Talk:Historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant

New article

Content for this article was moved from the Historical reputation section in the Ulysses S. Grant article. Suggestion and more content welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Drinking

Moved from Talk:Ulysses S. Grant

It would be a real service for whomever will work on the reputation article, to deal in detail (NPOV, of course) with the "alcoholic" reputation. [1] [2]. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, one of the links you offered, the history net, has an article whose title seems a bit pov'ish, i.e."Ulysses S. Grant’s Lifelong Struggle With Alcohol", which more than suggests there was a problem. Most of the sources I've come across acknowledges that there were no bonafide instances of Grant staggering about drunk and disorderly, and that most of the rumors of excessive drinking came from jealous enemies, and disgruntled and/or enterprising reporters, while McFeely, the one who's supposed to have this overall negative view on Grant, says that he's been falsely stereotyped by modern media. I've no doubt Grant drank, and 'got mellow' from time to time, as did many soldiers of his time, esp with the weight of war and battles on their shoulders, or because of prolonged loneliness. We must remember that anyone 'at the top' automatically gets a bull's eye painted on their back. Having said that, I've no problem with outlining the facts, such that they are, and how they've been received by historians, past and present. However, we should do it with reliable published sources, ones used extensively in the biography, and stay away from high profile media sources aimed at People magazine and National Enquire readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

the cites by Alanscottwalker are a good start--the standard study is Dorsett, Lyle W. "The Problem of Ulysses S. Grant's Drinking During the Civil War." Hayes Historical Journal 4 (1983): 37+ online at http://thebeerbarrel.net/threads/the-problem-of-ulysses-s-grants-drinking-during-the-civil-war.18145/ Dorsett is a leading scholar. he states: "It is my thesis that Ulysses S. Grant was an alcoholic. Furthermore, his alcoholism had a profound effect upon his generalship. " Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Profound? In what way? Grant was primarily responsible for winning the war. Bear in mind, given some of the modern mindset, even gambling is a "disease". Asking a woman for a date in the work place is "sexual harassment" in the eyes of some individuals. Subjective speculations aside, was McFeely wrong to say Grant was wrongfully stereotyped? It would seem assessment of Grant's drinking is indeed largely the product of speculation, even among scholars who possess no crystal ball at this late date, and esp since there are no accounts of Grant walking around pie-faced. This of course is not to say Grant never in his life tied-one-on to the point of ineffectiveness -- but at the brink of battle? There are just too many witnesses that say otherwise, e.g. at the battle of Shiloh. Given Grant's well established character, it doesn't seem likely that drinking impacted Grant's generalship, his decision making, at least to me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Dorsett makes a very good case. Grant took risks because he had nothing to lose. Rjensen (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to lose? Like the Union he loved dearly? No concern for the fate of family and fellow officers and soldiers? A heartless drunk? Generals have always made sacrifices. Remember, Grant put his life in harm's way, in spades, during the Mexican war when he volunteered to ride through sniper filled streets to get help, stopping to assist the wounded. This assessment just doesn't add up, imo.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledging that the drinker reputation is a very real strand of scholarship, regardless if any Wikipedia editor likes it, is still the issue. It would therefore be a service to cover it directly in depth in the reputation article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

yes: no status to lose personally. Instead of imagining the article's contents and trying to refute it, I recommend people here read the article--it's really quite good. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the drunkenness angle is certainly one that people have talked and written about for a long time now, and should be explored in depth in the sub-article. Let's approach it with an open mind and try to summarize the sources. (We should probably continue this conversation on that article's talk page.) --Coemgenus (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the discussion here. As I've said, I've no problems covering this apparent controversy. There are plenty of facts and eye witness accounts to consider, esp before the battle of Shiloh, some of which are covered on the William R. Rowley page. Rowley and others were with Grant the morning before and during the battle. Because many were outraged by the great loss of life many were eager to jump on the 'Grant the drunk' band wagon, needing someone to blame. Funny how Confederate generals Johnston and Beauregard weren't labeled as butchers. They were just as stubborn as Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This section is inadequate and hagiographical. YoPienso (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This is an article covering reputation. Much of the text in the Drinking section are incidental accounts about drinking in one form or another, not about reputation. For example :

" Much more important, he could never shake a profound longing for alcohol, especially when he was lonely and separated from his family. It troubled him all his life, even though he knew it was damaging to his career. His wife Julia, and during the 1860s his top aide John Rawlins worked indefatigably to keep him away from the bottle. They succeeded –"

This statement was hagiographical, one person's account about drinking, not dealing with reputation, so it was removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Check the definition of hagiographical. YoPienso (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It deals with biographical accounts of famous people, and idolizing. Idolizing is not always a positive thing btw. In any case, the undue weight problem here has been resolved. By all accounts, Grant drank from time to time, and 'amazingly', to some people evidently, was seen a bit drunk a few times during his life. But because he was famous and idolized by many, the subject of drinking was in the process often blown way out of proportion, very often by unscrupulous individuals. If Grant was a store clerk and drank in the same capacity, now and then, never drunk and disorderly, never neglecting responsibilities, etc, no one would have even blinked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No. You are the one doing the idolizing. You are trying to make Grant's reputation better than what the RSs say. Idolizing is never good in serious biographies.

Instead of

Jean Edward Smith maintains Grant drank at times during the Vicksburg campaign, but always at a time when it did not interfere with his responsibilities, maintaining Grant's Assistant Secretary of War noted Grant once got "stupidly drunk", but was fine the next day,

we need something like

Jean Edward Smith found overwhelming evidence that Grant occasionally drank during the Vicksburg campaign, but avers it did not interfere with his duties. Calling Grant a binge drinker, he wrote, "In a clinical sense, he may have been an alcoholic."

The whole section needs to be redone from scratch. Fort Humboldt can't be whitewashed: Grant himself later admitted his resignation was due to his drinking. YoPienso (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Insert : Idolizing? Not really, I've not added anything the sources haven't said. Idolizing is something that involves building someone up beyond matters dealing with reality. e.g.God like. I only make sure he is not torn down by those who conversely idolize him, in a manner of speaking. While it's obviously true I do admire Grant, and what's not to admire(?), I only make sure that his factual life isn't misrepresented and things like drinking are not over exaggerated, as they have been by Grant's enemies, reporters, and various historians, past and present. That goes on a lot it seems. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I see Jensen just improved the Smith quote. The second paragraph is still a mess. YoPienso (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, and now he improved the second (now third) paragraph. YoPienso (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the section looks good, at last. Also, Rjensen brought to light a good point about McFeely. Thank goodness there's a doctor in the house. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title be either "Ulysses S. Grant's historical reputation" or "The historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant"? AmericanLemming (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"Historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant" seems like the correct title here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@AmericanLemming, Rjensen, Coemgenus, Cmguy777, Yopienso, and Alanscottwalker: Titles are not always presented in sentence format, but either way works for me. Right now the article is listed on the main page, per DYK, so we should wait a bit, and then we can discuss it and see what the consensus is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm neutral here. what are similar articles titled? Rjensen (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Grant have his name both at the beginning and end of the title. See: List of articles for Ulysses S. Grant in the main Grant Bibliography. The existing title denotes the idea as a singular entity. i.e.'The Grant reputation', which seems to work. Unless there's a clear consensus to rename, I'd just let it be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant No The. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My preference would be for "Ulysses S. Grant's historical reputation". I actually thought that the current title was a typo, but I can see why you might stick with it. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant" seems most in line with the other sub-articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, three editors prefer Historical reputation of Ulysses S. Grant, and two expressed no strong opinion against such a move, so I made the move. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I just saw this. It seems like a good move. I didn't quickly find other similar articles (i.e., "Historical reputation of James Madison," etc.), buy I did find we consistently use the title "Presidency of _____________." We have lots of articles about Franklin Roosevelt, and they put his name last. YoPienso (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Foner pages numbers needed

This Military reputation section has been tagged three times (2nd to last paragraph) for missing page numbers, per Foner. Foner is used, with page numbers, in the Grant main article, so I'm assuming someone has the book, as it has very limited viewing on line. (regarding the Ku Klux Klan) If so, could the editor who has the book tend to these citations here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Military and political reputation - General Order No. 11 and Antisemitism

The main page for Ulysses S. Grant mentions General Order No. 11. It goes on to mention his positive interactions with the Jewish community during his presidency, but the page for General Order No. 11 mentions that "historians have generally been critical of Grant and his General Orders No. 11". Surely some mention of the order belongs on this page? Regardless of what conclusions can be drawn about his true feelings, my understanding is that the unfortunate order has had an impact on his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.217.127 (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)