Talk:Ulysses S. Grant

Template:OhioSB

The who gave him the nomination

'The radicals gave him the nomination" is POV! The radicals in the party were a small faction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.194.50 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Was Grant or Grant's family a slave owner

Did Gen. U.S. Grant or his family own slaves at any time?

I don't believe so. Grant's father owned a tannery and ran it with his family (and lived in a Northern State), during his private life Grant would not have been able to afford slaves, and (obviously) during the Civil War Grant did not own any slaves. Flag-Waving American Patriot (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, stating that the family ran a family-run tannery and "lived in a Northern State" is a generalization you might not want to make. "Southern" and "Northern" descriptions do not accurately identify slave owners or sympathizers. Many New England states did abolish slavery (See http://www.slavenorth.com/emancipation.htm). Even so, slavery provided an economic benefit to New England (See http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm). Even if free, it has been argued by McManus that

"Emancipation in some ways strengthened the tyranny of race by imposing on blacks new forms of subordination that better served the economic interests of the whites,” writes McManus. “The historical reality of race relations in the Americas is that whites have never altered their institutions primarily for the benefit of blacks.”

Edgar J. McManus, “A History of Negro Slavery in New York,” Syracuse University Press, 1966, p.197.

While not particularly relevant to Grant, look at city population demograhic data in Massachusetts (See http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ehedterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Economic+Analysis&L2=Executive+Office+of+Housing+and+Economic+Development&L3=Department+of+Housing+and+Community+Development&sid=Ehed&b=terminalcontent&f=dhcd_profiles_profiles&csid=Ehed) This page on Grant appears less accurate and more biased than the posting for General Lee, and I am not sure why...--Manos Lijeros (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant's father-in-law, Frederick Dent, was a plantation and slave owner in Missouri. According to Jean Smith ( Smith, Jean Edward, Grant, Simon and Shuster, 2001, ISBN 0-684-84927-5.), p. 94:

The circumstances are not clear, but sometime during his last year at White Haven he acquired possession of the young slave Colonel Dent left behind, a 35-year-old man named William Jones. Grant's views on slavery were ambivalent and Jones was the only slave he ever owned. When he moved to St. Louis, Grant was initially tempted to rent the man out, but soon decided against it. On March 29, 1859, he went to circuit court and file the manumission papers to emancipate Jones. Grant never discussed his motives, but the action speaks for itself. Able-bodied slaves sold for $1000 or more, and Grant surely could have used the money. Instead, he said Jones free.

Brooks Simpson's biography (pp. 71-72) agrees with this account. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The wife of Union general Ulysses S. Grant, a slave owner herself, kept her slaves until the close of the War (A New American History by W. E. Woodward, Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., On Murry Hill, New York, 1936; p. 518, 543) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.144.111.30 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

article picture

I removed the false picture. Please replace it with a correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.11.53 (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Colour blindness?

The documentary 'Civil War' by Ken Burns clearly mentions that Ulysses S. Grant wasn't very fond of music and that he aparently said that he only knew two tunes: one was 'Yankee Doodle' and the other wasn't.. Here, in the trivia section, there is also mention of him being colour blind, that he distinctly disliked colours and that he could only see two colours, one being gray, the other not gray. To me that seems like an entry that is meant to be a funny crack at the earlier entry and not one that's substantiated by facts. Does anyone know if there is some basis in fact? I tried to remove it earlier, but received a message informing me to list the reason and noticed that the removed item had been restored.. If anyone can provide any link or name / pagenumber of a certain book, I'd appreciate it very much.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.137.42 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

external links

• Emerson, Col. John W., Grant's Life in the West and His Mississippi Valley Campaigns, U.S. Grant Association website. <----link no longer works.

The US Grant Association website is now located at: http://library.msstate.edu/USGrantAssociation/

Thanks Chilliplow (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

General Order No. 11

quoting from the current wiki page:

Grant's legacy has been brought into question by allegations of anti-Semitism. The most frequently cited example is the infamous General Order No. 11, issued by Grant's headquarters in Oxford, Mississippi, on December 17, 1862, during the early Vicksburg Campaign. The order stated in part: "The Jews, as a class, violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department, and also Department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department (comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky)."

The order was rescinded by President Lincoln on January 3, 1863 and issued on January 7, 1863.[21] Grant maintained that he was unaware that a staff officer issued it in his name.

This last sentence (above) makes no sense as written. How can the order be rescinded by President Lincoln before it has even been issued. Some clarification or correction seems to be required. Kjbloede (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The dates in that sentence actually refer to Lincoln's order to rescind General Order #11, and the date Grant actually did so. I've fixed it. All the dates are clear in the reference cited for that sentence. Agathman (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Any mention of this has been removed from the article, but it still has a page. Somehow the entire Anti-Semitism was removed in a magical fell swoop. I found this info on a KKK website and thought they were proud, but I guess some people aren't as enthusiastic.--ApolloFire (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how this happened, but edits of this sort, whether inspired by KK sites or no, will not be tolerated. IronDuke 04:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-Shiloh situation

The Grant article introduction has stated that Grant temporarily lost his command after Shiloh. This is not true. Halleck divided the 100,000 men at Pittsburg Landing into three wings (Grant, Buell, and Pope). Grant initially had command of the right wing, consisting of troops of the Army of the Tennessee. On April 30, by Special Field Order No. 30, Halleck substituted George H. Thomas for Grant in command of the right wing and slotted Grant as second-in-command of the entire army. SFO No. 30 specifically said that Grant retained command of the Army of the Tennessee. Thus, at least as a formal matter, Grant was never removed from the line of command and never lost command of the Army of the Tennessee. It is true, however, that Grant did not like this arrangement and considered steps to find another command. Nonetheless, the facts do not square with the prior content of the introduction. Hartfelt (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are technically correct. As Woodworth says in Nothing But Victory (p. 206), "Although the Army of the Tennessee continued to exist in theory, and although Grant remained nominally its commander ..." All of Grant's divisions were reassigned to other generals during this period. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg

This image is currently up for FPC, and it would appear that the people there have been hit by a brain-sucking virus. I for one think that our only colour image of Grant and our only image covering Grant's early military career is highly useful to this article. Not to mention that it's made by one of the major artists of the American Civil War, whose contemporary lithographs are the lead image for many of our battles, such as Spotsylvania.

However, evidently, contemporary images that use contemporary styles of art - this sort of layout was very common for lithographs and engravings - should never appear in any encyclopedia article. I swear. Three people said that.

This is why I think that FPC is completely and totally broken.

Crossposted to WT:MILHIST. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

physical/anatomical details??

is it alright to find out any of these questions? height? weight? eye color? what size suit he wore? what size uniform he wore? size shoes? hand size? was he right or left handed? did he aim with his right eye or left eye? was he a bully as a kid? was he an introvert? Did he have a favorite gun to use? a favorite horse to ride? did he know how to whistle? play cards? gamble? did he get good grades in school? what did his teachers think about him? just curious. Storm norm (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No more relevant to this article than to Barack Obama, where you asked the same thing.[1] Tvoz/talk 07:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

boyhood home

Just wanted to note that the picture provided as Grant's boyhood home is the wrong home. I have been there and what is pictured is a home across the street. You can find several pictures of his real boyhood home on the Ohio web site for Grant's boyhood home. Thanks, Arkansasprof (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Economic policy

His veto of the Inflation Bill in 1874 saved the aftermath of the Panic of 1873 to get worse and the veto was praised by the financial community and many newspapers.

The Resumption of Specie Act of 1875 which was signed by Grant helped to end the crisis in 1879 when the law came into effect

I'm not sure exactly what saved is intended to mean here.

Both sentences are judgments of Grant's fiscal program, which was controversial then and now; we should attribute the opinion (much more clearly than many newspapers; every Administration has had many newspapers supporting its action, no matter how competent or otherwise). Whose thoughts are we borrowing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Gramatical Change to the Article

{{editsemiprotected}}

Just a minor edit request (don't know if this is where I put this), but under the Western Campaign heading where it discusses the unit Grant was put in charge of initially during the Civil War it states "Yates appointed him a colonel in the Illinois militia and gave him command of undisciplined and rebellious 21st Illinois Infantry in June 1861." where it should be Yates appointed him a colonel in the Illinois militia and gave him command of THE undisciplined and rebellious 21st Illinois Infantry in June 1861." where the capitalized THE would be inserted as to make the grammar more correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MerkavaIV (talk • contribs) 20:58, July 23, 2009

 Done -Optigan13 (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)