Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant

Welcome to mediation

Well intended but premature statement.

I guess I'll get started. There are two issues about General Order 11 here: briefly they are how much we should say, and what kind of thing we should say. They're best addressed separately: 1. Size. How much we should say is basically an argument over size limits. From my first involvement with this article years ago, keeping it down to a reasonable size has been a constant struggle. There are loads of books, articles, and websites that deal with Ulysses S. Grant. sorting through that information for a scholarly consensus and boiling down to the size of an encyclopedia article as been difficult, and even our early efforts were criticized at the article's FA candidacy, which led us to make further cuts and to push lengthier explanations of some topics into the family of sub-articles. The result, as pertains to the section in dispute here, was a compact 99-word description with links to longer articles for those who wished to know more: Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his military district and, on December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized Grant over his order Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided. Biographer Jean Edward Smith wrote that Grant's order was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." In the two months since then, there has been a long-running effort to add more (and to change the meaning what's written there, but I'll cover that separately below). The result has been this 156-word-long version: Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw trade in his department. The Treasury allowed Northern traders permits to trade, but banned them from trading with Confederates. Bribing federal officers, speculators attached themselves to Grant's army creating transportation and discipline problems. Grant believed Jewish merchants were trading with the enemy, breaking the trade regulations. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews as a class from the area. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized the order, Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Twenty-one days later, Grant rescinded the order, and the controversy subsided. Realizing his blunder, Grant apologized. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." Another biographer, Brooks D. Simpson, maintains that it was Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and were more successful than others, rather than his anti-Semitic views, that induced him to act. This new version is already the result of many compromises. I (and Alan, if I characterize his views correctly) would prefer the cleaner version that emerged from the FA process. We'd be willing even to let this current version stand, though, if it would mean an end to the talk page conflict. But the additional language Gwillhickers wants to add is a step too far. His 192-word proposal from the talk page is here: Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw trade in his department. The Treasury allowed Northern traders permits to trade, but banned them from trading with Confederates. Bribing federal officers, speculators attached themselves to Grant's army creating transportation and discipline problems. Grant believed Jewish merchants were trading with the enemy, breaking the trade regulations. After being warned by the War Dept that large shipments of gold were being brought in by Jewish speculators<Simpson> and when Grant's own father showed up with his Jewish partners seeking permits to trade in cotton,<Sarna> Grant issued General Orders No. 11 on December 17, 1862, expelling Jews as a class from the area. After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized the order, Lincoln demanded it be revoked. Twenty-one days later, Grant rescinded the order, and the controversy subsided. Realizing his blunder, Grant apologized. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." Another biographer, Brooks D. Simpson, maintains that it was Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders had a greater ability and were more successful than others, rather than his anti-Semitic views, that induced him to act. We've worked long and hard to keep this within the bare limits of what's considered an acceptable length for an article, and even got it to pass FA despite those length concerns. And that's not even including all he wants to add on the role of the cotton economy in Grant's campaigns, the role of escaped slaves in the army, etc. etc. I am very reluctant to see those gains chiseled away day by day until we return to the same bloated article that failed FA the first time. 2. Content. This is the thornier of the two points, I think.The difference between the two versions above is not just one of size, but of content. The FA-approved version from March is a brief recitation of the facts. The issue was a controversial one, even in 1862, and Grant's biographers since then have struggled to understand his motivations for such an out-of-character action. Grant left his biographers few clues, to this or any other facet of his life. Even William T. Sherman, who had known him since West Point, said of Grant "to me he is a mystery, and I believe he is a mystery to himself." For a man inscrutable to even his friends and biographers, I thought it best to stick to a simple narrative and not try to figure out what made the man tick. That's the job of the scholars, not of Wikipedia editors. Instead, we described the action itself, not the thoughts behind them. That's why the Smith quote that Grant's order was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history" sums up the situation perfectly. It describes the effect of the action, not the actor's motivations, and none of the other scholars cited in the article contest the point. Expelling the Jews was, by definition, anti-Semitic. Gwillhickers wants more, more even than the sources can give us. As best I can tell, he wants to find a way to discuss the incident without labelling Grant as an anti-Semite. To do so, he goes to extraordinary lengths to find a way to say that what Grant did may have adversly affected the Jews, but that it wasn't caused by anti-Semitism. The whole conversation is uncomfortable, to say the least. He makes points like the idea that Grant's concern "disproportionate numbers of Jewish merchants collaborating with the enemy so they can line their pockets", or "Grant's anti-semitic remarks were in reference to the speculators and not aimed at the Jewish people and religion." It's also worth noting that he's stretched the sources to the breaking point to make his point. Anyone reading his proposed paragraph would think that Brooks Simpson sought to excuse Grant's actions and downplay them. That is not the case. Simpson writes that while Grant protested that he was not an anti-Semite, "there was a significant difference between assailing people for what they did and attacking them because of their religious faith, and Grant crossed this line." A fair reading of those pages in Simpson make Grant look more anti-Semitic, not less. (I'd be happy to scan and e-mail them to anyone who doesn't have access to the book.) As to Jonathan Sarna's book, When General Grant Expelled the Jews, Gwillickers uses it in two ways. That there is an entire book about the incident means, to him, that it must be important, and we must expand the section in the article about it. When it comes to the content of that book, though, he generally rejects the author's conclusions. He denies that "Sarna, a Jewish historian," adequately explains Grant's actions and motivations, and instead pushing a tale of Jews smuggling gold to the rebels as the main issues here. Simpson does mention that the War Department received a complaint about that, but does not show or even claim that this was Grant's entire motivation, nor does that author attempt, as Gwillhickers does, to use this telegram to excuse Grant's anti-Semitism. Long story short: there's a lot to be said about Grant and General Order #11, but the best place to do that is in the article about it and the best way to explain it is a straoghtforward statement of the scholarly consensus of what happened, not pushing one theory or another as to why it happened. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see everyone has signed in and is ready to go. Thank you for your prompt responses. Please follow along and give me only what I ask for. This is a structured format and its not like the article talk page but it's also not like Arbcom so please don't make long winded posts or opening statements. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Expectations

What I would like is for each participant to SUMMARIZE in 250 words or less what they see as the general goal of this mediation. Please do not include sources or footnotes or other technical aspects of the dispute. I just want to have a general idea of what each participant is looking for from this mediation. Please keep it brief and to the point. Thanking you in advance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Drastically increase communication - or at least have the mediator do the communication for us (since loooong page discussion has not done it). End badgering and bludgeoning and filibustering. Bring a close (since it does not appaer to be able to die by itself) the well trodden (over and over again) talking about the same stuff - it's not good for editors, nor the article. Return to the policy/consensus FAC version on General Order 11 (or very close to it) because expansion, and the GO11 expansion in particular is not improvement -- it's the opposite, a detriment - in part that is because even more context will be required if the expansions wanted are made (Wikipedia cannot do one sided expansion). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• That editors can reasonably work well together having the same goal of presenting Ulysses S. Grant article as neutrally and reliable as possible. Presenting the article with the most recent research on Grant's GO11 is best in my opinion. I am not opposed to expansion if the expansion is signifigant, increases neutrality, and allows the reader to make their own opinions on Grant and GO11. I don't believe that expansion is a detriment under those guidelines. I believe the actual GO11 article could be expanded giving more detail and perspective. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Alan—what we want most is an end to it. We should decide how long the section will be, and what should be in it. Once we decide, we should all agree to live with that consensus. I'd prefer the old version: short and descriptive of the facts of the order, not the motivations (there's no scholarly consensus on the motivations, only the effects). Sorry for the long-windedness above! I'm new to this sort of thing, thought that's what you wanted. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to see a summary, but one that includes more basic and definitive facts, a couple of which have been blocked by a marginal consensus. It's been claimed that the addition of one sentence to the existing paragraph would somehow transform the account from a summary into something that would have "too much weight", which I find sort of puzzling, as again, only one additional sentence has been proposed. It seems more attention has been given to the word count of this paragraph, than has the historical narrative. I believe we should simply include the important and basic facts and let readers sort out matters of anti-semitism as it pertains to Grant. The subject has more weight than some have admitted, involving Grant, Lincoln, the War Dept, collaboration and trading with gold with the Confederates, anti-semitism, and more. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for giving a candid and to the point summary of what you'd like us to accomplish here. I've read all of your comments above and I'm going to take some time today to scan some of the prior discussions on the talk page. Then I'm going to start a discussion with what I hope to be a new approach to the issues. Hopefully it will help us take a fresh look at the dispute and sort through things without having to have the same conversations all over again. Thanks for you patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: - thanks for your time and effort. You've probably already noticed, but just in case you haven't, discussion of this topic began on the talk page here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

First Discussion: Main points of the summary paragraph

OK, I'd like to first have a general discussion. No need to make special sections for each person. You can talk to each other if you want to.......... This mediation is in reference to Grant's General Order No. 11. I think most everyone is in agreement that GO11 is a notable event in Grant's life and that it is supported by reliable sources. So the main question is how should it be represented in Grant's bio. GO11 has its own article but a summary of that subarticle needs to appear in the main article. Our task then is to write a one paragraph summary of the General Order No. 11 article and place it in Grant's bio. Given that broadly defined goal, I'd like to know what are the main points that each person feels should be included in that summary paragraph (however short or long it might be). Don't worry about sources or precise language at this time. We'll get into all that later. For now, just give me, in broad strokes, the 3 or 4 main points that could/would/should be in a neutral, unduly weighted summary of the GO11 article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (Let me first state an assumption - I believe this assumption is not only proved on the substance, here, but it is vitally important in the consensus functioning of Wikipedia: The FAC version, after literally years of successive review, complied with all Wikipedia policy - this hardly means that improvement cannot be made but it is very difficult to do so - without offending one of the multiple demands of wikipedia content policy). Turning to the needed content and analysis:

• Grant was a very busy man: This was made clear by the context in the FAC version amidst the battles and other incidents.
• Grant was also responsible for cotton trade in his area: As the FAC began:"Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his military district"
• Grant issued "antisemitic" (there is no dispute that the order is antisemitic (ie anti Jewish)) Order 11, and that order is historically of important significance - an official act. Grant states in the order he thought "the Jews as a class" were responsible for breaching trade regulations, harming his military command: As the FAC said: "on December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields. . . .Biographer Jean Edward Smith wrote that Grant's order was "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history."
• There was widespread outrage over the order and Lincoln ordered it rescinded: Thus, the FAC: "After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized Grant over his order Lincoln demanded it be revoked.Grant rescinded the order and the controversy subsided."
• It is true that Grant later made amends, but this was covered in the FAC, in chronological order at the time it was done in 1868, five years later. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Alan explained it perfectly. The FAC version had everything that need to be said about the order. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy777's view:

• Grant was a general fighting the Confederacy and he believed trade with the Confederacy was helping the Confederate cause...Both Sherman and Grant did not want to trade during the War and that the trade was Lincoln's policy.
• GO11 was anti-semitic targeting Jewish families. In that I agree with Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus. I believe a signifigant addition is to add that the order was carried out and that at least over 20 families were removed from Grant's district. This was a real order that caused Jewish families grief. One Jewish officer resigned from Grant's staff.
• Mention that Grant held anti-semitic views common for his times. This is similar to Thomas Jefferson holding racial views of African Americans common for his times.
• Concerning neutrality, in addition to mentioning Grant's apology there needs to be mentioned that Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that stated : " ...it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political'..."

Discussion of GO11 in the article should not be held under the contraints of FAC paragraph version in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a notable event in Grant's life and reflects deeply on the subject of this biography -- Grant. The order itself was obviously anti-semetic but this subject deserves to be better covered in this Featured Article, whose policy is that notable events be well covered and comprehensive. Currently we have something that is not even a good outline of this complex event. The FAC version had only one closing comment and several editors here worked on creating an "expanded" (the current) version which included a balancing comment from another of Grant's biographers. Now one of those same editors wants to revert to the FAC version and is willing to throw all the discussion, time and effort out the window with the generic claim that the topic is well covered. In any case, the current version does not mention two definitive and important facts that occurred shortly before Grant issued the General Order, outlined in bold in one sentence here. Several more facts should be added but the addition of these two are sufficient if we must keep this topic limited in its scope. The addition of this one sentence isn't anything that is going to change the overall "weight" of the existing paragraph. As I've always maintained, we should simply include the most basic and definitive facts and let readers sort out matters of opinion. Leaving out important circumstances could easily lead a reader to believe that Grant's primary motive was anti-semitism. Especially with language that reads "Grant believed Jewish merchants..." and "Grant's perception that Jewish cotton traders..." -- more than suggesting that it was some sort of anti-semitic vision that primarily prompted Grant to issue the Order while he was in the middle of a war. The current version is very sketchy and incomplete in that regard. FA doesn't mean the article can't be improved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, thanks for the comments but could please list the 3-4 main points that you feel should be in the paragraph which summarizes the GO11 event and article? Thanks. When that is done I'll summarize and try to guide a discussion. Oh, and a PS, please refrain from making references to other editors. Let's keep our comments strictly about content. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Point one: Cover the several basic events that led up to when Grant issued the General Order. i.e.Historical context. Point two: Cover the basic wording of the Order i.e."Jews as a class", and that Jews in particular were expelled from the territory. Point three: Cover Grant's apology. Point four: Close the paragraph with a balanced commentary by two of Grant's biographers. -- In essence we should at least keep the current version, and simply add the facts (which I've pointed out previously) that occurred just before Grant issued the Order. As this is a controversial issue, it's important that we include as many basic facts as is practical. That would be neutral and represent all POV's. I'm hoping that we concentrate more on how inclusive the historical narrative is rather than the number of words used, keeping in mind of course that we provide a well rounded summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed main points and discussion

Ok I see a lot of common ground here, which is encouraging. I think most of the dispute is about the details of how the main points are conveyed ie what language is used and how much weight is given to each point or subpoints. The devil is in the details as they say. So.... before we get lost in the details, let's agree on a series of main points that should be included in the paragraph. Then we can discuss each point in more detail and together craft language that not everyone will like but that they can live with. So.... here is my proposed series of main points. Please make suggestions for revisions so we can come up with a list of main points that we can all agree on.

The paragraph describing General Order 11 should include the following points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order
6. Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

Comments? Suggested revisions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That's essentially all correct. I'd change #5 to "There was a public backlash and President Lincoln ordered Grant to rescind the order, which he did." As to #6, he apologized at the time, and again five years later when running for president. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find him apologizing at the time. My understanding is Grant revoked it (as ordered) and was silent on it (perhaps he hoped to never speak of it again, as we know he refused to in his memoirs) but then in 1868 he did address it and repudiated it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with this issue will tell you there are RS's that say Grant apologized to Jewish community leaders, per the sourced statement in the last paragraph in the Shiloh section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) In an interview with Rabbi E.B.M. Browne on Aug. 27, 1875. Grant also explained that the Order was in great part the product of haste, petulance and thoughtlessness : During war times these nice distinctions (concern for anti-semitism) were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves. (emphasis added) <Stephen V. Ash, p.511> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree to the above following points proposed. I don't believe Grant apologized immediately after he rescinded the order. He did apologize in 1868...But remember he served as President for 8 years and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the only 19th Century President to sign a Civil Rights law. This adds neutrality. That law stated it was the governments duty to protect persons regardless of race or religion. In essense a total reversal or repudiation of GO11. I believe adding the Civil Rights Act in the paragraph is appropriate. I would leave out that Grant immediately apoligized. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Gwillhickers, no one is disputing he apologized - all I asked for was evidence of an apology in 1863 or there about, when he rescinded the order -- neither of those sources are at the time he revoked the order - the earliest is five years later Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

editbreak2

Keithbob's point three above will need good clarification, per the facts mentioned. Grant and many others knew that the Confederates were receiving gold from Jewish speculators for their cotton, greatly prolonging the war.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sherman also saw the problem of speculators as expressed in a letter to his wife Ellen
  "Memphis was full of Jews & speculators buying cotton for gold & (federal) treasury notes, the very thing the confederates wanted, money. I am satisfied that the (Confederate) army got enough money & supplies from this Quarter to last a year." Flood, 2005, p.144

• Smith, 2001, p.225 "...trade was permitted so long as the traders held permits and did not cross into enemy territory, and did not trade in gold" and "Although most of the traders were not Jewish, several of the most visible were".
• Reed, 1882, The Vicksburg Campaign Badeau says that Gen. Grant was from the first opposed to this trade, and that he demonstrated to the administration that it furnished supplies to the enemy, and enabled them to continue the war.... p.147 (emphasis added)
• Dana, 1913, Recollections of the Civil War, p.18 Dana, in a letter of January 21, 1863, writes: Plenty of cotton is brought in from beyond our lines, especially by the agency of Jewish traders, who pay for it ostensibly in Treasury notes, but really in gold., Charles Dana, Assistant Secretary of War.

As a Commanding General in the middle of the war it requires no stretch of the imagination to realize that military interests were the primary reason Grant over reacted, though again, we do not say what caused him to issue the order. All we can do is present the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Er . . . we already know they blamed the Jews. There was no trial of anyone to "prove" anything. (Dana, as multiple sources point out was profiting from the cotton trade) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The assumption that Jews were blamed simply because of anti-semitism alone, such that it was, is absurd and reeks of modern day post WWii notions. There were plenty of first hand accounts that supported the idea that Jewish speculators were a very big part of the problem, if not the biggest. Remember also, as Cm' pointed out, one of Grant's staff members, hand picked by Grant, was Jewish, which ought to put in perspective how "anti-semitic" Grant was in reality. Again, we don't say what and who prompted Grant the most, all we can do is present the basic facts, per Reliable Sources, as I've outlined previously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That the Jews were blamed is not an assumption that's in the Order. That the same order is antisemetic is not in dispute by the sources, nor anyone. But your ideas on "Post WWII notions" is entirely irrelevant, and I do hope we do not have to discuss them here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No one said that order did not say "Jews as a class", etc, so yes, let's end this line of discussion and concentrate on what facts need to be included in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All that needs to be mentioned is that the trade policy was Lincoln's and that Grant and Sherman opposed trading because they believed that prolonged the war. All other "facts" or "speculations" should be in main GO11 article. Smith's (2001) assessement is from the 21 century post WWII Holocaust. I suggest that only adding the statement "In 2001 historian Smith stated....". We don't have to add alot to balloon the paragraph. We need to leave room for the reader to make their own assessments. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The dedicated article for the General Order is for indepth and detailed coverage and should overlap well with our paragraph here. I agree with Cm' on one note, that this paragraph ...should not be held under the constraints of FAC paragraph version. The short passage we are attempting to author is a summary, which doesn't mean the topic should read like a patrol report from one person's perspective. It's a chapter in Grant's biography. The subject has much weight, not in the order of Vicksburg or Appomatox perhaps, but well enough, all the many things considered. As such, we can only add the important facts and let readers decide what and why prompted Grant to over react. Because this is a summary it's important to include all the basic and eminent circumstances that Grant was surrounded with during war. Grant's pressing military concerns should not be understated for the sake of word count. Overall we should provide good scope of this subject which doesn't require the reader to leave the biography to basically understand what was occurring at that juncture in the Civil War. One good paragraph could easily accomplish this. As Cm' also suggested, we could mention the number of Jewish families that were expelled as a result of Grant's hasty order, for additional and important historical context and added balance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We seem to be reverting to article talk page argumentations...Let's try to go forward. This was Grant's most aggressive order in all the war. The first sentence needs to establish Grant was an aggressive general. We can't put in the article that Grant got news of the gold shipments because there is no record Grant got news of the gold shipments. We can mention Grant's father came into camp asking for a trade permit for "Mack & Brothers" We can't say this is why GO11 was issued. There are so many unanswered questions we can't put in the paragraph. Was Grant upset troops were ordered to McClernand? Was Grant upset over his father's visit? Did Grant get the letter about the gold shipments ? Why was Grant shielded from protests by Jewish families ? Was Grant trying to embarrass Lincoln because he detested his trade policy ? The ??? can go on and on...Yes. We do need to mention that over 20 or almost 30 Jewish families were taken from their homes. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This has already been addressed. There are reliable sources that say Grant was warned by other officers and the War Department about gold, and the prospect of this gold helping the rebel war effort is quite established, again with reliable sources, new and old. We simply need to include this in the existing paragrap. Not doing so will grossly understate Grant's military concerns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First we need to establish that FAC restrictions on the paragraph have been removed. I favor FAC restrictions on the paragraph be removed, but I do not favor unnecessarily ballooning the paragraph. What reliable sources state that Grant's staff or other officers told Grant about the gold shipments ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Featured articles need to be kept up to featured article standards. If not, they get de-featured. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Coemgenus. Isn't that up to Keithbob the mediator? That is why we are in meditation. In order to proceed we need to have some ruling if expansion of the paragraph is allowed rather then reversion to FAC status. Articles need to have room to increase neutrality and reliablity. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What I think Coemgenus is saying is that the FAC consensus process already determined that the FAC version met FAC standards including compliance with policy. We cannot undo that (without going through FAC process). Thus, the WP:ONUS is in particular on those who wish to add more and we all have to come to a consensus on what, if anything, to add in mediation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Main points and discussion part II

I understand that some folks want to add additional details to the main points. That is understandable. My proposed list of main points is just a rough outline of what we want to say in the paragraph about GO11. As we proceed through each point we can discuss precise phrasing, language, and sources, in more detail. Meanwhile, can someone point me to the relevant guidelines on FAC standards and restrictions? I'd like to understand this issue a little better. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure:

"For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus." -- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (emphasis added).

Wikipedia:Featured article criteria:

"A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

FA criteria collapsed for optimal navigation of the thread

It is— well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style."

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

From what I read there is nothing that states FAC is permanent or further editing on the article is forbidden. Wikipedia is an ongoing open editing format. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No one said that and that is a deliberate or mistaken take on our position. Wikipedia honors consensus. The consensus has been established by Wikipedia process that the the article version meets policy and the other FAC criteria. Not only that but two users here entirely support that consensus that has already been established. It is the WP:ONUS of those who want to move from that to convince, whether changes should be made. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"The concensus has been established" ? Respectfully, I was not part of the FAC discussion on concensus nor do I recall being invited. If one takes the FAC view then there can be no more editing since "concensus" has already been reached. Again this is up to Keithbob to determine since Keithbob is mediator of this discussion. I am not for ballooning the paragraph but allowing edits that will improve neutrality and reliablity. For example I already mentioned adding "In 2001..." in reference to the Smith quote since Smith represents 21 century historical assessment. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You were invited, everyone was. Do I need to find diff's where the FAC was discussed and you were there? Yes the FAC consensus has been established, or else it never would have nor could have been promoted. And no, you are entirely incorrect about my "FAC view" - that is not what I said (perhaps you should re-read each of my comments -- and policy cited -- beginning with my first comment in the "Expectations" section). It appears we are in the lack of communication stage once again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy, you've been editing the article and discussing it on the talk page throughout this whole process. Your edits and talk page input have contributed to the consensus all the while. How can you say you weren't a part of it? If Alan and I were the only ones writing it, the article would look very different. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I have contributed to the article's talk page but was not involved directly in any FAC concensus decisions or was told to put my views in the article's talk page rather then FAC discussion. That is in the past. The article has since gone under revisions that make the article more reliable and neutral. Why can't the same standards be applied to the GO11 paragraph? FAC restrictions on the paragraph are too limiting in scope. A whole book by Sarna (2012) was written on the subject. At the same time I am baffled how Bonekemper (2012) ignored the subject in his book Grant and Lee. Again. I am not for ballooning the paragraph by "speculation" or "fact" statements that can be put in the main GO11 article. Keithbob can make this decision as to whether allowing expansion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Keithbob is here to facilitate consensus - he cannot do so by ignoring it (and ignoring two editors in this discussion who adhere to that consensus) and, I'm sorry but respectfully, you cannot avoid carrying your burden under WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Look where we are, right now, we have two editors that adhere to the FAC version, we have one editor that wants something added, but not what yet another editor wants added. It is the proponent's of any added content who have the burden - but they have not even tried yet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are we in meditation then if expansion is forbidden by "concensus" on GO11. This was Coemgenus' idea. There are two for expansion and two against. Kiethbob is in charge of concensus yes...But the real question is whether expansion is allowed in the first place...then editors can decide what expansion is allowed. An opinion from Kiethbob would be helpful to continue this conversation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Because we obviously need a communicator between us. You have not been listening for the past month, nor in this mediation, if you can even begin to argue that Coemgenus and I will not consider some changes from the FAC version - we are skeptical, and there are things we will not agree to but that's just the way consensus works. But again look at what we are faced with right now: we have one editor that wants something added, but not what yet another editor wants added, and it is the proponent's of any added content who have the burden to achieve consensus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, and 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think both points of view are correct in this regard. WP is a stream not a statue. It is a constant work in progress and nothing is written in stone and articles, even FA articles, can always be improved. At the same time FA is WP's top tier of articles and FA status is bestowed only after careful development and rigorous examination by a variety of parties. As such, that consensus that created the FA level article should be respected regardless of whether an editor was involved in that consensus or not. So changes can be made, but they should be made carefully and with good reason and purpose. But that is exactly what we are doing here in this mediation. Taking the time to go through everything carefully and come to a consensus about what is best for the article and the reader. Regarding WP:ONUS this is a guideline that I often see misused in disputes. All WP:ONUS says is that additions or changes must be sourced and that consensus rules on WP and if something is unsourced then the editor proposing the new text needs to provide a source. It does not say that one side is right until the other side proves it wrong. It just tells us we shouldn't force change via edit warring etc. Instead we are expected to provide sources, to discuss on the talk page, at a noticeboard, via an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution, until a consensus develops about that proposed change. So let's drop this discussion about FA and onus as I don't see it as productive. Let's just continue looking at the content, the sources and giving proper weight to the sources regarding this one event in the life and career of Grant. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

If I am understanding you correctly, I'm afraid I cannot agree with that view of WP:ONUS - ONUS, a policy not a guideline, begins with the proposition that the information is verifiable - that there is a source for it - the matter ONUS deals with is whether there is a consensus for it to go in the article (or should it go in another artcile) not whether there is a source for it. (perhaps you are thinking of WP:BURDEN which is a different section of policy - so, it would be unreasonable to construe ONUS as restating BURDEN - ONUS deals with consensus and undue and places the onus for "inclusion", not the burden for the source, which is already covered in BURDEN). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree Keithbob. Thanks. We can continue to look at the content. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points Alan, BURDEN and ONUS are both parts of the same policy, WP:V. I was commenting on BURDEN and ONUS simultaneously since they are two aspects of the same policy. The former requires a verifiable source the latter requires consensus. I don't think anyone here is suggesting we create content without a source or without consensus so I'd request that we move on to discussion of the main points. Thank you for your clarification and your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We've been down this road more than once. All statements are and will be backed by reliable sources, so let's try to remain focused on how much content and not sidetrack matters any further. Agree with Cm' and Kiethbob, FA doesn't mean the article can not be improved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point - having a reliable source is not enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

We've been down this road more than once. The reliable source in question, Simpson, is used a number of times in the FA, you can't just up and decide to ignore certain items because they don't fit your perception of matters. The Warning and letter involved is also supported by Simon, who refers to the letter in the 'Registry of Letters'. The warning itself is consistent with other warnings Grant received from Asst.Secretary of War Charles Dana, along with Sherman and other officers. No more opinions please. Any further objections need to be outlined, in no uncertain terms, with actual WP policy. -- 159.83.4.1 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

These arguments have already been rejected on a the talk page - a single secondary source does not make a properly represented, due, summary scholarly consensus (a primary source on the same issue does not add to that). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

While most items are only cited with one source in the first place you still need to start citing WP policy at this point. Could you simply cite the policy that requires us to use more than one reliable source and one primary source? i.e. Two sources -- consistent with other such warnings about gold, collaboration, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I will focus on what I have been asked to focus on by the mediator, but "a properly represented, due, summary scholarly consensus" does cite policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anyone violating any policies or guidelines in this mediation up to this point. So a discussion about policy is not helpful at this time. Let's stick to discussion of content and sources and leave the policy debates for another time. Please, not more posts in this thread. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of first main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order
6. Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

• Ok let's discuss our main points one by one. After we've gained some agreement on the content for one main point I'll create a new section for the next main point. At the start of each section I'll post the main points in total just as a reference. However, please limit the discussion to the single point under consideration. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

So now let's discuss this point only:

• Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War

Since the GO11 event is covered in the Civil War section of the Bio and in the subsection of Shilo. I don't think we need to say much. At present we have half a sentence which says: Along with his military responsibilities. Is this sufficient to convey to the reader that Grant was leading troops in the Civil War at the time of GO11?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that and the general context are enough. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree but would add that Grant was "aggressively" leading Union troops into battle against the Confederates. Bonekemper (2012) believed Grant was an aggressive general. Grant had two victories prior to GO11 Iuka and Corinth Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agree -- the General Order advent unfolded as Grant was getting ready to move on Vicksburg, while the Order itself was issued from Grant's HQ for the Vicksburg campaign. Before that his HQ is where his father and company also came seeking trading permits from Grant. We should also make clear that the situation leading up to the actual battle was unstable, with fleeing blacks and collaborators helping the rebels.
• At this point it appears the only thing that is really in dispute is content -- how many facts we are going to include to comprehensively cover point three. There is no pressing reason why we should not cover this aspect well, and with as many basic facts as is practical. We should also mention that Grant, Sherman, Dana and many others saw the cotton trading and collaborating situation as something directly responsible for helping the rebels with supply and thus greatly prolonging the war. It was much more than a mere "perception". Too many people saw what was occurring. As a Commanding General in the middle of a war, not covering Grant's military motives (very) well would indeed leave the readers with a sketchy picture and should not be overshadowed with 20th century notions that often tend to ignore such considerations. Also, to give added perspective to point five we also might want to quote Grant : "During war times these nice distinctions (concern for feelings of anti-semitism) were disregarded, we had no time to handle things with kid gloves." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to add alot of information, but add that Grant was an aggressive general, i.e. no "kid gloves". We need to allow the reader to make the distinction. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There's good reason not to add "aggressively", not because it's inaccurate, just because it's bad writing. I tend to avoid adverbs when I can; if we want to show that Grant was aggressive, we should describe the actions that were aggressive, not just lazily characterize it. Show, not tell. But I think we're getting beyond the scope of the mediation. Should we save this one for later? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

On page 669 of Bonekemper (2012) Grant and Lee the "aggressiveness of" Grant is listed on multiple pages. I would not call that lazy. Yes. I agree show Grant's aggressive actions. What is unsettling possibly is how "aggressive" Grant could be to win the war. Iuka and Corinth represent Grant's aggressiveness. Remember Grant was the most winning General of the American Civil War. We might as well get out in the open now. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I simple solution would be to transfer information of Iuka and Corinth into the GO11 paragraph. Nothing need be added. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No kid gloves -- let the readers decide? Sure, and on the same note, we can get rid of Smith's "blatant", and let the readers decide there also. Is Smith's latter day comment more important that Grant's own words on this matter? In any case, we need to continue moving away from this notion that the topic not be covered well in a summary. The current paragraph is only 156 words. This mole-hill has been turned into a mountain with this prolonged and rigid fixation on paragraph length. More importantly, we need to relate the pressing military situations Grant was faced with regarding collaborators helping to fund and prolong the war effort. Currently all we have is "bribed federal officers -- transportation and discipline problems" and "breaking the trade regulations". This hardly describes the overall situation. There is nothing in the text to indicate the serious problem of rebels getting gold and supply from collaborators, allowing them to continue the war, which is why Grant issued the order in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Direction from Keithbob would be appropriate right now. We seem to be at a log jam in conversation. The gold shipment is speculation. There was no order from Grant to stop any gold shipments. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, we have two reliable sources that support the warning from the war dept about gold -- and this is all consistent with the warnings Grant received from Dana, Sherman and other officers. This wasn't a speculation. Yes, I think , we need direction from Kiethbob at this point. It seems we've given him more than a sample of the arguments and how they have been dragged out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

What sources state Dana, Sherman, and other officers informed Grant of gold shipments and when? Remember Grant did not give any specific violation in GO11, just a blanket statement all Treasury Department rules were violated. That is why pin pointing any specific reasons for issueing GO11 speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

editbreak3

• Where are you getting the idea that Dana and Sherman warned Grant of "gold shipments"? What these two men actually stated is written clearly above. As someone as well read in Grant as you are I'm sure you can find where it indicates that Grant received complaints/warnings about Jewish speculators trading in gold and/or Treasury notes and breaking trade regulations from other officers -- along with a general warning from the War Department about cotton trading helping the rebels. Out of curiosity and before I tell you, are you now saying you are not aware of these things? If you're not, please tell me, so I can better help you during these discussions.
• The War Department, however, felt that these Northern dollars would end up financing the Confederate Army and took a negative view. Flood, 2012, p.143

• Sherman shared his views with Grant. Brands, 2012, p.202

• Again, we don't say what prompted Grant per se, all we do is include important facts. Being warned by multiple sources about trading in gold, in general, which greatly helped the rebel war effort, should be common knowledge for you. Anyone who wants to convey a clear narrative of the situation Grant was faced with should welcome this content. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of first main point- straw poll

OK, let's stay on track. What we are discussing is how to verbalize the first main point which is:

• Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War

At present that main point is represented by the phrase:

• Along with his military responsibilities

Let's take an informal straw poll to see where we are at on this issue and see if further discussion is needed or if there is already an existing consensus.

• The current phase, Along with his military responsibilities sufficiently summarizes the first main point and does not need any additions or changes.

Please respond to this above statement with a yes I agree or no I disagree iVote. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 06:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• No, I disagree -- I would add that Grant was fighting the Confederate Armies...Iuka and Corinth are examples...How about "Along with his military responsibilities fighting the western Confederate Armies" This conveys that Grant was an active general in the Civil War in the South during the cotton trade. Something to this effect would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus that the phrase "Along with his military responsibilities" is sufficient. However there is a specific proposal on the table (and I like specific proposals) to add a few additional words. I see no harm in taking a moment to comment on this suggestion before moving forward to point #2. Any comments from editors other than the editor putting forth the proposal? How do you feel about the proposed phrase:

• Along with his military responsibilities fighting the western Confederate Armies.........
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think we run the risk of ballooning the paragraph unduly - any addition in isolation can't really be considered in isolation (and luka and corinth in text are just previously discussed) - so perhaps we can revisit this later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any doubt at that point in the article that his military responsibilities involve fighting the rebels? I see no need to restate that very obvious fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not about doubt but rather accuracy.Military responsibilities does not neccessarily convey Grant was an aggressive general fighting the Confederacy and also leaves open what are military responsibilities. According to Simon Grant believed GO11 was giving him an advantage over the fighting the Confederacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What about this "In addition to fighting the western Confederate Armies, Grant was in charge of the cotton trade in his military department." Cmguy777 (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Keithbob wants you 'the proposer' to comment in this section, so it would not be good of us to reply in substance, here, now - that won't mean we are ignoring you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a right to this discussion, disagree, or defend my position. I have made an agreement to participate in this discussion. Are you speaking for Keithbob ? Cmguy777 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I told you my understanding of what a structured mediation is and the multiple requests of Keithbob, thoughout, including:"give me only what I ask for" and "I see no harm in taking a moment to comment on this suggestion before moving forward to point #2. Any comments from editors other than the editor putting forth the proposal?" If people just talk and talk, we already know that leads to just endless nothing, which is why we came to mediation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a natural instinct to defend ones position. Of course I want other editors to comment. Yes. Keithbob is the mediator to guide us to consensus. I believe Keithbob wanted other editors to comment on my proposal. I was commenting on what other editors had to say. I don't want to lead to endless conversation so I will wait for input from Keithbob. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Other editors can disregard my response statements in the interest of discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your continued civility and professionalism. Disputes are never easy. It seems that those that oppose additions are not inclined to expand the phrase even after further discussion. Keep in mind that readers can click the link to the full article on GO11 to get more detail. With that in mind, let's move on.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 2nd main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War = Along with his military responsibilities
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

We are now discussing point #2: Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district. Any suggestions for appropriate text?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• ". . .Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I think that works. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• Aren't points one and two covered with the same short sentence in the existing paragraph? The existing sentence looks best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
• That depends. The trade was out of control and Grant could not completely enforce all the rules. The trade policy was Lincoln's. Grant did not want to trade during the Civil War and he did not have authority to abolish the trade. I suggest adding the either phrases "authorized by Lincoln" or "authorized by the Treasury Department." be added for claryfication. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We have four proposed versions:

1. Grant oversaw trade in his department [note: this is the current text in the article])
2. Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district.
3. Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district [as] authorized by Lincoln
4. Grant was also in charge of the cotton trade in his district [as] authorized by the Treasury Department.

Would participants like to indicate which one is their first choice and which one would be their second choice? This is just for the purpose of discussion and you can change your mind, if needed, as the discussion proceeds. But for now, just to see where we might have some common ground, can you indicate first and second choices?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say let's just use the first version. There's no sense going down the rabbit hole of who authorized what—it's a distraction to the reader that adds nothing to the article. My second choice would be the second on the list, I guess, but I think "oversaw" is better than "was in charge of" just as a matter of style. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I do like the word "oversaw" rather then "in charge of". Grant was more of a manager or enforcer of Lincoln's or the Treasury Department's instructions. I suggest a combination of both # 1 and # 4. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Any of the above work okay, but a passage with context always works better. -- This way we're not 'requiring' the reader to hop to another page every few sentences just to understand the basics. Regarding Lincoln v Treasury Dept -- wouldn't Lincoln have say over the Treasury? I would use the statement that mentions Lincoln, using the phrase 'oversaw'. Btw, we should make the general statement that Grant disapproved over the cotton trading from the start -- even before he had issues with Jewish speculators. The existing paragraph doesn't mention this. We might want to mention that here.
Grant also oversaw the cotton trade in his district [as] authorized by Lincoln but had always opposed the practice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I like Gwillhicker's suggestion but would change "district" to "department". Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: ...Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his department but had always opposed the practice. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Did Grant oppose the ongoing cotton trade, or did he oppose the policy that made it his responsibility? I don't remember reading either in the sources (which is not to say it's not there, somewhere). --Coemgenus (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This was previously outlined above, here and here. Grant expressed his dislike for the trade as he (and others) feared it would help fund the rebel war effort. In fact Grant appealed to the Treasury Dept but they declined and instead made a bunch of rules that were virtually impossible to effectively enforce.<Flood, 2005, p.143> <Smith, 2001, p.225> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Flood (2005) Grant and Sherman pages 143-144 refering to both Grant and Sherman stated: "...as they saw it, while brave Northern boys died, profiteers poured into the South to trade with the enemy, ruining discipline in Union Army camps and creating bad feeling among the men..." I believe this would mean Grant opposed the cotton trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant's biggest objection it would seem was that the cotton trading was helping the rebel war effort, but all we need to say is that Grant had always opposed such trading, as did Sherman, the War Dept and others. Somewhere in the narrative we should make this clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we are not discussing, at this time, Grant's attitude towards the cotton trade. We are only establishing that he had authority over (or oversaw or was in charge of) the cotton trade. In the next main point (#3) we will craft text to convey Grant's attitude towards the cotton trade. With this is in mind the text currently in the article [Grant oversaw trade in his department] seems to have the broadest base of support as indicated by these comments:

• I'd say let's just use the first version. -- Coemgenus
• Fine.-- Alanscottwalker
• I do like the word "oversaw" rather then "in charge of"…..I suggest a combination of both # 1 and # 4. --- User:Cmguy777
• Any of the above work okay, but a passage with context always works better. -- Gwillhickers

Therefore it seems like some variation of the current text might be the most satisfying to the most participants:

1. Grant oversaw trade in his department [current article text]
2. Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his department
3. Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district

Thoughts? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say 2 is the best and most accurate description, possibly adding, "...having authority to give permits to traders..." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that more context is needed. We need a better opening statement for this topic.
• The three choices above tend to read like a dictionary entry. The passage/summary overall will need a fair amount of context, as this is a rather complex and controversial issue. Also, expressing that Grant was against the trading from the beginning would be well placed near or at the beginning and would set the tone for the narrative that follows.It seems we need a 4th choice, one that is more comprehensive that the readers will better appreciate. Currently this 'summary' doesn't even mention that Grant was a Commanding General, or his feelings about the trading.

Proposal for opening sentence: Along with his military responsibilities as a Commanding General, Grant oversaw cotton trade in his department, which he and others had been opposed to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think #2 is best. #1 is fine, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Keithbob: Why is the phrase 'Along with his military responsibilities' not included in choice # 1 (current article text)? Is it possible to include choices that have a bit more context? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We are crafting an opening sentence for the paragraph on GO11. We are going one small step at a time and building on each prior consensus. We already have a consensus to start with the phrase: "Along with his military responsibilities". Now we are adding to that phrase, a second phrase such as one of the three suggested above. So far two of the four editors have indicated they like #2 from the above list of three. So a complete sentence might look like:

• In addition to his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his department.

This is just the opening sentence. There will be opportunity for give further context in subsequent sentences.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I would add to the above sentence..."...including granting trade permits..." Mentioning Grant as Commanding General and that he opposed Lincoln's trade policy could mentioned in the next sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Prefer 3, I don't prefer the rather legalistic use of "department" as it's never explained what a department is in the article (it actually sounds like an agency not a geographic region) and it's rather unnecessary to have that complexity - the Army of the Tennessee controlled a region (district) and he was the head of it - and he exiled people from that area. (I can live with department but I think it is poor plain summary, here) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob:, Okay, I wasn't sure that was included when you presented the choices as shown above. Agree with ASW. The term 'department' doesn't really nail the idea. 'Department' can mean a branch or office of a gov or business organization. Prefer 'district', as this applies to 'places' or 'areas'. Also I'm in partial agreement with Cmguy, that we should at least mention the idea that Grant was a Commanding General, and that he (and others) were opposed to the cotton trading from the beginning, in the second sentence, though I still think one good opening sentence would cover all these preliminary ideas well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: "In addition to his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, having sole authority to grant trade permits." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If we mention 'Commanding General' it will be understood that Grant had such authority -- at the same time we provide the readers with the context that he was in fact a C.G. Anyway, we should put discussion of the opening sentence, in its entirety, on hold for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to wait until Keithbob makes comments. I am not against putting the term Commanding general in either the 1st or 2nd paragraph. The important issue is that Grant was the sole provider for these permits...taking up his time in fighting the Confederates. Grant did get Lincoln to stop trade in 1865 in part of the Eastern War front. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears we have a consensus for:

• In addition to his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.

There is a suggestion to add something about' trade permits' to this sentence. Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's fine as it is. The bit about the trade permits is a detail that, while true, takes up scarce space without adding anything important to the narrative. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• This appears okay, but I would recommend that we say from the beginning (1st or 2nd sentence) that Grant was opposed to the cotton trading. Re: Space considerations in general: Space is not so scare that we can't add a few words to this effect. It's very important context, directly reflecting on Grant, and will help much in summing the issue up, per what a summary is supposed to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Coemgenus is correct. Space is an issue. The FAC version was 99 words, the present version is over-long at 156 and quite as long as surrounding paragraphs on the great war -- all this for dwelling upon a 21 day order, which while in need of noting and some explication is still a 21 day order. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, space is an issue when we're adding several sentences and more. Using this as a catch-all excuse to block a few words of context is ridiculous. Regarding length of time v issue weight. Lincoln's assassination took place in roughly one day. Does that by itself make the issue not important? Again, ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The only thing ridiculous is bringing up Lincoln's assassination -- not remotely relevant, nor similar, in the least. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You're evading the point. Length of time doesn't by itself make an issue important or not important. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is much that is important about his life; we need to cover them breifly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly Keithbob is allowing editors to discuss content freely without specific regards to space. Why has space been brought up again? Bringing up space is hampering discussion. I signed up to discuss content, not argue whether editors can edit because of interpreted FA space limitations rules. Space in essence is becoming an excuse for not giving better clarification of the GO11 paragraph. Readers need to understand that Grant's authority to give "lucrative" permits gave Grant extreme power as a general and side tracked the war effort. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, "to edit" means to remove and to cut and to reject, not just add - indeed, cutting is the great challenge of writing a good article, when there are tons and tons of sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. And entering mediation does not mean the rest of the encyclopedia's rules don't apply. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus are you the mediator or is Kiethbob? Keithbob should decide how the FA rules are to be interpreted. If editors are not allowed to expand the article then why are editors in mediation in the first place? FA article need to expand and contract. I have had to correct several mistakes in the FA article adding some details, including details on the enforcement acts. FA articles are not perfect and should not be restricted by interpreted rules by other editors. Kiethbob is our mediator and Kiethbob allowed editors to discuss expansion of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You've known all along about the opposition to expansion, and indeed the desire to cut. We all said it at the beginning about why we are in mediation, there is little use in re-saying what has already been said. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, Keithbob is the mediator and has opened discussion to expansion of the paragraph. Discussion of article expansion has already taken place. If we are not allowed expansion or limited expansion of the paragraph then there is no use for mediation in the first place since there can be no open discussion of content in the paragraph. I am not sure why there is such opposition to expansion if the paragraph has better reliability, context, narration, neutrality, and clarification. Alanscottwalker and Coemgenus have made edits on the article June 20, 2015. We keep going over expansion when we should be discussing the paragraph. Keithbob should have opinions on the matter. Simply adding a sentence fragment that Grant had the power of granting permits is good for context and neutrality to the article. That was why "Mack & Brothers" visited Grant's camp hoping Grant's father would convince Grant to give the company a trade permit. I am not for ballooning the paragraph. Mentioning Grant was against the cotton trade also adds to neutrality of the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's move on to the next point because we are not reaching agreement here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cm' is exactly right on all counts. The idea of space limitation has been thrown out there more times than I care to count by the same two editors, and often just to block small additions of context. Sometimes it has taken an act of congress just to add a few words, just as we are, once again, doing now. This has really gone on long enough. Again, no one during the FAC process used page length to 'not approve' FA status, and the greater majority of those who approved the FAC didn't even mention the idea of length. Again, all some of us wish to do is add a sentence or two of needed context and clarity. The article/paragraph will not explode if we do so. Again, there is no mention of Grant's feelings about cotton trading helping the rebels and no mention of Grant acting as Commanding General. Yes, let's move on and concentrate on how we are going to provide a well rounded summary where the reader doesn't have to hop to another page just to understand the basic story. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for any additions to the sentence noted above, so we will leave it as is and move onto point #3 in our summary which deals with Grant's objections to the cotton trade in his district.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 3rd main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War = Along with his military responsibilities
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district = Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

So far we have a consensus to cover the first two points of our summary in this sentence:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.

Now we are discussing point #3:

• Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives

Any suggestions for text that would effectively convey this information?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Point number three here is what I have had issues with mostly. We need to mention pressing military concerns, that cotton trading was greatly helping the rebel war effort and that Grant was opposed to the trading from the beginning. We need to also mention that Grant was not alone in his feelings, that the War Department, Sherman and other officers saw the problem clearly and shared their feelings with Grant, so the reader doesn't think Grant existed in some anti-semitic vacuum and issued the Order primarily on this premise alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. Grant and Sherman believed soldiers were dying while traders were getting wealthy. Grant did get Lincoln to stop trade in 1865 I believe in part of the Eastern War when Grant was overall commanding General. I support adding that Grant was against the trade...Grant wanted to obtain a strategic advantage but this was hard to do since the Confederate war effort was being funded by trade. Again this was a Lincoln policy. Lincoln was a politician while Grant was a General. Lincoln was also giving troops to McClernand, Grant's rival at this time. GO11 was a low point in Grant's Civil War military career. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• This was well covered in the FAC version, which had the prose advantage of getting to the point quickly and efficiently, to answer the summary questions in the readers mind about what we are talking about and what it has to do with the war the article is in the midst of discussing: "[O]n December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that sums up Gwillhickers's and Cmguy's requested points nicely, and covers the episode succinctly and without POV. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Two editors agree on this text:

• On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields.

If you feel this version is not satisfactory then please propose specific changes or additions to create a revised version that all four editors might agree to.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with this. The sentence should read:
Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, which he and the War Department were opposed to from the beginning. We should be very clear about this important point -- i.e. Grant's feelings. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• The language here is a bit sketchy. Instead of saying "Grant believed" (which begs the question 'why?') it should read that Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers. And the phrase 'merchants were profiteering' doesn't even begin to touch on the matter of the rebel war effort being helped/prolonged by the cotton trading. To cover these points clearly this is how the sentence should read:

... Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers that Jewish merchants were purchasing cotton with gold and treasury notes which was helping the rebel war effort and prolonging the war, while Grant was also concerned that Union soldiers were dying in the fields. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reminder: Disagreement over the presentation of point three is why the mediation request was made. Two editors want to revert to the FAC version or keep the coverage to a bare minimum, while two others would like to see additions made for clarity and comprehensiveness. Other editors have also expressed their opinions on this note on the Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

According to GO11 Grant stated Jewish merchants were in violation of Treasury Department rules. I would skip the part about hearing about gold shipments because there is nothing to confirm this. Here is my suggested version: Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Grant believed trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We have three suggested versions:

1. [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. Grant believed Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields.
2. [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] which he and the War Department were opposed to from the beginning. Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers that Jewish merchants were purchasing cotton with gold and treasury notes which was helping the rebel war effort and prolonging the war, while Grant was (also) concerned that Union soldiers were dying in the fields.
3. [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] Grant believed trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations.

To my eye version #3 appears to be a compromise between version #1 and version #2. Is #3 a version that all the participants could live with? Please remember that meditation is about collaboration and compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal number 2 is best, as it clearly tells the readers why Grant felt as he did. The idea of 'profiteering' (per choice #1 & 3) is understood and doesn't shed light on any other pressing military concerns. And again, the idea of "Grant believed" is sketchy, begs the question why and suggests that Grant reacted primarily out of some notion of anti-semitism. Previously I wanted to mention that Grant was also warned by the War Dept about large gold shipments arriving in Tennessee, but, per Cm's concern, I think we can cover this affair with the general statement that Grant was simply warned by the War Dept and other officers, including Sherman, about the gold for cotton trading that was helping the rebel war effort. We might also want to mention the arrival of Grant's father, with Mack & Co. which very likely was the catalyst (i.e.Grant was already primed and angry with the cotton trading) that spurred Grant on to issue such an Order, per Jewish historian Sarna's contention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I suppose I am biased for #3 since I wrote the suggested version. The first part can be changed..."Grant viewed" rather then "Grant believed". "Profiteering" can be changed to "Profitted". Remember Grant could give lucritive permits to trade. This is what drove the corruption on the Union lines that led to bribery of officers. There is no direct evidence Grant was warned of the gold shipment...Grant did not say he issued GO11 because of any gold shipments. We have to go by Grant's order, just a general statement that all Treasury trade rules were violated, nothing specific. Mentioning Grant's father is good for the GO11 article along with mentioning the speculation about the gold shipment for cotton. Sarna (2012) covers these issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I like #1 the best, as you might expect. #3 is a distant second. Everything in it can be reliably sourced, at least, even if it's overlong to my mind (and I think "said" is almost always better than "stated", for what it's worth). #2 is also too wordy, and it relies on a minority view of the facts—the business with the gold shipments is unsubstantiated and, it must be said, reinforces anti-Semitic stereotypes. I understand that Gwillhickers wants to put Grant's views on the Jews in the context of their times, but it goes a bit too far, for my tastes. I agree with Cmguy that the bit about Jesse Grant belongs in the main GO11 article.--Coemgenus (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
• Well 1 was proposed by me and I still prefer it. However, I could be reluctantly persuaded to three with reordering the sentences. I still think getting to the point is of better service to the reader and to summary: "On December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations. Grant believed trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields." 2 is opposed; for among other reasons, it has undue emphasis on 'Jews' gold'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SUMMARY: There doesn't seem to be any support for #2 except from the proposing editor so let's take a look at the remaining choices:

• A) [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.]
  • On December 17, 1862, he/Grant issued General Order No. 11 expelling Jews, as a class, from the district.
    • Grant believed (viewed) Jewish merchants were profiteering (profited) from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields.

• B) [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.]
  • Grant believed (viewed) trade was undermining the Union War effort and that Jewish merchants were profiteering (profited) from the cotton trade while Union soldiers died in the fields.
    • On December 17, 1862, he/Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, stating (saying) Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations.

I've added in parenthesis the suggested changes to wording and I've highlighted in bold the common language between the two versions. Aside from the rearrangement of the sentences the only difference is choice B adds the phrase: violating Treasury trade regulations. Would someone like to propose a final version based on this comparison, that they think everyone can live with?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why are we not including the fact that Grant was warned by the War Dept and other officers? Instead we now have "Grant viewed" instead of "Grant believed". Also, why are we not stating Grant's primary concern as a Commanding General, that the rebel war effort was being helped and that the war was being prolonged?? This would be a major concern for any General. And we still have "profiteering" which is understood (i.e.nobody works for nothing) which doesn't shed any light on the major concerns of Grant, the War dept and other officers. So far I don't see much of a compromise here, just a slight rewording of the same sketchy phrases. Grant's concerns and military interests are still grossly understated. -- Other than the phrase 'Jewish merchants were violating Treasury trade regulations' , what is the difference between choices A and B? There were far more pressing issues than 'violation of trade regulations'. i.e.1 Collaboration with the enemy; 2 Helping the rebel war effort; 3 Prolonging of the war. These primary concerns need to be stated in the summary and can easily be covered with one sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal : Grant was warned by the War Department and other officers that Jewish merchants were purchasing cotton with gold and treasury notes which was helping the rebel war effort and prolonging the war, while Grant was also concerned that Union soldiers were dying in the fields. Subsequently on December 17, 1862, Grant issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Again I am biased for version B...That version states Grant viewed the trade was undermining the Union War effort...That includes bribery of Union War officers and the inability to secretly move troops having all the traders in camp. The gold shipment is speculation Gwillhickers and Grant did not mention the gold shipment in GO11. I would be in favor of adding "As commanding general, Grant viewed..." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about this, based on version B, but tightened up a bit: "Grant believed the trade undermined the war effort while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." --Coemgenus (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Cm', I've already mentioned that I would pass on mentioning gold shipments -- and btw, the gold shipment is not speculation. It was reported by the War Dept in a letter, which was recorded in the Registry of Letters, covered by a reliable source, Simpson, used in the biography. It is consistent with statements made by Dana and Sherman about gold. We've had this discussion more than twice now. As a compromise however, we need to say gold was used to purchase cotton, as this was readily useable by the rebels, unlike Union currency. For that reason the trade regulations specifically forbade the use of gold in the cotton trading. Merely saying that the trading "undermined the war" is sketchy, and doesn't point to the urgency and concerns that Grant, Sherman, Dana and the War Department shared. The paragraph already says the trading was undermining the war. As a fair compromise, we should clearly relate why Grant felt as he did, per my proposal above. Merely saying "undermined the war" could mean any number of minor things. We need to express clearly the urgency Grant and others were faced with. i.e.Helping the rebel cause -- collaboration with the enemy -- prolonging the war. There is no reason not to be clear on this important point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I could live with Coemgenus' B. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I like Coemgenus edit: Here is a suggested modification : "Grant believed the cotton trade undermined Union military advantage, funded the Confederacy, while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." Gwillhickers, specific issues such as gold for cotton can be addressed in the main GO11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• How about this minor tweak: "Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." --Coemgenus (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Yes I can accept the minor tweak Coemgenus edit. Looks good to me. Specific issues such as Grant's father visiting his camp, bribery of federal officers, and inability to hide Union troop movements can be discussed in the main GO11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• We still have Grant "believed", or "viewed", with no indication that Grant was not alone in his feelings and that the War Dept and other officers shared his concerns. I like Coemgenus' version somewhat, but would only ask that we also mention that Grant was warned by others (instead of "Grant believed") and that the war was also being prolonged, which had to have been among the most pressing concerns of Grant. This would be a fair compromise. i.e.We're still not mentioning anything about gold for cotton trading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• @ Gwillhickers: It is uncertain that Grant was directly warned about any alleged gold shipments. The federal files only state that the War Department received a "gold shipment" letter from one individual in early December and that the War Department was to notify Grant. There is no federal record that states Grant recieved any message from the War Department notifying Grant concerning a "gold shipment". That would be speculation in my opinion. This issue would best be addressed in the GO11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Cmguy. Those points are best left for the GO11 article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777:} As I've said, several times now, I am passing on trying to add "gold shipments". However, there are reliable sources that do say that gold was being used in the trading. Please make more of an effort to read what is written v read what you think was written. This sort of activity is largely responsible for these discussions repeating themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: In the article we need to focus on Grant in my opinion. The gold shipments are a side track. I am for adding a sentence that there was corruption: bribing federal officers: in addition to not being able to hide Union troop movements from the Confederates. This could be put into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: All along you've argued against keeping the paragraph confined to the FAC version, yet I don't see any of the proposals you mentioned materializing in the paragraph. In any case, gold, helping the rebel effort, reflects Grant's major and foremost concerns, assuming he took his role as Commanding General and the responsibilities it incurred seriously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I am for the addition that there was bribery of federal Union officers by the traders and troop movements could not be hidden do to traders following Grant's army. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Well, it's sort of impossible to 'hide' troop movements when you're marching along with a few brigades, but I get your drift. In any case, these items support the idea of 'prolonging the war' coverage of which you seemed to have been opposed to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing an emerging consensus for this version:

• [Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district.] Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations.

Gwillhickers, I understand that you want to add some additional information but so far I have not seen any support from other editors for adding any of the items you've mentioned. With that in mind, is there anything in this proposed, final version that you feel should not be there?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Keithbob: Yes, there has been opposition to virtually all proposals to add more context and comprehensiveness to the paragraph. This was understood before we arrived here. My understanding was that the reason we are here is to arrive at a compromise. Coemgenus added "funded the Confederacy", which is important. (btw, thanks Coemgenus) Other than that there has been almost no other compromise to the many important items mentioned -- and no explanation along historical lines why we shouldn't. Just the pat response 'it belongs in the GO#11 article'. Is it my understanding that all you are going to do here is tally up consensus, which we already have established long ago, and offer no suggestions of your own? You spoke of compromise. What would you suggest? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Side comment on process

As a mediator I try hard to remain neutral; to avoid taking sides. But the one side I do take is the side of WP guidelines and policies.

• The relevant guideline in this case is WP:Summary which says:
  • A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. [bold added]

What we are doing in this mediation is determining, through discussion, collaboration and compromise how the subtopic’s article should be summarized in the main article. As the discussion progresses it’s my job to identify common ground and help the participants to build on that common ground and find consensus.

• WP:Consensus says:
  • When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. [bold added]

• • Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. [bold added]

Every participant has the opportunity to convey their views, their concerns and opinions. Even if their views are in the minority they should have an opportunity to present their views to the others. However, if their presentation and subsequent discussion does not change the views of the other participants, and the remaining rough consensus view is not in violation of any guidelines or policies, then there is no choice but to proceed in spite of the minority viewpoint.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Keithbob: -- Let's keep in mind that consensus here is rather marginal, as an other knowledgeable editor of the Civil War liked the additions I proposed. I'm sure if we had more time we could have garnered a broader and more definitive consensus but Coemgenus was in a rush to go the 'Mediation' route so I went along. In cases where consensus is marginal I'm hoping that a fair compromise will be reached that reflects everyone's concerns. The proposals I offered are major points that directly bear on Grant that need to be in the summary if it is to be comprehensive. Since this can be easily achieved with a few words I'm still not quite understanding this prolonged and rigid opposition against adding a few words of clarity to the paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gwillhickers, thanks for your response. I've uncollapsed this section in case there are further comments or discussion. Yes I agree, consensus can be difficult when there are only four people. That is likely why the talk page discussions went on for so long without reaching any conclusions. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Unwillingness to compromise on a few simple points of clarity with a few added or substituted words, all backed by reliable sources, is almost entirely responsible for this ongoing state of affairs. I came here with the understanding that you would offer guidance and suggestions about a fair compromise. So far we have no mention of Grant being warned by other officers and the War Dept, (i.e.Grant was not alone and didn't base what he "believed" on "anti-semitic" pipe dreams, but military intelligence), no mention of the arrival of Grant's father with his Jewish partners, no mention of the war being prolonged, no mention of gold shipments (which I said we can pass on), or that gold was even being used against trade regulations. These are all major points, concerns that any general in the field would have, that belong in a summary. There is concern of stereotyping Jews by mentioning gold, but there doesn't seem to be much concern for stereotyping a Civil War general and an American president as a Jew hater. So far the only compromise offered is Coemgenus' proposal, "funding the Confederacy". While this is important, there still remains a number of fuzzy statements. e.g."Grant believed...". Why wouldn't anyone want to clarify that important point? "Page length"? We need a fair and reasonable compromise to bring balance and important clarity to the paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of 4th main point

Main points:

1. Grant was leading troops into battle against the Confederates during the Civil War
2. Grant had authority over the cotton trade in his district
3. Grant perceived the cotton trade as undermining his military objectives
4. Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district
5. There was a public backlash and President Lincoln rescinded the order Grant apologized for the order 5 years later

So far there appears to be a consensus for this text:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations.

Point four of our summary says:

• Grant gave an anti-semitic order called General Order 11 which expelled the Jewish class from his military district

Is there anything that needs to be added to the current consensus text so that point four is fully conveyed?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Point four is currently worded adequately in the Grant biography, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• In terms of neutrality, I believe adding that there was bribery of Union officers and that traders were hindering troop movements would add clarification before the sentence. I do not have any issues concerning point #4. However, I would add that over almost 30 Jewish families were expelled from Grant's district. This makes the order real and shows that Grant's order was carried out by the Union Army. Another issue is that Rawlin's, Grant's legal advisor and assistant, was firmly against giving the order. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• I thought the Smith quotation was useful here. It's a good place for a professional historian to put the order in historical context. So, I'd add: "Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." "--Coemgenus (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Also because it is attributed, it avoids the problem. Alanscottwalker (talk)

• Suggested paragraph: "Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. Speculators bribed federal Union officers while traders attached themselves to Union regiments. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. The order was carried out by the Union Army removing almost 30 Jewish families, at least, from their homes." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd rather not add the number of families affected, especially since the number seems to be inexact. And adding that the order was carried it is kind of superfluous. Aren't most orders carried out? Seems to me we should only note when they weren't, because that would be unusual. How about this paragraph: Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We have two proposals on the table. This one:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. Speculators bribed federal Union officers while traders attached themselves to Union regiments. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. The order was carried out by the Union Army removing almost 30 Jewish families, at least, from their homes.

And this one:

• Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Biographer Jean Edward Smith called the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history.

I've highlighted the proposed additions in bold for easy comparison.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am for the first version. Adding there was actual corruption, bribing federal officers, adds neutrality to the article. Flood (2005) covers this in his book Grant and Sherman on page 143. "Most orders are carried out" is not the issue in my opinion. This order affected at least almost 30 Jewish families. I believe that is signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope everyone enjoyed their holiday weekend and thank you all for your continued civility and maturity during these proceedings. Now that we back into our weekday routine....... Any comments or discussion on these two proposals?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The "Speculators . . ." sentence in this brief paragraph makes it look like "Jews, as a class" were at fault for that. Wikipedia cannot and should not imply that. The rest I have little to add at the moment other than agree with Coemgenus' cmt at 12:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding Jewish families who were expelled as a result of the Order: This is excellent historical context and should be added also. We don't have to provide an exact number. To be accurate, we should indicate that most of the Jews in the area arrived for the sake of purchasing cotton. e.g. 'This order effected Jewish speculators and their families' . i.e.Speculators should be mentioned first.
• We still have "Grant believed" which will beg the tag. Given the modern day mindset, this phrase will easily suggest that Grant acted primarily out of prejudice. There was concern for stereotyping. Does this concern extent to Grant? Why can't we simply say that Grant was warned by the War Dept and other officers? No one has answered this question, submitted several times now.
• The existing paragraph has Simpson's quote, that Grant did not act out of anti-semitism. This of course I am assuming will remain in the paragraph for balance. Removal of Simpson's quote (which was added after much discussion), along with the existing lack of context will beg the POV tag above the paragraph in the article. I'm also seeing little mention of compromise. As was mentioned, consensus is marginal, so we should start talking more about compromise soon. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we have discussed "why" before, to quote myself, As historian Harold Holzer wrote in 2012: "no historian has been able to fully understand — much less justify — why, on Dec. 17, 1862, Grant issued his notorious General Orders No. 11 deporting Jewish citizens." [[1]] Wikipedia cannot present a [summary] consensus on factors, which does not exist . . . As Holtzer also writes, "Not all Civil War-era Jews were speculators, peddlers or smugglers, and not all Civil War-era speculators, peddlers and smugglers were Jews. But Americans living through the rebellion — and many crises before and since — often cast blame on the tiny minority that 19th-century Northerners and Southerners often referred to as “the Israelites.” Shocking as it seems, one of the most notorious offenders was the greatest Union hero of the war: Ulysses S. Grant."[[2]].

I also think you are wrong -- the Jews that were expelled in Peducah lived there before the war. Not to mention the Jewish officer that resigned from Grant's command because of the order - he was affected; or the detained just married couple that were passing through, - they were affected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we don't say 'Grant issued the order because...' . What we do however is simply add important facts. e.g.Grant was warned by many others. Also, I did not say that Jews who were not speculators were not effected by the Order. Also, Hotzler has to be somewhat naive if he can't find reasons why Grant acted with his broad brush Order. Grant himself said there was little time and the matter couldn't be handled with kid gloves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, you just argued you wanted to add "why". Moreover, however you feel about Holzer is not relevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should provide the important and basic facts that lead up to the issuance of the Order. Leaving them out will beg the 'why' question. We will not be mentioning gold, but we should indicate that Grant was not alone in his feelings and that he was warned by the War Dept and other officers, including Sherman, covered by existing sources. i.e.Flood, p. 143. Is there a particular reason why you don't want to be clear on the events that led up to the order? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because historians are unclear about why and we can't pretend they are clear -- moreover, details go to the Main article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No one is pretending to do anything here. All we do is add important facts. The existing paragraph has "details" in it already, so your last comment is one sided and attempts to avoid the question of why we should not be clear on events leading up to the Order. Once again, the main article is for extended coverage. This doesn't mean we can't add the basic facts in the paragraph we're putting together here. A summary is supposed to cover the basic facts. Grant being warned by other officers and the War Dept are basic and definitive facts and tells the readers Grant didn't exist in a vacuum and acted on mere notions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's incorrect -- you do not and cannot have basic and definitive where the historians are unclear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I raised several point here, so try not to respond with these generalizations right off the bat. Once again, we don't say why Grant acted, nor do we actually say which facts are basic or definitive. That's up to editors here to decide, as we have been doing all along, with limited success, due to this unreasoned and unwillingness to compromise. Also, some historians remain unclear. Some of them however have a clue, including Simpson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't say why Grant acted because historians don't agree on why Grant acted. That doesn't demand an answer as to "why"; most actions are presented in encyclopedia articles without examining the actor's psyche. And, as I said before on the talk page, you're misconstruing Simpson. When I pointed this out the first time, I assumed it was accidental. Yet here we are. I'll repeat again what I said then: "You've set it up like a contrast, as though Smith and Simpson have opposite opinions. They don't, they're taking about two different things. Smith is describing the effect of the order, which was by definition anti-Semitic. Simpson is speculating as to Grant's motives, which he believes were less malign than they appear on the face of it. These are both acceptable things to include in a Wikipedia article, but we should be careful not to make it look like one contradicts the other. They could both be true: the order was anti-semitic; Grant's motives may well have been something other than hatred of the Jews." All authors agree that the order was anti-Semitic. I thought Smith was a fairly recent author who explained the point succinctly, so I included his analysis. Simpson does not contradict him, nor does any other historian. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think explaining the thing in historical context (on which historians all agree) is more important to this brief summary than speculating on Grant's motives (on which there is some disagreement). Simpson's explanations would not be out of place in the GO11 article, though, and I would be pleased to see them added, if that's something you're interested in. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: The word speculators is not used in the same sentence as Jews. The main point is that Union officers were bribed. That is corruption and Grant in part was responding to corruption. The paragraph is no way defending Grant nor implying that all or any speculators were Jews. Flood (2005) used the exact word "Speculators" in his book. Jewish people, as a class, are only introduced in Grant's order. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This how it reads: "Speculators bribed federal Union officers while traders attached themselves to Union regiments. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations." So 'the Jews were bribers' is the juxtaposition that is left. I cannot support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker you are adding words to the sentence that are clearly not there. Flood (2005) stated there were speculators who bribed Union officers. There is no implication or juxtaposition in the sentence that Jewish traders bribed Union officers. We don't know who did the actual bribing. That is neutrality. According to Flood (2005) there were both Jewish traders and non Jewish traders. I could reword the sentence: "Union officers were bribed while traders attached themselves to the Union Army." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I quoted the sentences. I did not add. I said how the juxtaposition reads. It is in part because we don't know who did bribing, that I am opposed. I cannot support the suggestion, and I disagree that it leaves it neutral, sorry. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with you opposing the sentence. I believe you added your own interpretation to the Flood (2005) source the juxtapostion "the Jews were bribers". Flood (2005) source does not state this in any manner in his book. Are we then to leave out bribery took place and discount Flood (2005) as a source ? I believe mentioning bribery adds to neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is summarizing the known, relevant information without bias. It's not balancing one "good" fact with one "bad" one. Where the facts unfavorable to Grant outnumber the favorable ones, balancing them would actually be less neutral, not more. Working to make Grant look better in a situation where historians universally agree he acted poorly is not neutrality, it is POV-pushing against the historical consensus. Alan is right that if the facts are unknown or fuzzy, and they're not necessary to tell the story, and especially when they're being added because an editor thinks they make an unfavorable incident in Grant's life look more favorable, there's no way I can support adding it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave what I believe was a reliable source Flood (2005) concerning bribery of Union officers. Are Coemgenus and AlanScottWalker saying Flood (2005) is unreliable ? Wikipedia policy is to make edits from reliable sources. If one leaves out bribery or traders attaching themselves to the Union Army, then Grant's order in my opinion looks to be motivated only from Grant's anti-semitic sympathies or beliefs from a reader's standpoint. Neutrality requires various sources to be represented in the article, not just one, such as Smith. Yes we do not know who did the actual bribing, yet Grant was fighting a war while Union officers were being bribed, according to Flood (2005). There appears to be no concensus on this issue by editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, in a summary we cannot use every source - we can only give a brief overview. As for Grant, we already state the very thing he explicitly said in the order and its relation to the military, this already achieved consensus above, and is a neutral overview - the details, and debates go to the Main article. Unless what you are suggesting is you want in depth discussion in this paragraph of the multiple sources that explicate Grant's contemporaneous anti-semitic statements and the multiple sources that discuss the small percentage of Jewish traders, which I would rather not add, just as I cannot support this (but for somewhat different reasons). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In writing, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, I try to follow Strunk and White's classic rule: Omit needless words. Let's think about what the paragraph would look like without that "Speculators bribed..." sentence. Is anything lost? Is the meaning changed? Is the reader misinformed? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never suggested explicating or defending Grant's anti-semitic statements. Bribery of Union officers is a seperate subject. To be neutral I had left out the number or percentage of Jewish traders. The actual number of Jewish traders I can't find in any sources. I am willing to compromise. We can drop the bribery sentence and leave in the sentence concerning the actual hardship of at least the almost 30 Jewish families who were expelled by Grant's order. The actual number of Jewish families expelled is unknown. In my opinion leaving out information on the number of Jewish families expelled is relevant and could be concidered protectionist of Grant. Since this is Grant's low point I believe more discussion is required in the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

edit break

Compromise paragraph:

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district, authorized by Lincoln. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. Grant's order, carried out by the Union Army, removed almost 30 Jewish families, at least, from their homes. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not happy but, i suppose I could live with, no more than:'

Along with his military responsibilities, Grant oversaw the cotton trade in his district as authorized by Lincoln. Grant believed the trade undermined the Union war effort and funded the Confederacy while Union soldiers died in the fields. On December 17, 1862, he issued General Order No. 11, expelling Jews, as a class, from the district, saying that Jewish merchants were violating trade regulations. While Grants order was being enforced against several Jewish families, the Jewish community and northern press complained to Lincoln. Biographer Jean Edward Smith calls the order "one of the most blatant examples of state-sponsored anti-Semitism in American history." When Lincoln demanded it be revoked, Grant rescinded the three week order and the controversy subsided. Grant later made amends when he became president.