Talk:Ulysses S. Grant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Former good article nominee Ulysses S. Grant was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.


Eureka, California[edit]

Recently an editor has been removing Grant from the notable people of Eureka, California claiming he was not "from" there. The article today reads: Promoted to captain in the summer of 1853, Grant was one of only fifty on active duty, and assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at Fort Humboldt, on the northwest California coast. Without explanation, he shortly afterwards resigned from the army on July 31, 1854. The commanding officer at Fort Humboldt, brevet Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, a strict disciplinarian, received reports that Grant became intoxicated off duty while seated at the pay officer's table. In lieu of a court-martial, Buchanan gave Grant an ultimatum to sign a drafted resignation letter. Grant resigned; the War Department stated on his record, "Nothing stands against his good name." Rumors, however, persisted in the regular army of Grant's intemperance.{{efn|According to biographer McFeely, historians overwhelmingly agree that his intemperance at the time was a fact, though there are no eyewitness reports extant. Years later, Grant said, "the vice of intemperance had not a little to do with my decision to resign." Grant's father, again believing his son's only potential for success would be in the military, tried to get the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, to rescind the resignation, to no avail.

Thus I think he should be included on notables list of Eureka, California. It is listed in the article that he served at Fort Humboldt, and Fort Humboldt is entirely within the city limits of Eureka. Grant's interactions with the local people are well-documented in local history. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop and think about what you're saying. You are claiming that U.S. Grant is a notable person of Eureka, CA. That implies that he was either born there or had a notable or remarkable impact on the locality. From your quote of the article, Grant did nothing other than pass through the area (noting here that Eureka was not even incorporated at the time of his stay), as part of an army career that saw him pass through many other areas and cities of the United States. It should be clear that if each place that the man passed through made him a "notable person of" that place, then being "of" or "from" a place would lose all meaning. You are wrong in this matter, the administrator you consulted told you that you are wrong (Wikipedia:ANI#Anonymous_POV_edits), and you need to let it go.
Further, you personally edited this wiki page to include the word "Eureka" as a circular way of strengthening your claim. This is bad form and I would hope that the other editors of this page can see through what you are trying to do. (96.41.81.86 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC))
This dispute is about the Eureka page, not this one. Please discuss it there instead. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I did what the admin suggested and took it to the talk page. I attempted to make it clear where Fort Humboldt is located as it was not obvious and "northwest California" covers more territory than New England so it's not a bad thing to provide locational clarity. I'm not going to put Grant back as a notable person of Eureka despite it fitting the WikiCities guidelines since it apparently bothers the editors on this page so terribly. I have no desire to cause such difficulty for anyone. Grant's name was there before I started editing and if anyone puts him back on that it won't be me. I am still concerned about the multiple anonymous IP edits and the unnecessarily discourteous attitude, but that's on other people and their karma. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Narration progress[edit]

I have been making progress in the Ulysses S. Grant article. There is an abunance of passive sentences. I have generally cleared the article of passive sentences up to the Vicksburg section. The last section edited was Shiloh. The Civil War section has narration issues. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I completed through the Vicksburg section. Any help would be greatfully appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know what that partial sentence prior to footnote 265 is suppose to mean? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I fixed it so it had a verb now, but I'd really like to delete the whole sentence. It doesn't really fit the rest of the paragraph. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. I agree. It was also written in a vague or overbroard manner concerning an apparent assertion of certainty about the thinking of millions of people. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The term "these policies failed" in my opinion is vague. Southern resistance i.e. Solid South and Northern apathy was why Grant's policies failed. Grant did form the Justice Department to stop violations against African Americans. Grant did successfully prosecute the Ku Klux Klan up until 1873. The Justice Department today has a Civil Rights division I believe created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Should there be additional context to the term "these policies failed"? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's vague at all. And even Grant's most friendly biographers don't claim his civil rights or Indian policies succeeded for more than a couple of years. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was patterned off of Grant's Civil Rights Act of 1875 89 years ahead of his times. That Justice Department is still in effect today and I believe the Force Acts still remain in effect on the Congressional books. Where do his "friendly biographers" claim his policies specifically failed. Grant destroyed the Ku Klux Klan as Brands (2012) wrote a specific article on the subject. Grant set native Americans on the path toward citizenship, reducing Indian Wars, removing tribal treaties, and incorporating Indians as wards of the state. Grant put an Indian in charge of the Indian Bureau. Grant's Indian commission was part of reforming the Indian policy. I believe Grant was the first President to put African-Americans in prominent positions including Frederick Douglas. African-Americans were allowed at West Point and a change in command at West Point led to reduced hazing that allowed African-Americans to graduate under President Hayes. "His polices failed" seems to be open to interpretation. I believe the reader needs to decide if his policies failed. No one is stating his policies were perfect. I am not suggesting to add these examples into the article, that would be argumentative, but only to rephrase the wording somewhat that will allow the reader to make up their own minds if Grant's policies failed, keeping in mind there was Northern apathy and Southern resistance to Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have started narration improvement on the Presidency section. I have improved narration by reducing or eliminating passive voice, spelling corrections, complex expressions, clichés, and any bias language. Where needed I have added more information to improve context. I have kept the narration fixes that allow minimal change to the article. Any help would be appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "Growing scandals in Washington, some involving members of Grant's administration, took more of the public's attention than the plight of freedmen.""
The above sentence may have some issues. Further clarification is needed.
1. The sentence is unreferenced. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
2. The sentence does not tell what scandals involved members of Grant's administration. I take this is meant to be the Crédit Mobilier scandal that had nothing to do with the Grant administration. His two vice presidents were never indicted Colfax and Wilson. They were members of Congress at the time of the scandal during the Andrew Johnson Administration. There was the New York Custom House investigation. Is that what the sentence is refering too? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
3. The sentence concludes that the Grant "scandals" cause Northern apathy to Reconstruction. Northern apathy was caused by a desire for reconciliation with the South by northern businesses. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Brands (2012), The Man Who Saved The Union, Ulysses S. Grant In War and Peace, on pages 508 and 509 states that Tammany Hall (Democtratic Scandal) and the Crédit Mobilier (Republican Scandal) discouraged peoples views on politics and government. There is no direct link with Northern apathy against Republican Reconstruction due to the Tammany Hall scandal or the the Crédit Mobilier scandal. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Reconstruction and civil rights section in the Ulysses S. Grant article. I added information on the Brooks-Baxter War and the Colfax Massacre. Grant did send troops and three warships to New Orléans to stop violence in Louisiana. Pierrepont sent an emissary to Mississippi rather then directly intervene. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 signed into law was ambitious according to Brands (2012). Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the narration up to The Gold standard and the Gold Ring Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the narration up to the Gilded Age corruption and reform section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have completed fixing the narration of the Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

FA preview discussion[edit]

I have finished fixing the narration of the Ulysses S. Grant article. Please feel free to make comments on the narration and or any other issues before the article is nominated for FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the Ulysses S. Grant article ready for FA nomination? Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't object, but I don't have time to be a co-nominator. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Where are all the other editors? Has the Ulysses S. Grant article Grant been abandonded? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Does any editor want to be a co-nominator? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone will nominate when time is right. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoontalk 19:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014[edit]

change "Grant's tenor in the Pacific Northwest took" to "Grant's tenure in the Pacific Northwest took" 192.12.184.6 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)