March 25 of last year however shows no peek, so evidently this date holds no significance to Grant. There must of been some sort of Grant celebration going on that day for that many views, so I checked and came up with this event, which arguably may have caused the views to peek that Saturday, the day of the event celebrating a landmark hotel built in 1910 by Grant's second son Buck, who named the hotel after his father. It's not much to do with anything here I suppose but thought you'd be interested. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That's really weird, I have no idea why that would be. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)