Talk:General Order No. 11 (1862)

Lincoln's action to rescind

I suggest that Lincoln's order revoking Grant's should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. I wish that one could say Grant's order was an extraordinary aberration, which alas it clearly was not. Still, it does seem important to note that it was firmly renounced by the president. I am tentatively editing the article to reflect this; hope it is satisfactory to all. Wwheaton (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What must be remembered was that in 1863 people felt free to express their prejudices. People are just as prejudiced today, but generally mask their views.JohnC (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Split?

I suggest the two General Order No. 11's be split up into two separate articles as they seem to not have any relevance to each other outside of taking place in the Civil War. It took me a second reading to understand this, and others may be easily confused. Thoughts? Comments? - Hinotori 11:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree. They are different orders that happen to have similar names. Best idea is to split them and make this article a disambiguation page. 168.12.253.82 15:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see someone's taken care of that. Thanks! I was going to do it myself, barring objections, but nice to see it done already. :) Hinotori 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Standardizing the Text Format

The two different orders are presented in their original text but in slightly different format. Regardless of whether or not the article is split in two (see other suggestion), I think consistency would be good. Which format is better or more used? - Hinotori 11:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Exact text

Some of the text in this article is the exact text from one source. Should this be rephrased or quoted...? --Hazelorb

Do you mean the text of the order or some commentary on the order? Either way, an exact quote should be marked off to indicate its origin. -Willmcw 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A fine example of Wikipedia's strengths

I had absolutely no idea about this brief chapter in American history --its this "repository of human history" effect that so many like me find appealing about this site. Good work, all.--A Good Anon 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A very interesting article. I've read a lot about the Civil War and also a recent Grant biography, but never encountered this subject before. Here's to hoping that Wikipedia's strengths can win out over its weaknesses. 207.69.139.6 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually as it was when you wrote that, it was a fine example of its failings, as it breached Wikipedia:neutrality by omitting the rather notable fact that the order was promptly revoked from the intro. Thus it appears to have been used to attempt to over-represent the level of antisemitism in the Union government. However another user fixed this just as I was about to do so. Wimstead (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Prompt revocation on orders of the president doesn't nuillity the views behind the original order. Nor does Grant's rather feeble later attempts to distance himself from his own actions. Incidentally the army isn't the government.JohnC (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Example of Grant's non-antisemitism

The Jewish-American physicist A. Michelson owed his appointment to the naval academy directly to president Grant.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is "non-antisemitism" a word?

Hitler supposedly had 150,000 jewish soldiers. Is that evidence of his "non-antisemitism"?JohnC (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is actual documentation of Grant's antisemitism, comparing U. Grant to A. Hitler has no place in this discussion. With A. Hitler, there is plenty of documentation of his antisemitic attitudes. Furthermore, "supposedly" does not count as "fact". Please cite source of your assertions, or amend statement accordingly. --dswynne (talk) 00:57. 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitler did not have 150,000 Jewish soldiers in his army. The title of a well-known book on that topic is highly misleading. There were very, very, very few professing Jews in the German army in World War II. In fact, there might have been none at all. There were several thousand German soldiers with "close" Jewish ancestors (a grandparent or great-grandparent). To refer to these individuals as "Jewish" when they neither practiced the Jewish religion nor associated culturally with the Jewish people is incorrect. Most of them went to great pains to disassociate themselves from their families' Jewish past. As for Grant, it was entirely possible that he liked individual Jews but also believed various anti-Semitic generalizations. Poldy Bloom (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

yet to say/claim Grant is definatly Non-anti-semite does not fit with the General Order No11 which is 100% pure anti-semitism

Congressional Resolution

The article currently reads, "The Democrats condemned the order as part of what they saw as the US Government's systematic violation of civil liberties and introduced a motion of censure against Grant in the Senate, attracting thirty votes in favour against seven opposed." But in Arthur Hertzberg's book The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter, he writes, "Most unfortunately, a resolution to revoke the order had meanwhile been introduced in Congress, and it lost in both Houses." So which is it? Did the resolution pass in the Senate by 30 to 7, or did it fail? Or are these two different resolutions -- one to censure Grant and one to revoke the order? Poldy Bloom (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Korn

Korn's book is certainly an important source regarding the Order, but it seems that it has been used somewhat selectively. For example, while the article mentions that the Order was not the first such decree to flow from Grant's pen, the article does not mention Grant's rather brusque revocation of a similar order written by another officer, thus making the idea of a clear pattern harder to sustain. Most importantly, perhaps, Korn himself seems to suggest that though the Order was issued by Grant, it did not necessarily originate with him, with (if my memory isn't failing) Korn mentioning specifically the odd wording of Halleck's "rebuke" in the aftermath of the order. Also mentioned is that the word "Jew" was often crassly used by Grant and many others as sort of a shorthand for cotton speculators. None of this excuses Grant, for the Order went out in his name and in his hand, but I do think a little greater context could be provided.--172.190.85.99 (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

implemented, then revoked

The last paragraph says it "was revoked before any such action was taken", but earlier in the article is specifically lists 3 towns where people were expelled. So obviously the "any" is not accurate. I'll correct it. T-bonham (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

first time a US president attended synagogue services?

I suggest that this detail in the last paragraph be checked for accuracy. I remember visiting the Touro synagogue in Providence at one point, and a guide there claimed that George Washington, among others, had visited the synagogue.