Talk:Ulysses S. Grant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ulysses S. Grant has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

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" (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

FA article candidate review[edit]

Thanks to all who contributed to the FA candidate review process! I am not sure quite what happened. For a Presidential article I felt I was doing all the editing and there seemed to be lack of interest in the article. I believe Grant deserves to be FA status. If this is to happen then other editors need to get involved. No hard feelings...again thanks ! Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On a more positive note I believe the article has much improved due to the FA candidate review !
you're doing a great job--I did not want to interfere. Rjensen (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll do some more tweaks on the article, and can give suggestions if desired for improvement. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a hard row (you have to be editor/diplomat/expert in hyper mode), and it's not going to be something everyone wants to do (or thinks important), but I still encourage you and thank you for your efforts, and if you still want it, keep plugging. Also, the subject you have chosen is truly a massive life. SNUGGUMS is now here to help, so good for both of you and Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Thanks Rjensen. I appreciate your edits. Feel free to "interefere" anytime. Any help is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks SNUGGUMS. That would great! Feel free to make improvements or give suggestions on how to improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Thanks and your welcome. I think the article has improved with the FA article review. There has been added detail that gives better understanding into Grant during his lifetime. There is a lot to the Grant article to cover. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I should have my suggestions up within a week (would've posted them in FAC but it closed before I had the chance). SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your valued edits ! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS: When you're finished, I'll give it a thorough copyedit, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-FAC copyedits[edit]

I'm about halfway through copyediting and trying to implement the changes suggested at FAC. I think, as suggested by the closing delegate there, that the article could benefit from an A-class review when I'm finished. In the meantime: I think the entire "Mexico and Canada" subsection ought to be removed. Grant's role in those events was comparatively minor. They're well-covered in the subarticle, and as currently arranged they break up the flow of the main story: Grant's role in the breach between Johnson and Congress of Reconstruction. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

good idea. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the copyediting Coemgenus ! This really helps the article ! Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I would add something on Indian wars while Grant served under President Andrew Johnson. Grant was responsible for the Western frontier as Commanding general. I would add this to the Mexico and Canada section, i.e., Mexico, Canada, Indian wars. The height of Indians Wars took place under Andrew Johnson Administration. This brings up an interesting question, was Grant involved in any Indian wars while he was commanding general under President Abraham Lincoln? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall reading anything about that in the major sources, but I'll look again in McFeely, Smith, and Hesseltine. You own Brands's book, don't you? I had it from the library before, but long since returned it. (I'm guessing, from your comments, that you don't agree the Mexico and Canada part should be deleted.) --Coemgenus (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully no. The importance is that Grant was overall commander of the Armed forces under President Johnson and Grant put Sheridan in charge of Mexico. Also Grant took personal responsibility in New York over the Fenian attempted take over of Canada. Grant was also in charge of Indian Wars and there were allot under Andrew Johnson. In my opinion briefly mentioning these issues is important. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Indian Wars Chapter 55 pages 410-415 Brands (2012a) Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Grant removes Indian frontier fort to keep Indian peace.
  • Mexico Chapter 51 pages 384-384 Brands (2012a) Grant convinces Johnson that military support was neccessary to defeat Maximillian rather then diplomacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Canada The Reconstruction Years page 29 Walter Coffey (2014) Grant suppressed Fenian raids into Canada. About 700 Fenians arrested. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest moving the Mexico and Canada section up so the Johnson segments can be adjacent to one another. I suggest adding information that Grant was in charge of the Indian Wars so the section would be titled Mexico, Canada, Indian Wars. I also suggest that section could be streamlined as much as possible. Only relevant information on Grant can be given. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I still think the article would be improved by deleting the section. The Mexico and Canada incidents are minor, and Grant's ideas on Indian policy are well-covered under the Presidency section. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree these were minor incidents. I can streamline the section and focus on Grant. The section shows that Grant was an active general. Without the section, in my opinion, Grant somewhat looks like the lackey to President Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I made changes to the section. I reduced content in the Mexico and Canada pargraphs. I added a paragraph on Red Cloud's War, cited in Brands {2012a), where Grant abandons Powder River forts in order for Red Cloud to sign the Fort Laramie Treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Grant a peacetime General when there were hundreds of Indians wars being fought in the West ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It's remarkable how a proposal to eliminate a section ends with it being made longer. I don't mean to be rude, but I'd put it this way: this article doesn't need to get longer, it needs to get better. I'm not going to delete what you wrote about Red Cloud or start an edit-war over it, but I do suggest we all consider whether more is necessary. I would not nominate this article for FA in its current condition, because I would not feel comfortable defending it. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for an edit war. I believe the Red Cloud's War worthy of being in the main Ulysses S. Grant article. The Indian wars were continual and I believe that merits the paragraph stay in the article. This is covered Brands (2012a). I am all for defending that Ulysses S. Grant get to FA status. I can removed the Mexico and Canada information and retitle the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Information on Mexico and Canada has been removed. I kept information on Red Cloud's War for reason stated above. Are there any objections to keeping Red Cloud's War section in the main Ulysses S. Grant article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Red Cloud's War section...Of course I want the article to get better...I did much of the editing corrections on the first FA nomination attempt... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian wars as commanding general[edit]

There needs to be some mention of Grant and Indian Wars as commanding general. There were over 100 Indian Wars during the Johnson Administration and Grant was incharge of the U.S. military. The height of Indian Wars took place in 1869 when Grant assumed the Presidency after Johnson in March. Reconstruction (after 1867) and Indian Wars were Grant's responsibility as Commanding General. Indian wars are not mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible Intro sentence[edit]

After the Civil War ended Reconstruction of the remaining former Confederate states was on the forefront of American politics. As military commander Grant was in charge of military operations through out the nation and territories. In addition to commanding the use of federal military armies involved in Reconstruction, Grant was in charge of Indian wars at time when increased westward expansion of settlers and building of railroads often led to conflicts. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Favor : I think this addition would be good and serve as a break from the Civil War section and mention that Grant was involved in Indian wars as Commanding General. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Modification :

Immediately after the Civil War the U.S. military was the primary enforcer of Congressional Reconstruction in the former Confederate states. As military commander Grant was in charge of military operations through out the nation and territories. In addition to commanding the use of federal military armies involved in Reconstruction, Grant was in charge of Indian wars caused by increased westward expansion of settlers and building of railroads. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
leave off the causation of the Indian wars-- it's not needed and is misleading. most did not involve Railroads. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thanks Rjensen. Sounds good. I believe the reader should know that Grant was incharge of Indian Wars as Commanding General in addition to Reconstruction. I thought that Indians attacked the railroad workers in the 1865 Plains War. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Brands (2012a) states on page 411 that the Indians believed the railroads represented permanent white settlement. The Sioux and Cheyenne conducted raids on the Union Pacific crews in Wyoming. This might have taken place in 1864. Grant inherited this war when he became General In Chief. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the Indian wars had no relation to RR. The Sioux & Cheyenne attacked all whites they could reach and indeed the RR were a seemed to be a tempting target, but Grant sent Army units to protect them and the Indians turned to attacks on other tribes & white farmers/ranchers. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant's presidential reputation and ranking[edit]

Is the article assessing Grant's presidential reputation accurately? Assuming that editors agree there was corruption in his Administration, how much emphasis should this corruption be placed in the article? As far as I have read neither McFeely (1981), Smith (2001), nor Brands (2012a) have compared his Presidency to other presidents in terms of ranking. John Y. Simon (2002) states "If Grant had left the White House after his first term, he might rank among the ablest presidents..." page 253. Brands (2012a) states that historians "emphasized the scandals, neglecting Grant's role in defeating the Black Friday gold corner and in bringing the whiskey culprits to justice..." page 636. Writing for the Rutherford Institute Thomas S. Neuberger (March 29, 2013) stated, "To his everlasting honor, President Grant stood for the absolute protection of the freed Black race in the face of Southern Democratic political, social and cultural tyranny...¶...Thus a careful reading of history should place Ulysses S. Grant in the top twenty percent of American Presidents, a fact that has been withheld from the average citizen who only has heard about a heavy drinking soldier and a scandal or two in his second term in office, scandals which in the 20th Century seemed to be commonplace in a second presidential term." Source: The President Who Destroyed the Klan: Ulysses S. Grant, An Unappreciated and Undervalued Leader Is the article underappreciating Grant? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We give the link in the lead, Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, it's not comparatively good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The historical accuracy of those rankings have been disputed. Civil Rights and slavery are interestingly left out of those assessments of Presidents. Why? That could create demerits for Washington and Jefferson. Historians have been neglectful, sometimes hostile with Grant, in terms of accuracy and research. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's really not for us to question the sources, only to summarize them. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
one quote (above) makes the point: "Brands (2012a) states that historians "emphasized the scandals." The surveys of scholars & experts since 1990 all have Grant well below average (the one exception putting him as high as #19 is by a handful of British journalists who cover the 21st century US). Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I would agree, but Brands (2012a) emphasizes the "neglect" of historians to Grant's thwarting the Gold Ring and prosecuting the Whiskey Ring. If Brands (2012a) is to be quoted fully the article needs to state historians have neglected Grant. Neuberger (March 29, 2013) puts Grant in the top 20 percent. The surveys ignore or neglect Grant's Civil Rights agenda crushing the Klan. Neuberger is a Civil Rights attorney and author. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Historians have not neglected anything. As for civil rights: the bottom line is that despite Grant's wishes, blacks were politically WORSE off when he left office compared to when he entered office, and likewise the GOP. 03:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Brands (2012a) states that historians have neglected Grant. Defeating the Klan was no "wish" or "fantasy". Are you stating that the Klan was not destroyed in 1871 by vigorous prosecution of the Justice Department and that Brands (2012a) is misleading readers? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Every historian knows Grant destroyed the KKK. But under Grant the blacks lost their power in every southern state, which is even more important. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Rjensen Blacks lost power not because of Grant rather racist Southern Democrats took control of state governments and the will of the Northern people lost all interest in Civil Rights. Grant was not a dictator. He could not control state elections forever. Grant was the last and only President in the 19th Century to sign into law a Civil Rights Act in 1875. Took another West Point Grad named Ike in 1957 to be the first 20th Century President to sign as Civil Rights Act. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Additionally when the Democrats took power in 1875 in the House they cut off all funding to the military that would suppress racist violence in the South. Chief Justice Remick undid the Force Acts independent of Grant. Grant noted on his world tour the hypocracy of suppressing Union riots while ignoring Civil Rights in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
During the war Grant never fired a shot. Instead he directed tactics and strategy. Ditto for the GOP when he was president, and he repeatedly split the GOP (see 1872 election; and esp Brooks–Baxter War. he got credit when his soldiers won & blame for when they lost battles during the war. Ditto in politics--he led the party to heavy losses in every southern state. Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Cmguy, we've already had this discussion. (Also here.) You don't like that almost all historians (all but Brands, really,) have rated Grant as a poor president. I happen to find him underrated, myself, though not to the same extent you do. Fact is, though, we editors are not here to write about our own views. Our job is to summarize the state of scholarly opinion. Our own opinions are irrelevant. Brands is an outlier, and his opinion is noted and given adequate weight. The balance of scholarly opinion is, as Alanscottwalker and Rjensen have noted, that Grant was a below-average president. Nothing you or I write will change the fact that historians have so rated him. Having to re-litigate these issues is tiresome, and detracts from the article's improvement. Let's move on. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Please really re-read and soak in that policy Coemgenus links to, especially WP:NOR, when the weight of the sources say he was poor, we cannot put in our articles 'but, a Wikipedian or two think it's not so' Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: When Lincoln was elected President in 1860, the Southern states rebelled, and the Civil War that caused over 100,000 Union soldier deaths took place. Yet Lincoln is deservedly hailed as a great leader, certainly not a failure as Grant is projected. Neither should Lincoln be blamed for Southern succession. Grant as Commanding General was instrumental in putting down this rebellion. Grant's Presidency was during Reconstruction a time when white conservatives refused to accept African American citizenship. Grant destroyed the Ku Klux Klan, sponsored the 15th Amendment, and successufully got Congress to recognize the four remaining Reconstructed states. There was a fair election in 1872, Republicans are won the South. Adelbert Ames, a Republican, won the governership in Mississippi in 1874. William Pitt Kellogg, a Republican was Governor of Louisiana from 1874 to 1877. The depression after the Panic of 1873 caused the people to turn against the Republican Party and the Republcians, Grant excluded, abandonded Civil Rights. Grant would have had to establish a military dictatorship and that would have been extremely costly. Hayes, whom Grant helped get elected through the Electoral Commission, did not do anything to regain Republican domination in the South, and he is considered a good President. Grant may have politically lost the South after 1877, but he successfully kept the nation together. Why is Grant blamed for Conservative refusal to accept African American citizenship? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

My own opinions? I gave three quotes from three sources and referenced these quotes. With the exception of Brands (2012a) Why aren't editors addressing these quotes, particularly Neuberger? Here are the quotes again.
  • John Y. Simon (2002) page 253: "If Grant had left the White House after his first term, he might rank among the ablest presidents..."
    Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Brands (2012a) page 636 "They [historians] emphasized the scandals, neglecting Grant's role in defeating the Black Friday gold corner and in bringing the whiskey culprits to justice..."
    Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thomas S. Neuberger (March 29, 2013),The President Who Destroyed the Klan: Ulysses S. Grant, An Unappreciated and Undervalued Leader, "To his everlasting honor, President Grant stood for the absolute protection of the freed Black race in the face of Southern Democratic political, social and cultural tyranny...¶...Thus a careful reading of history should place Ulysses S. Grant in the top twenty percent of American Presidents, a fact that has been withheld from the average citizen who only has heard about a heavy drinking soldier and a scandal or two in his second term in office, scandals which in the 20th Century seemed to be commonplace in a second presidential term."
    Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Because Nueberger or the others do not change the sourced general judgement. They have bent the arc some but we already say that in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I am swimming upstream again. Is there any support to adding the Neuberger information in the Historical reputation section?" Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In the 2009 CSPAN Presidential Rankings the closest discussion on Civil Rights and Slavery is in the Pursued Equal Justice For All category. Lincoln is Ranked 1. and Grant is ranked 9. Grant is ranked in the top ten in that category. Here is the Historian Survey Results link: Category Pursued Equal Justice for All This should be noted in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Grant's lowest rankings in the 2009 CSPAN Presidential Rankings has to due with Economic Management and Administrative Skills. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Neuberger thing is just a review of Brands's book, and it's published on an interest group's website, not in a journal. That's not really new scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed I added information and references on the CSPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey. I think this will be enough to help understanding of Grant's presidential reputation. For now I consider this matter closed unless further discussion is warranted. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, what do you mean "fixed"? No one agreed to add that CSPAN study. It's not accurate to cherry-pick the best surveys and highlight them in the article. We link to Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States for just this reason. The section on Grant's reputation has to show it all -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's unethical to give undue weight to one survey. Without consensus to add it, I will revert this change. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Why was the CSPAN survey removed? An aggregate rating is not sourced. You can't put an unsourced Wikipedia aggregate as a reference in the article. I had fixed the issue and now we seem to me starting over again. Certainly a 9 out of 42 rating in "Pursued Equal Justice For All" is not for below average. Saying Grant is far below average is misleading the reader. Rjensen should speak for his own edits in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If you don't understand, perhaps it's because you missed my edit summary. I'll reproduce it here: "(restore Rjensen's language -- "far" is accurate. Grant's aggregate rank is 37/43)". I hope that's more clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an unsourced ranking and does not represent modern research. CSPAN is a sourced reliable reference. I was not cherry picking. I noted Grant's lowest rankings in addition to his highest ranking. That is accurate. There was no reason to pull a reliable source such CSPAN. Aggregating sources from 1948 to 2011 is not reliable and skues Grant in the negative rankings. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see what the other editors think and work on a consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The CSPAN ranking survey is the most reliable since Pursued Equal Justice For All is a category for 42 Presidents ranked. Certainly a 9 out of 42 ranking is not "far below average", but rather "far above average". Also the CSPAN ranking brings out Grant's faults as President his administrative skills and his economic management of the Panic of 1873. If there is a need for compromise maybe putting this information in a note in the article would be useful. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Emphasis on one survey, C-Span is WP:Undue. As for modern, all the surveys are "modern". As for "far", I am neutral. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, we could leave out the word "far." The bigger deal is undue reliance on one survey. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
CSPAN is the only survey that actually addresses Pursued Equal Justice For All a subject related to Civil Rights and Slavery. Grant was President during the Reconstruction and I believe the CSPAN article is the most reliable survey concerning Grant. I am for adding other surveys to the article. Using a Wikipedia article as reference link is unreliable. An aggregate average in my opinion of different presidential rankings is WP:Undue and unreliable. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am for the removal of the word "far". Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
How can using all of the surveys be undue weight, but using just one be legitimate? That doesn't make any sense. What is being given undue weight when we're citing an average of all of them? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Using an aggregate average skues Grant to the negative. That is undue weight and also unreliable. These are different rankings of Grant with different categories. Then to combine them all into one "phantom" survey is misleading to the reader. The CSPAN addresses Pursued Equal Justice For All and is appropriate since Grant was president during Reconstruction Era, a time when the 15 Amendment passed, and Amendment that Grant fully supported. This was a time of the Ku Klux Klan that Grant prosecuted and destroyed. Grant also created the Justice Department that gave the Attorney General broader federal prosecutorial power. The CSPAN artircle does not favor Grant, but rather focuses Grant's greatest faults or limitations, his adminstrative skills and economic management after the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hundreds of political scientists & historians have participated in the rankings--Grant is far below average in all but one (that one was made by non-historians who were british reporters). That's bad and Brands admits it. (He does not say where he ranks Grant) The problems a) corruption issue b) economic issue c) party issue (GOP was worse off after his 8 years) and d) Reconstruction (blacks were worse off after his 8 years and South was alienated at him using the army like a dictator would). Giving him a high score for trying to help blacks is nice--but he lost that war (blacks became worse off during his 8 years). Rjensen (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
H.W. Brands was part of the CSPAN survey and so was Brooks Simpson. Grant did help blacks, not try, ie he took on the Ku Klux Klan and defeated them. That is a double standard on Grant to state he ended Reconstruction and was a military dictator without putting any blame on militant conservative whites who fought against African American citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link for the participants in the CSPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey: Survey Participants Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution[edit]

1. Remove "far". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Keep Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States link. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Add Historian Survey Results Ulysses S. Grant source reference after the Brand 2012a source reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume this only is with respect to the lead sentence; if that is so, I am neutral between the present lead sentence and these changes but only if "much" is also dropped from the sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC) To clarify, if this is going to a vote, oppose 1, unless "much" is also struck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The C-SPAN survey is already cited in the historical rankings article. I don't care about the word "far," although it's certainly accurate. So: 1-yes, 2-yes, 3-no. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
1. Yes 2. Yes. 3. Yes Adding the CSPAN source reference link completely backs up what is being stated in the article. Brands and Simpson are respected and reliable historians. Grant got 9 out of 42 in the Pursued Equal Justice for All category. I believe that is signifigant to warrant CSPAN as a source reference. I am not pushing the 9 out of 42. The CSPAN source reference also lists Grant's liabilities as an effective administrator and in his economic management of the country. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
please avoid personal views about what historians OUGHT to think but don't. Simon does not say Grant was a great president (he likes the first term but agrees the 2nd term was a disaster). Our job here is to look for the consensus of scholars which as multiple surveys shows is far below average 1. no I think "far" is exactly right and removing it is because of POV. 2. yes. 3. No -- it's being privileged for POV reasons. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Simon (2002) page 254: President Grant was charged with the faults of his countrymen; the willingness of the North to abandon the principles of Reconstruction, the unwillingness of the government to assume responsibility for the economic welfare of its citizens, and the acquiescence of Americans in racism and corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
By editor concensus 2:1 I will remove "far" from the article. Is there any objection to removing "more" from the article? In my opinion, Editors should use reliable sources such as CSPAN or any other reliable survey of presidential rankings. We can't use Wikipedia articles as a source reference. Combining the aggregate averages has not been sourced. Why should a 2011 survey be grouped with a completely different survey done in 1948? Research on Grant has changed over the years and this should be reflected in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You're the only one who has anything against the aggregate rating. Let's move on, already. Your POV-pushing is becoming disruptive to the article's progress. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am against using a Wikipedia article as a source reference for the article especially for an unsourced aggregate average ranking. For neutrality purposes I think that "much" needs to be removed from the lede since "far" was taken out. I am not POV pushing. I am all for emphasizing Grant's limitations as an administrator, at times he was terrible, and accept historical criticism of his economic management after the Panic of 1873. Grant relied excessively on Fish during his second Administration, particularly in vetoing the inflation bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I consider this matter closed unless further discussion is warranted. Thanks for editors who participated in the discussion. I am all for the article progression. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Next steps[edit]

The last round of clean-up and revision has done a world of good, to my mind. At the failed FA review, the delegate suggested an A-class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military. I think it's not a bad idea. Do you folks think we should go that route, or just go back to FAC? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(Off-point but there is still a cite needed tag.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Got it! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
More :( There is an uncited (although untagged) sentence about the deal to end reconstruction, I clicked on the article link and the only source redily available was [1] which does not really say that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentence at the end? I thought it was just a summary of what came before in that paragraph and didn't need a cite. But if you think so, I'll look at some more sources when I get home tonight. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Shrug. Who knows, who may be the next picky reviewer. Also, if it's supported by the earlier cite then just move the cite down, right? There is at least one other uncited end sentence like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus and Alanscottwalker for all you edits on the article. Looks great ! If the article passes the A-class review, then in my opinion that would give more clout to get Grant to FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sale of assets questions[edit]

Yes check.svg Done This has been taken care of with a bit more from Brands and Perry (you can see what Perry lists as assets in one my edit summaries to the article, if you are really curious). Thanks for the work and the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Our article talks about the sale of memorabilia, at the time of bankruptcy, but I am under the impression that all assets were sold, this would include, for example, whatever homes/stocks/etc he still owned? Can anyone look at their sources and confirm/expand? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant owed Vanderbilt $150,000 due to the Grant & Ward bankruptsy and I believe gave Vanderbilt memorabilia from his world tour and civil war. Vanderbilt later returned the memorabilia in full to Julia forgiving Grant's $150,000 debt. Grant may have had investments in a Mexican railroad and a Nevada silver mine. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I know he sold memorabilia, and that is of course a very poignant thing for him to have to do, but I was asking about his other property. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC) This says he sold "his home" [2] (probabely sale and lease back in NYC) but we know he had homes in NYC and Galena, (did he still own the one in Philly), I don't think he owned the one in Long Branch, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The one in Philly was gone by then, and Long Branch was a vacation rental. I'll look into the other homes some more this weekend, but my recollection was that the memorabilia covered (or was considered by Vanderbilt to cover) the total amount. I won't hang my hat on that until I consult the sources again, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of Grant's assets and his retirement were already depleted due to his world tour. I think whatever money he had left was sunk into Grant & Ward, his supposed retirement. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant still owned the Galena home and his last visit there was in 1880. He must have willed the home to his children whom later donated the home to the City of Galena in 1904. Source: Ulysses S. Grant Home Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
But the sale of assets was after 1880, and if Julia somehow got the home back later than it would not be Grant that willed it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this matters but Grant was given two stallions by the Sultan of Turkey on his world tour, one a pure bred Arabian. The horses apparently were used to sire horses to pull carriages. However, that venture went bust when automobiles took over horse drawn carriages. Those were worth some money. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Source: Ben Hur (May/Jun '47) Western Horseman General Ulysses S. Grant's Arabians

To reiterate the concern, the sale of memorabilia is very well noted repeatedly by everyone for obvious poignant reasons (and we should therefore note it too), but our article should not say that was all, if it was not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I found out a bit more on the horses. Grant gave the Arbian stallion to J.B. Houston of New York in 1883. Was this a payment for debt? I don't know. Grant gave the other stallion, Linden Tree, to his son Ulysses S. Grant Jr. in 1883. Prior in 1880, Randolph Huntington bred Grant's stallions in 1880, with or without Grant's permission or knowledge. The horses that were bred by Huntington in theory would be Grant's or his heirs. Unknown if Grant registered the horses in Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)