Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

General Order No. 11

In the Shiloh section it says Grant's General Order No. 11, barring Jews from cotton trading, was "anti-semitic". But was this just a quick fix, in response to the high numbers of Jewish merchants "profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields"? Or did Grant actually hate Jews? This is sort of a controversial item, and the only opinion we have on that note is from Jean Edward Smith, who as I said, is mentioned by name three times in the text. Is there any other significant view to balance out Smith's opinion, or should we just get rid of Smith's personal viewpoint altogether? Unless we can show hatred and can refute Grant's concern for illicit trading via enemy lines, I'd recommend getting rid of this example of 20th century hyper-speak and let the readers decide this sort of thing for themselves. Statements like this undermine the meaning of real anti-semitism. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to this - not without perhaps an RfC on the matter - if I recall from prior article reviews, it was important to have this incident given that context - 'all Jews must leave the area' is starkly anti-semitic, and was seen so at the time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

On its face it no doubt seemed/seems that way to many, but all things considered, was it really? Does not Grant get the benefit of the doubt, a balancing view, in his biography? Like the Japanese interment camps, it was a quick fix in the midst of war -- it wasn't a plot to 'get the Japanese' just because they were Japanese. Ditto with Grant. If this biography must entertain such notions then it should offer more than one viewpoint. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about applying our 21st-century morality to the events of the 19th, but the order singles out Jews for adverse treatment. Explicitly, as a race, they are treated differently. I don't know how anyone could say that wasn't anti-semitic. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Singled out, yes, but not so because of their race. Imo, that is anti-'race'. Grant would have done the same thing even if Italians or Poles were conducting trade with/via the enemy. I don't wish to say the order was 'not' anti-semitism, but I don't think we should say it was either, albeit via Smith's opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You disagree with Smith's analysis. OK. Do you have a reliable mainstream source that says General Order #11 wasn't anti-Semitic? As far as I can tell, all of our sources are in agreement here. We should be careful to keep our own opinions out of it, whatever they may be. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Smith's quote seems like an overstatement limited in scope. Regarding presentism, applying 20th-21st-century views to the 19th is an issue here. Most editors in our company understand this advent, but the average students regrettably do not. If we're not careful and give singular lip service to Smith, many young or naive people will come away from the page thinking Grant was some sort of nazi, regardless of the surrounding circumstances or anything like reconstruction. Grant, it would seem, simply acted quickly and rashly during war and didn't sort out the moral-social implications at that brief juncture. Smith's statement by itself will jade many from the likely possibility that Grant's first concern was for Northern interests and the soldiers dying while cotton was being provided to Southern interests, in particular, England, with her blockade runners, who all through the war and before had traded arms for cotton while enjoying the fruits of slavery. It would seem that this was the prevailing state of mind when Grant acted. If there are other reliable sources that can over any such, or other insights, we should use them also to give perspective to the Smith school of thought. If there are none to be found then we can move on. I'll see what I can come up with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the evidence was that it was not "only" Jews that were trading with the enemy (was it even mostly Jews?) but the Jews (entire families) were the ones that were to be purged from the area no one else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source that says Grant, for some reason, singled out Jews and allowed the others to continue selling cotton to Southern interests? Grant? I don't think so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

His order did not take action against anyone but Jews, so they were the only ones singled out - moreover, the exiled Jews did not have to be involved in the trade, at all, they just had to be Jews. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue in Grant's career...the real issue was the cotton trade that Lincoln allowed...This set up Grant's controversial order as selling cotton was in essense funding the Confederate War effort...Grant's reaction of banning Jews was anti-semitic...in other words "against Jews". That does not mean the Grant hated Jews...Wikipedia should not make excuses for his order...it was what it was...Also Grant had made similar orders prior to General Order 13... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The article does state Grant's point of view of soldiers dying while the Confederates were being funded by the Cotton trade...I believe Grant and Sherman wanted to stop the whole trade but Lincoln did not approve...Lincoln believed that the trade would help reunite the North and South... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant's order was really against the cotton business the Jewish community in that area were evidently heavily involved with. Didn't Grant have any military intelligence about his surroundings? Did Grant allow non Jews to continue selling cotton to Southern interests? Wasn't this part of a major crackdown on the trade in that area? Would Grant have looked away if this trade involved the Ukraine, French, Chinese? This wasn't an attack on Jews as a people, which is what "anti-semitism" means today. We should say per existing content that Grant's action was criticized by the Jewish community and many others without Smith's overstated and inciteful quotation. On cursory search through indexes McFeely, Waugh and Simpson haven't referred to anything as "anti-semitism". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get the claim that this article should not refer to Grant's order, which is all the Smith quote does, as ant-Semitic. The order was not against anyone else, just Jews. (here is McFeely [1]) Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I did not say the article should not mention the order. Again, I only have reservations about using 20-21 century terminology to describe Grant's actions here. As I said, such language will completly distort Grant's intentions, or do we really want to let the readers think Grant hated Jews? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I said, "refer to Grant's order... as anti-semitic". That's best in keeping with the sources - so I oppose not calling Grant's order anti-semitic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, but keeping with the sources, let's not leave out the surrounding circumstances, per Smith and McFeely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• @Alanscottwalker and Cmguy777: -- Waugh, pp. 127-128 describes the event in fair context, and also mentions that Grant apologized numerous times, both publicly and privately. She also says, charges of "anti-semitism" came only from the Democrats and the press, which would explain the hyper-speak. In the 1868 election, Jewish leaders interviewed Grant, and the event did no serious harm to his reputation, all things considered, and he went on to be a two term president. This is the context we need to include if we must use the word "anti-semitism". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is covered in the 1868 campaign section already. Perhaps a bit more there would be ok. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The order was intended to stop an illicit cotton trade. Specifically the Jews were targeted. Yes there were Jewish traders who participated in the trade...Yes Grant's purpose was to save Union soldier lives but I can't really see any way to describe his actions other then anti-semitic...Maybe mentioning that Grant and Sherman wanted to stop the trade entirely but Lincoln did not allow them to do this. The Cotton trade was a Lincoln Administration policy. Interstingly Lincoln allowed Grant's order to be in effect for about 21 days. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Probably because Lincoln wanted to squash the illicit cotton trading in that area quickly. The existing text does mention Jewish merchants were profiteering from an illicit cotton exchange through enemy lines while Union soldiers died in the fields, but we should also mention, per McFeely, that they were ignoring orders about illicit cotton trading and were being evasive about it, so at least some of the readers will understand what prompted Grant's actions during war time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is complex...if both gentile and Jewish traders were ignorning orders and profiting from the illicit trade...then why did not Grant arrest those individuals ? Clearly Grant over reacted even if he was justified in taking action...the complexity is that Lincoln did not want to give up the Cotton trade completely...putting Grant and Sherman in a difficult position...Expulging Jews as a class however is anti-semitism...There were no internment camps such as the Japanese in the 1940's ordered by FDR...and the order was only sustained for 21 days...The controversial order was relatively quickly reversed. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Actual order printed in New York Times

Here is the actual order:

"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 within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order."

"Post commanders will see to it that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters. No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application of trade permits."

Apparently, Jews would be held in confinement only if they returned without a permit. Is there any record of Jewish people being held in confinement? What does sending them out as prisoners mean? Does that mean Grant had intended an internment camp? Grant believed all Jewish people were involved in the cotton trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Source: Father Abraham Lincoln & the Children of Israel: Order No. 11 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777, Alanscottwalker, and Coemgenus: -- Good leg work. I've no issue with covering this topic in context. It would seem that non Jews also were taken to task if indeed they were compromising Union interests. McFeely, pp.123-124, mentions/quotes a convert, Charles A, Dana: "...mainia for sudden fortunes made in cotton, raging in a vast population of Jews and Yankees", while also pointing out that Grant said there was a "...total disregard and evasion of orders by the Jews...". Grant, in exasperation, said to Sherman, that "the cotton merchants were so eager to purchase crops that instead of keeping to the rear of the armies they were getting ahead of them." So not only was the profiteering an issue but the fact that merchants were ahead of the army, (complicating matters -- warning people of the approaching Union Army?) was also. As long as we can point out that Grant had no inherent hatred or disregard for Jews and touch on the surrounding circumstances, during war, there shouldn't be an issue. I'm sort of disappointed that this FA could only cover this topic as it did. i.e.Inadequately, with Smith's quotation. (Yeah, I know -- page length.) We should cover the topic in context of war, profiteering, etc, mention "anti-semitism", the surrounding circumstances, and remove Smith's quote, which imo, distorts Grant real intentions and the entire episode here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I edited the section giving a direct quote of the order...This adds better clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• We still need to omit Smith's singular quote, his (not everyone's) opinion, and mention that Grant repeatedly apologized, and was later interviewed by Jewish leaders. A little more context, per above, wouldn't hurt either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Done -- Shouldn't this important topic get its own subsection? Presently it's lumped in with the Shiloh subsection, when in fact this episode occurred several months after that battle. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think that random citation to a book about things in the Library of Congress adds anything. The language is mostly fine, I just trimmed a few superfluous words and added punctuation. I really don't think that short paragraph needs its own section, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not give it its own subsection? It's an important topic and a completely separate event that occurred some seven months later, having nothing to do with the Battle of Shiloh, so it should not come under that heading. Unless there's a good reason not to, the topic should get its own heading and there's enough content to warrant it also. There are plenty of sections in FA that are just as short or shorter, so that by itself is not really a basis to lump it in with Shiloh. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The order is discussed in its own section in the Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War article...I am not opposed to putting the order into its own section...but then should we put that Grant incorporated African Americans into the Union Army into its own section for balance ? The section looks better with the new editing...The quote from the actual order makes the section more neutral. As far as Smith goes, maybe another of Grant's biographer's opinions can be added as balance. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

During one of the peer reviews (GA, I think), a reviewer noted that there were too many subsections and the table of contents was too long. So, we combined a number of small sections to keep it more manageable. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but I think we should keep it how it was and avoid going back to the old, bloated table of contents. As to balance, I can only repeat what I've said before: we don't do balance, as such, we do neutrality. And anyway, the article mentions many times how Grant worked to help freedmen. Adding a non-sequitur about them in the paragraph on general order #11 would be jarring and unnecessary. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I was refering to the Vicksburg section having its own subsection on Grant incorporating African Americans into the Army...Isn't balance part of neutrality ? True...the addition of the subsections would break up the current table of contents...This could lead to more subsections in each section...Is that where we want to go again ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I added Brands 2012a view concerning Grant's order...McFeely 1981 contends Grant was angry upon finding out McClerland was getting his own army. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My view is that making it its own subsection does take it out of context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

McFeely didn't say Grant issued the order against the Jews because he was angry at McClernand, only that they happened around the same time. It's more of a segue than an explanation. He actually gives several other possible explanations, none of which involve McClernand. And I'm beginning to doubt that we should put each biographer's theory in the main text. Maybe we should do a footnote, like we did concerning their differing opinions on Grant's drinking? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I put in the McFeely reference in good faith as accurately as I read McFeely...who stated Grant's order "lashed out" at Jewish merchants the same day he learned McClernand was getting additional troops...to me that is a cause and effect...McFeely states Grant was "frustrated and immobile" and he was "accomplishing little". A footnote would be appropriate I believe... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No. That is not accurate. Coemgenus is right. Also can we have the quote for : "Another Grant biographer H.W. Brands stated Grant in issuing the order prided himself as a soldier whose main goal was to win the war despite political repercussions." " Is that really all he said about it? It sounds like misplaced emphasis on what Brands actually conveyed. Also, it makes little sense in the present article, at least in that form, was he proud of the order or was he sorry?Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Grant was no doubt sorry that he acted on a whole class of people, but since it was war I doubt if he was sorry otherwise. Evidently there was a large disproportionate number of Jewish merchants/speculators. Why else would Grant have used such a broad brush? Which was more important -- the lives and outcome of the war, or the indignities of one ethnic group? I suspect that's a tough one to answer for some here in the 21st century. At any rate, he apologized, as he should have, for the sake of those not involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did he use a broad brush? McFeely says it reflected the anti-semitism that was in the culture; that's how anti-semitism generally works: there are some Jews ---> the Jews must be to blame ---> all Jews must go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

References

General Order No. 11 (ii)

As this is rather an important topic, it still needs its own subsection. (Btw, none of the reviewers at FAC made issue of the TOC and only a couple expressed reservations, only, about page length.) Also, G.O.#11 occurred as Grant was first moving into the general Vicksburg area in December of '62 a few months before the actual siege. As they approached the area they came upon deserted plantations with thousands of bails of cotton all over the fields. This is when large numbers of fleeing blacks took refuge with the Union troops and where Grant put them to work, paying them comparable wages for that day. As G.O.#11 was issued seven months after Shiloh. I had given it its own subsection between the two mentioned subsections. In any case, speculators and merchants arrived on the scene, esp in Memphis, moving out from there, some with Gov. permits to purchase/sell cotton, many without them, and indeed they were too often ahead of the Union troops, not only doing business with the enemy, but were revealing/selling military secrets, positions, etc. We should either balance out Smith's quotation with another, or remove it. We can simply say Grant's order was considered "anti-semitic" by some modern scholars at the end. This would be much more neutral than letting Smith's quote stand by itself, esp since it plays on the presentist notions of the young and/or naive and in so doing distorts Grant's intentions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

McFeely and Brands are solid Grant biographers and should not be barred from the article...Why is Smith given preference in the article over McFeely and Brands. That is not neutrality...Brands and Mcfeely give their opinions of General Orders No. 11...I thought it was agreed to put their opinons including Smith in a footnote. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Cmguy, here. A note is best, rather than cluttering the text with the opinions of different biographers as to Grant's intent. I'll work on some language for the note tonight and post it here for your consideration. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, with one distinction, that we should just mention "some modern historians consider GO#11 was anti-semetic" and we can use Smith, Mcfeely and/or Waugh for the cites. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) No one is barring anything, McFeeley calls it the "antisemtic order". The Brands info not quote (I have asked for exact Brands quotes for verification) made little sense in the context of our article - we already say he was sorry - not proud of the order. Moreover, the claim that this is important and the claim that we need to nix Smith are at cross purposes - the order is important for the reason that Smith gives - the 21 day order does not seem important otherwise. Smith's quote is not really about the why of the order, it is about the what - the significance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The General Order is important inasmuch as it offers historical context between the battles of Shiloh and Vicksburg. It would be important regardless of any opinion of "anti-semitism", and if Smith only covers this topic primarily for that reason, then this would be yet another reason to remove his quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No. There is no coverage of General Orders 1-10 nor General Orders 12 through ___, so that cannot be the reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If Smith only covers GO#11 and not the others, wouldn't this mean he was only concerned about anti-semitism, esp in light of his quote? At any rate, let's let Coemgenus carry the ball from here and see what he comes up with before we opinionate/speculate any further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If Smith, what? I did not refer to Smith in that comment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alan. And no historian denies that it was anti-semitic. That's not really at issue here. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue. Smith's coverage of the order was at issue, and again, if he didn't cover any of the other orders then he obviously covered #11 because of his opinion, which is more than obvious given his quote. The act was anti-semetic -- not the intention. That's the important thing. Or are we now supposed to think Grant hated Jews?-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We're supposed to read the historical scholarship and present the consensus view among them, noting differences where applicable. We're not supposed to insert our own opinions and justifications. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Smith's quote is about the act. The order was anti-semitic - just how many biographers and historians do we need to say that, as it's already covered by Smith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The compromise then would be to put historical analysis in the footnote as Coemgenus suggested...I wrote Brands 2012a the best I could...We can't put block quotes in the article...I was giving a summary...Alanscottwalker you have every right to make the edit better...I did not stated other historians deny Grant's order was anti-semitic. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the Brands 2012a quotes:

"...Grant perceived Jews as playing a large part in the cotton trade...(page 217)...Grant later claimed that the language of the order --- barring Jews as a people rather then simply Jewish speculators --- reflected his exasperation and overwork...(page 218) If the inconvenience of this comparitively small class was the price of winning the war, he was willing to make them pay it....Yet Grant refused to take politics into account. He was a soldier, and he prided himself on thinking and acting like a soldier..." (page 219)" Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Grant perceived"? Was Grant an idiot on drugs? He didn't have military intelligence, informers, etc? Grant obviously caved under public pressure for using blunt language. Did all these merchants and speculators arrive in a war zone and brought their wives and children along? Are we supposed to believe that Grant had Jewish women and children in mind when he gave the order -- simply because they were Jewish? Yes, we're supposed to reflect the scholarship -- but I'm wondering now if anyone is thinking for themselves around here. Gwillhickers (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's how I'd do the note: {{efn|Smith suggests that the order "is consistent with a streak of [[Nativism (politics)|nativism]] that ran deep in Grant."{{sfn|Smith|p=226}} Other biographers explained Grant's motivations differently. [[H. W. Brands]] writes that the order reflected Grant's exasperation and overwork.{{sfn|Brands 2012a|p=218}} [[William S. McFeely]] similarly calls the order the result of "a frustrated man" relying on "the age-old scapegoat.{{sfn|McFeely 1981|p=123}}}}

Thoughts? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is acceptable. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a 'modern' biographer out there that suggests that Grant, a simple man by almost all accounts, 'simply' used a broad brush, and took swift and effective action, during a war, with any ethnic issues being among the last of his considerations? Lincoln waited 21 days before rescinding the order. Was he "frustrated" too? Didn't realize this was going to get so esoteric. These particular biographers sound like they have their publishers looking over their shoulder on this topic. On top of that they're all suggesting that Grant wasn't concerned about the obvious -- disproportionate numbers of Jewish merchants collaborating with the enemy so they can line their pockets. Why else would Grant give such an order? We may as well just leave Smith's quote as is. What difference will the above note make? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best if we leave our own theories about the authors' biases out of it. The sources are what they are. Our personal opinions don't enter into it. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not accept the compromise in a footnote...Grant was a human too...He learned the McClernand was being sent Wisconsin troops and I am sure that was what upset him. There were Jewish persons involved in the trade yes, but the difference is that Grant's order did not ban Jewish traders...He banned Jewish people as a class...Honestly Smith, Brands, and McFeely don't have what I would call consistent views on General Orders No. 11 Comemgenus is correct...Authors opinions may have bias but we can't put our own theories into the article. I recommend the Comegenus footnote...We just can't ignore this issue in the article... 184.12.242.81 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Coemgenus. Take the sources as they are and edit according to what the sources state. Our opinions (POV) are not germane to how the content should read and what should be included or left out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

Why don't we say that modern historians generally consider Grants's order was 'anti-semetic' and spare ourselves the speculations of a few chosen authors, which as we can see, vary? e.g.Grant was "frustarted", Grant was a victim of his own culture, etc. That would be neutral. Bear in mind that after WWii and Hitler, the 'idea' of "anti-semitism" took on monstrous proportions, and rightly so -- to a point. As we must know, Grant is not only on the same page, he's not even in that book. Again, we have to be careful when we use modern day terminology to describe people and events of the past. I'd recommend we simply use this simple suggestion, in a foot note, and use one or two of the mentioned sources for the citation, and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That could be put in the footnote...Grant was fighting the South who for all practical purposes was keeping African Americans, as a class of people, enslaved...Context is needed...The order was given after the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation...The war fueled the high price of cotton and thus created corruption of funding the Confederate War effort... 184.12.242.81 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We should keep it simple. This is just a footnote, regarding Gen.order#11. Grant's treatment of Blacks while he was a General, his reconstruction efforts while President, etc, etc, is already covered in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with Coemgenus' footnote, but I still oppose moving the anti-semitism text to the footnote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

His footnote doesn't even mention "anti-semitism". In any case it has too many varied speculations in it. If you insist that we mention "anti-semitism" in the text, then we need to get into the details as to what exactly prompted Grant's order. Please don't expect us to believe that Grant just wanted to dump on Jews while doing nothing about the problem of speculators collaborating with the enemy. This assumes Grant had no military intelligence and wasn't aware of his surroundings and that he just up and struck out at Jews. I say we just keep the footnote simple and be done with this opinionated jousting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The text already describes the circumstances. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Perhaps the text should mention more given some of the narrow opinions flying around these days. Again, let's just give general mention about G.O.#11, that it is generally considered anti-semitic by modern historians in a footnote and be done with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Alan: Yes, I wanted to keep the Smith statement about anti-semitism where it is, and just add the footnote afterward to give more detail for those who wish it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

More needs to be mentioned that Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation proclamation prior to Grant's order...also the length of the order 21 days needs to be put into context of the section...Rather then singling out Smith I would put what Gwillhickers suggested that modern historians consider his order anti-semitic. I don't believe Smith should get favored over McFeely or Brands. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As to your and Gwill's suggestion, that would open the text to a tag, which is to be avoided in an FA. Moreover, the order was also seen as anti-Semitic at the time of the order (for example, one of Grant's officers resigned his commission because this order was against the Jews). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Alan is right, removing the attribution would make the article worse. I don't particularly care about the note, I just wrote it because you guys were complaining about the sources calling the order anti-semitic (which is difficult to fathom, in itself, but whatever). If there's no consensus to add it, I'm happy to leave the text as it is now. I'm certainly not going to support adding a tangent about the Emancipation Proclamation, which Grant played no part in drafting and which was a decision of the country's political leadership, not its military. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The order was anti-semitic...yes...Mentioning Smith in the article and then putting McFeely and Brands point of view in a footnote would favor Smith over McFeely and Brands...There also needs to be the context that there were millions of African American slaves in the South and that Lincoln had given a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation...Grant's order lasted 21 days...I am sure some compromise can be reached...I still believe a footnote would be appropriate... Cmguy777 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

All three authors make the same point (that it was anti-semitic), Smith just says it the most succinctly. It's not about favoring one over the other, unless you think that every time we cite or quote an author we're favoring him over the others. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Coemgenus...That depends...if other authors have differing views then those views should get equal time...Smith I believe is the only author to use the phrase "anti-semitic" and I don't believe all three authors make the same point, but rather, have differing views...I still support your footnote to be added to represent Grant's other biographers...Smith's statement, only my opinion, seems to be out of context that there were millions of African Americans enslaved in the confederacy and that Lincoln had given the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862...Grant did acknowledge to Bismark that the latter half of the War was to end slavery...I don't have any issues with stating that Grant's order was "anti-semitic" only that McFeely's and Brands' opinions on the matter get into the article...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think we're basically in agreement. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Smith is not the only one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is hardly a compromise. If we were to say "a historian regarded the act as anti-semetic", that would beg the 'who?' tag, but groups of people are often referred to in statements where the article is not compelled to provide a list of the names. Also, we can mention anti-semitism without quoting a cherry picked biographer who employs the adjective "blantant", which is not at all neutral. If we are going to touch on opinion in this capacity, then we are compelled to provide more of the surrounding circumstances,to give the readers a more clear picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

McFeely 1981 (p 124) and Smith 2001 (p 225) use the word "anti-Semitism" directly concerning Grant's order. Brands 2012a does not directly link Grant's order to anti-Semitism. From reading Brands 2012a (p 201, 217) one can conclude that both Grant and Sherman and others held views of "anti-Semitism" common during this era... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The important fact remains, Grant acted out of military interest, not "anti-semitism", even though, as Simpson notes, he may have harbored it in certain ways. To suggest as you seem to be doing, that Grant acted out of "anti-semitism" alone flies in the face of Grant's concern for his troops and the war effort. I'm assuming, someone as familiar with Grant as you are, knows better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems as if Grant's order was done out of frustration, military interest, and anti-Semitism. More context is needed for the article section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Grants military interest would be the predominating factor here. If the speculators were largely and most aptly Italian, a different class, we should know that Grant would have blocked that class also, given his primary concerns as a General, responsible for many thousands of lives, both military and civilian. We should make clear that "anti-semitism" had little if anything to do with this war time decision by including the proper amount of context.
For perspective, it took several months of preparation before an actual siege on Vicksburg was feasible, given the rebel batteries and other defenses that were almost everywhere around Vicksburg. Along with patrol reports I would think military intelligence played a key role in Grant's strategy and approach to the area. There is no reason not to assume that the prospect of collaboration with and support for the enemy is primarily what prompted Grant's order. We can say in so many words that the general order was considered "anti-semitic", with text or footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

topic needs more context

To better understand why Grant issued G.O.#11 more context is needed so the reader can see he acted out of military interest much more than "anti-semitism". Simpson, 2000, more so than the others, offers some excellent insights along this line. He explains that many of Memphis' most prominent merchants were Jewish and drew on preexisting trading relationships to exploit the present opportunity in Tennessee. What's revealing here is that the War department had informed Grant that Jewish merchants and speculators were carrying large amounts of gold into Tennessee. Many of the merchants in Memphis were Jewish and so were their partners and associates, most notably Mack and Brothers. (i.e.a family business) As many people kept business in the family or with close friends, it wasn't enough just to ban 'Jewish merchants', but all of them, even if it involved women and children. He explains that it was not Grant's anti-semetism that prompted him to issue G.O.#11 but rather the large numbers and ability of Jews to exploit the situation in such a huge capacity. Unfortunately some situations, esp during war, demand that a broad brush be used. Grant's order understandably was issued just before he advanced on Vicksburg .<Simpson, 2001, pp.164-165> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If we are going to quote Smith, then we need to quote Simpson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference Gwillhickers is that Grant removed Jews as a class rather just Jewish speculators. Yes. The corruption in the cotton trade was getting out of hand...Grant's general orders #11 was an over reaction to this corruption...The cotton trade, a Lincoln policy, was demoralizing the Union army and war effort... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This was just explained to you above. Grant was about to move on Vicksburg. He had to squash the collaboration quickly, and in so doing, he targeted most and the worst of the offenders, which often involved family and friends. We need to make this clear to the readers. And it wasn't Lincoln's policy that demoralized the Union Army, it was the corruption surrounding the cotton speculators, as Grant himself mentioned.. I doubt Lincoln had this in mind at all. His concern was funding the war effort. Again, we need to quote Simpson explicitly and to add much of the context he offers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers, even taking Simpsons views into consideration...Grant's order stated "as a class"...More context on Grant helping freed African Americans prior to the order should be taken into consideration...No one is denying the corruption...This was Lincoln's policy and Lincoln reversed Grant's order that cotton be bought with greenbacks rather then gold and silver...We don't need to debate Lincoln's policy though in the Grant talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, his order stated "as a class". i.e.All of them -- friends, family, business associates, etc. Evidently the situation called for such broad and swift action. This is nothing amazing. Also, I have no problem covering the great number of blacks that took refuge with the Union Army, and Grant's benevolent treatment of them. This is also important historical context and deserves a good summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers...Wikipedia is a summary article...Respectfully, let the reader make conclusions about Grant's order given neutral context...the term "as a class" made the order "anti-Semetic"...I can't see any other way around that issue...There was definately corruption and it was getting out of hand. I agree Grant's benevolence to African Americans needs more consideration. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please reread the thread. This is what I've said on several occasions, i.e.let the readers decide what's what with a general statement or footnote that mentions modern historians generally agree Grant's order was anti-semetic. This is why we need to include important context, so the intelligent and open minded reader can sort through the opinions and can see all the factors that led up to Grant's G.O. Again, we need to quote Simpson and add some of the important context he brings to the table. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I added more context and Coemgenus did some narration editing...I think the section reads better. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I added more clarification from Flood...Not trying to increase size but believe more clarification was necessary...Added references to every sentence in the second paragraph for section reliability... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort Cm', but not much has changed. We still have the rather opinionated quote standing by itself for the closing statement. Not exactly neutral. Simpson's perspective is not represented. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Cmguy's efforts are good. I'm happy with it as is. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the content has been much improved in the section...There was actual corruption, the bribery of federal officers, that gives better perspective toward Grant's concern over the life of his soldiers. The term "blatant" by Smith could be considered opinionated, but Grant's order was anti-semitic. I don't think any other biographer used the term "blatant". Only Smith did. I am not neccessarily opposed to adding Simpson's perspective, but, the section should not be or turn into a defense of Grant's order. This is only a summary article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Where are the Simpson references? Unless references are given the edits will need to be removed... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's not jump the gun on adding things. I don't think we've arrived at any consensus here to expand this point in the main article, where space is limited. We've already added more than I would prefer, but I'm happy to agree on Cmguy's last bunch of edits. Any more into the various authors' opinions, though, gets a little ridiculous. Maybe we could add Simpson's perspective in with McFeely's and Brands's in a note, I guess, but the topic already takes up too much space in the main text. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but we should at least add Simpson's quote to balance Smith's over stated and opinionated quote -- that is completely fair. Simpson explains Grant did not act out of any sort of blind prejudice. The context of gold shipments to Tennessee is important as it sheds light on the extent of the problem, which was considerable. The prospect of most/much of this gold falling into Confederate hands is no doubt why the War dept alerted Grant and a big part of why Grant acted so rashly. Imo, this is important context to G.O.#11, the events that led up to the Vicksburg campaign and to Grant himself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree there should be concensus. It would help if references were given for the Simpson information particularly the page numbers. Did Grant's General Order # 11 extend to Tennessee or were Jewish people expelled from Tennessee directly because of gold shipments...Did Grant know about these gold shipments? That part is confusing...The Simpson quote needs a reference and is it possible to have a full quote from Simpson ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The order did affect all Jewish persons in Tennessee...I found the page numbers for the Simpson information(163-165). Grant did learn about the gold shipments prior to the order and that his father was going to receive 1/4 profits if Grant gave a permit to the Mack and Brothers. I believe that is important, especially about his father using Grant to get potential profits. Simpson admits "Grant's anti-Semitism" (page 164) but he states that the order did not emminate from anti-Semitism... Cmguy777 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for interchanging Smith for Simpson. Yes, Grant's enterprising father Jessee was part of an investment scheme (of his own?), but I seriously doubt he would have knowingly gone along with any plan to help the rebel cause. Mack and Bro's culpribility in helping the rebels, if any, is not important here. Right now all that needs to be added is a little context regarding the concern over gold expressed by the War Dept to Grant, major details, and another quote to balance out Smith's quote. Mention of fleeing blacks to the Union line and Grant's good treatment of them is also due mention in an appropriate paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Simpson contends on page 164 that Grant held views of anti-Semitism, but that these views did not influence his order...That could counter Smith's statement concerning Grant's order. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

But we shouldn't be trying to counter Smith's statement. A balanced biography doesn't mean that for every perceived "bad" detail we provide a balancing "good" one. A balanced biography gives due weight to the details as shown in the best sources: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

I've done a clean-up on that bit, but think it's way too much detail and would prefer to eliminate all attempts to show both sides, preferring a simple narration of the events. YoPienso (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Yopienso...I recommend that historical analysis be put in a footnote including Smith's assessment. Smith is the only Grant biographer who used the word "blatant" concerning the order and that demands some sort of counter for neutrality. All historians agree Grant held views of anti-Semitism at that time during the Civil War. This issue needs some clarification for the reader and for the neutrality of the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Footnote added

I added a footnote for historical analysis of Grant's controversial General Order No. 11. I included Smith analysis in the footnote...It is up to other editors if Smith's views should be included in the paragraph mentioning Grant's order...I believe any historical views should be in the footnote to be neutral rather then only have one historians view in the article narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a few formatting changes. I think the tone of what you wrote is generally wrong. 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. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe anything was made to contradict anything...My edit stated stated that Simpson believed Grant held views of anti-Semitism...Yopensio edited my edit. Grant's anti-Semitism seemed to end after the order was rescinded. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just thinking about it the wrong way. Let's leave it as it is. OK? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the footnote...possibly other biographer views can be added to the footnote...nothing pressing...There does seem to be some relationship between Grant, his father, the Tennessee gold shipment, and Mack and Brothers that could have caused Grant to act so rashly. Mentioning his father's involvement might give better context to the order. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Insert : You seem to be missing the obvious. Grant was the top General in the middle of a war. Once again, the War Dept warned him about large shipments of gold coming into Tennessee. If most/much of this gold fell into the hands of the rebels it would have helped their war effort tremendously. If anything, Grant's father's relationship with Mack & Bro.s, who were Jewish, would have been an incentive for Grant not to issue the order, but he was not even swayed by his own father's interests at this time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I added Jonathan D. Sarna (2012) When General Grant Expelled the Jews source and information on Grant's father Jesse lobbying for Mack and Brothers. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph reads better, but we're still missing a key piece of information. i.e.The news that large quantities of gold were being brought into Tennessee by the Jewish speculators. The disregard for trading policy by the Jewish speculators and that much/most of this gold might end up in the hands of the rebels, is what made Grant issue the order. We need to mention that the War dept warned Grant of this advent. This major and definitive detail, now covered by an existing cite, should be included. -- Also, since G.O.#11 was issued seven months after Shiloh and during the events that led up to the Vicksburg campaign, we might want to put this content in the latter section. Shiloh has nothing to do with and is not what prompted Grant's order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There's too much already, we should certainly add no more. Sarna was in there before, but was removed when we shortened the over-long discussion on General Order #11. I see no reason why we shouldn't do the same again. This is getting ridiculous. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus and Cmguy777: I originally suggested that we simply remove Smith's quote and let the readers decide what was what -- so I believe we've all had a hand in this. This is an important topic, and has enough content, and weight, to give it its own subsection. It certainly should not be lumped in with Shiloh simply because it came after -- many months after. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The recent edits have now succeeded in making this order central to Grant's biographical overview. These edits are the height of undue weight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Weren't you one of those who insisted that we call Grant's order "anti-semetic"? That by itself not only makes the topic controversial, but gives it more weight. If we are going to employ modern day hyper-speak then we need to include context. What do you suggest -- remove the bit about Grant's father? Remove the context of the War Department's warning to Grant ? Remove Simpson's perspective and let Smith's singular view stand by itself? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I am the one that insists we follow the historians and biographers, all of who refer to the anti-semitism (anti-Jewish animus) in relation to discussing the order. Even Simpson, refers to the wording of the order as anti-semitic. That in no way supports writing the hundreds of words of the subsidiary GO. 11 article, into this summary article, giving it undue weight in his biography, just because you don't like the word anti-Semitism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What text do you feel we should remove? Anything that might instead suggest Grant's main concern was actually the war effort? Context is important. Instead of broad-brushed complaints, we could use some actual advice. Besides, the subsection isn't that long. If anything we can remove the part about Grant's father -- this has virtually nothing to do with Grant and his order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course Simpson is a biographer and his work (along with the others) shows that primarily you have turned this article with your unneutral POV, excessively emphasizing this order. In no way did Simpson's biography spend this amount of space on this order. I think Coemengus should drastically edit it down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I have introduced more neutrality by including important 'facts' and have asserted no POV of my own into the content, thank you. As explained several times now, we need to make sure that all important context, per Grant biographers, has been added, so we don't have the readers jumping to conclusions with their present day (and evidently) narrow minded notions. I'll remove the bit about Grant's father -- that's a bit tangential, however, it did serve to demonstrate that Grant was not swayed by family or such interests in his decision to issue the order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Simpson devotes roughly three pages of coverage to Grant's General order (pp.163-165). In proportion, we have given the topic a short paragraph of coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers...There is no record from Washington D.C. telling Grant gold was being shipped...Grant's father accepting the 25% commission tipped the iceburg...This is important for the reader to know...There is also no record from Washington D.C. instructing Grant to remove Jewish people from his district. I don't want to expand further but Sarna wrote a book on the whole subject and in my opinion is an authority and should not be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alan, we're putting undue weight on this episode. I'd propose returning to the version that existed when it passed FA (the order was already mentioned then in two different sections, I think). --Coemgenus (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Simpson's book is 500 pages (and it only covers half his public life), our biography of his whole life now covers GO 11 in two sections (one whole section of its own and in the election of 1868), and in an extended note -- in multiples of words more than when this article made FA. As for all this being added because of your singular POV that you don't like the word anti-semitism, despite it being used over and over again in the sources, you have made abundantly clear. You have not introduced neutrality, you have introduced a filibuster on the order making it all extensively unbalanced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I can accept the current edition as is...There is no undue weight on Grant's order since Sarna wrote a whole book on the subject...Sarna 2012 is recent research...why should Sarna be eliminated and the older research by Simpson supercedes Sarna. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what undue weight means here. Lots of books have been written about lots of things. That has nothing to do with how big a space they should take up in a general article about Grant. What is dispositive is how much space a topic is given by the scholars who have written biographies of Grant. If none of them found something important, we cannot replace that judgment with our own. Likewise, if they all found something tremendously important, we cannot leave it out. TLDR; we follow the consensus of existing Grant scholarship, as I've said about a hundred times before on these pages. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There indeed is undue weight. This article is a biography of Grant's entire life, not a monograph on one order he issued. Simpson's book is more a model for this general article than Sarna's, which is specialized.

Sarna sees GO 11 as more important to American Jewry than to Grant.

Sarna also says Grant's legacy is being reevaluated and he is being vindicated as a "military savior" and "great president," citing to "The Return of Ulysses" by Sean Wilentz and to Time's 2008 poll in our rankings. YoPienso (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso: The account here is a short summary of G.O.#11 that mentions the basic facts with some commentary in a footnote. It is hardly a "monograph". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I was comparing Simpson's and Sarna's books: the first is a general bio and the second is a monograph. Therefore, when it comes to giving weight to this one incident, our bio should more closely follow Simpson than Sarna. YoPienso (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The topic as presented here is a summary -- little more than a mention of the important facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I was replying to Cmguy's comment, "There is no undo (sic) weight on Grant's order since Sarna wrote a whole book on the subject." It is not evident that he (or you for that matter) understand WP:UNDUE. YoPienso (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus:If we're going to present one point of view then we must present the other fairly by citing a couple of important details along with a balancing commentary, if we must include those. Obviously we just can't use Smith's by itself -- not when there's Simpson. We now have a simple summary with nothing but the most basic of facts presented clearly and briefly, with a well rounded commentary/footnote, which overall is hardly anything that should garner undue weight criticisms. If there is a consensus 'not' to put this topic under its own subsection then we should at least put the topic in one to which it is most involved. It's not Shiloh. If you were to put this topic, along with that of fleeing blacks perhaps, in the Vicksburg subsection, with maybe a little textual interfacing, you would have my vote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Smith and Simpson don't have different points of view that the order was anti-Semitic. (Even Julia Grant, in her memoirs, her husband's biggest fan, calls it the "obnoxious order" and says her husband had no right to issue it against the Jews). Your point (which you filibuster on about) is that Grant issued this "anti-Semitic order" (in the words of McFeely) out of military necessity, which is a rather anodyne point (which was already covered before you touched the section) -- he was issuing a military order, after all. Orders 1-10 and 12 through ___, were also out of military necessity but those don't get discussed in every source, unlike "anti-Semitic order", GO11, and government action that is anti-Semitic is regularly viewed as "necessary" by those who take the anti-Semitic action. Your Shiloh section point is also rather silly, Shiloh opened Tennessee and Mississippi to Grant - it's why he was there in Memphis, and why the Shiloh section discusses battles at Corinth, Mississippi and luka in the fall of 1862 (not just the battle of Shiloh). Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Alanscottwalker:, you're still carrying on about a point not even in dispute, dragging in comments from Gran't's wife, etc. And Simpson differs from Smith in that he feels Grant did not act out of anti-semitism. This was discussed as you of course remember. No one contests the order itself was anti-semetic and if you care to remember I added the prose about Grant expressing remorse to this effect to Jewish community leaders. Grant was warned by the War Dept and almost immmediatly thereafter he issued the order. Yes, the paragraph mentioned what Grant "believed", (as if he was not informmed by patrol reports and military intelligence) The FAC version did not include these important details which serve to explain why Grant over reacted.

• Regarding Shiloh, and what it led to in Tennessee and Mississippi, this is moot and doesn't change the fact that while approaching Vicksburg Grant had to clear the area of speculators while controlling large numbers of fleeing blacks before he could begin the siege. The merchants and collaborators were a big problem at this time, and also at this time the War Department warned Grant of the situation, that large amounts of gold were coming into Tennessee. Immediately thereafter Grant issued his order. This all happened many months after Shiloh and right to the commencement of the Vicksburg campaign. If anything is "silly" it would be the idea that the General order topic be lumped into the Shiloh section. Grant issued the order while he was at his headquarters in Holly Springs, just north of Vicksburg, while a cotton trading frenzy was occurring all around him. The topic clearly should be placed in the Vicksburg section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not what Smith or Simpson say. Both view the order as anti-Semitic (that is all the Smith quote says). Simpson does not differ in that. Now, your wanting to shift the order to introduce the Vicksburg section is just more skewing the text to give it undue weight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You're still again carrying on about something not in dispute. No is saying that Smith or Simpson don't regard the order as anti semetic. Once again ASW, the difference between the two biographers is that Simpson maintains that Grant did not act out of anti-semitism. Please stop trying to distort that distinction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Coemgenus has this right, about what to do - revert to the FA version, although to compromise, he may consider bringing the entire note back to the text and giving Gwill and Cmguy ten additional well sourced words, if they can agree on them, (ten more is too much undue, but in the words of Grant 'let us have peace') Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• With all due respect to the time and effort Coemgenus has given to the readers please don't hold him up as some final authority on matters on your account. The argument about 'topic weight' thus far is marginal and opinionated, based on numbers of words only, all the while the topic is covered with only a short paragraph in the first place. The whole debate here is rather petty, arguing at length whether we should cover the topic with five sentences instead of seven or eight. Doesn't add up. Apparently you're not comfortable about the idea that Grant had obvious and immediate reasons for issuing the order. It goes without saying that it was not a nice thing, but then, war is not a very nice thing. After Grant's interview and explanations the Jewish community at large and the press did not continue to make this an issue during Grant's presidential campaign. At least I haven't seen any biography that says otherwise thus far, and I've been through a fair number of them at this point, new and old. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Uncomfortable with what? Your baseless claims are baseless. Don't make them again. In no way am I uncomfortable. Multiple editors see the undue weight problem you had introduced. Multiple editors see on this page why you skewed the article with undue weight because you don't like the word antisemitism, that the sources use over and over again. The article text already covered the Order and the election of 1868 before you ever got involved.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You're forgetting also that some of those "multiple editors" have added to the topic since FAC. And the article left out some important and very revealing details. Leaving out major details is what tends to skew the account here, esp when you only quote one perspective -- and simply placing the topic under Vicksburg will not skew matters. Once again G.O.#11 occurred right at the commencement of the Vicksburg campaign, issued while Grant was headquartered in Holly Springs. Once again, the topic belongs under Vicksburg, not under Shiloh which occurred seven months before the order. Simple math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to abide by what Alan proposes. Here's what the last consensus version of that paragraph looked like, on March 31, 2015, when it had just passed FA:

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.[61] After the Jewish community and Northern press criticized Grant over his order Lincoln demanded it be revoked.[62] 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."[63]

If anyone wants to propose a few minor changes, as Alan suggests, maybe ten or so words, I'm sure we can find something we can all agree on. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Insert @Coemgenus: -- editors here, including yourself, have just put a lot of time, discussion and editing into place, with both text and footnotes so we can make sure the readers get a clear picture. You just can't snap your fingers, ignore all the ideas discussed without any sort of acknowledgement and revert it all back, if that is still your intention, simply because this was the way it was at FAC. Where was the concern for undue-weight when you authored that rather lengthy footnote?

• The current version is only a few sentences longer, however it contains important facts that express the magnitude of the situation Grant was faced with. The FAC version of this topic merely says "Grant believed Jewish merchants ...", which could be taken to mean that the only reason he believed Jewish merchants were a big part of the problem was because -- they were Jewish. Why don't you care about being clear on that point? We need to keep this important detail regarding the War Dept's warning about gold shipments, and include Simpson's perspective that Grant acted out of pressing military interests, which should be obvious. This is an important consideration. The edits covering how Grant almost faced censure in the House, etc, are also important. This whole topic, not trivial by any means, is presently wrapped up with one short paragraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why Sarna 2012 is so readily discounted as a source, more recent the Simpson, and contains modern research on the subject...Not sure why editors can speak for biographers...Sarna found there was enough information to write a whole book on the subject...that is signifigant... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Simpson's book is a general biography (or, the first volume of one, anyway). Sarna's is a monograph about one aspect of that life. Do you understand why they might tell us different things about the weight due different parts of Grant's life? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Simpson's book is copyrighted 2000 but reprinted in 2014...research that is 15 years old. Sarna's research is three years old and more recent by comparison...Simpson was writing about Grant and the American Civil War...Of course Simpson can't devote a book on Grant's order, but Sarna did, arguably more research was done. Sarna's book deserves more weight then Simpson's 15 year old research. There is no wikipedia policy that states only biographers get top wieght over specialized sources such as Sarna. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you want to add from Sarna? Writing about Grant's father's involvement predates Sarna. Sarna came up with something new, after all these years of books and books? If so, what is it? At any rate, ten words is more than enough for summary, whatever it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarna debunks Simpson's theory that Washington ordered Grant to expel the Jews because of a gold shipment...no such record or order has been found...That is why Sarna 2012 is current research...The current sentence about the gold shipment is inaccurate and misleading... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Great! So let's go back to the old version, which didn't have that. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The slight increase in coverage with the introduction of a couple important facts, is not anything that should raise undue-weight issues because the paragraph is still small. We need to compromise and move on and not let the usual nit-picking over marginal issues drag out indefinitely. This should be a simple matter. Aside from the rather unfounded undue-weight claim, the present version reflects everyone's concern in terms of presenting the most basic of facts, and neutrality. The offer of ten additional words is not much of a compromise. Please leave this short, neutral, passage basically as it is. Most of us have had a hand in the current passage, and it's informative, not misleading and fair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is why current research is important...Sarna stated Grant was livid when his father Jesse accepting a 25 % commission lobbied to get Mack and Brothers a cotton trading permit on page 47. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarna did not debunk Simpson simply because of his claim that no record of a particular telegram (if indeed Grant was warned via telegram) has been found. The source Simpson gives (note 40, for chap #9) are two letters from Grant: one dated Dec.15, 1862, the other Dec.17, 1862. Leaping to your conclusion, based on one item of evidence -- not even found, is not very good editorship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer the questions scattered above: I agree with Alan that the current version is too long and gives undue weight to General Order #11. Why, then, did I propose the footnote? It was an attempt to placate you in the hopes of compromise and consensus. As I said during the inquiry into your behavior in 2011, "I was exhausted of arguing with [you] and wanted to get off that talk page and back into writing articles again." Sorry for the confusion. I thought things had changed since then. I should've known better.

If you have a better option in mind than the last consensus text (the FAC version), please propose it. If we can't find consensus then, let's not waste any more time on this talk page filibustering. Let's just ask for dispute resolution and move the process forward. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Requests for comment to which you refer to amounted to zero, no action taken, because as in this case, the complaints were petty, often ego driven and filled with several untruths -- all over the inclusion of stamp images at the end of an article. Petty. Here also you're needlessly aggravating a rather simple situation with your hyper speak. e.g."Filibustering" involves carrying on about irrelevant issues. The present version is only a few sentences longer than the FAC version and includes very important facts. The weight given is basically the same. The present version 'is' a compromise. My contentions have been completely reasonable, that we need to make clear of the situation Grant was faced with. As for the last "consensus text", I think you must realize that many of the FAC reviewers were not familiar with Grant, while others were only interested in his Civil War battle involvements. e.g. None of them, along with yourself, noticed that the article didn't even mention Grant's swearing in as President by Salmon Chase -- none of them noticed that the Vicksburg section, a definitive campaign, doesn't even mention Grant's HQ, the canal, and the situation of fleeing blacks -- for openers. If you'd like to trim some text, okay, but please leave the important facts in place. Being clear about an issue that is 'already' included in the biography isn't giving it more weight simply because a couple of important facts were added. Btw, this 'is' an important issue, involving Grant, the War Department, Lincoln, large amounts of gold quite possibly falling into rebel hands and contentions of anti-semitism by a U.S president. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

edit break

@ Gwillhickers...If any weight should be given it should be given to Sarna 2012...Letters two or from Grant are not orders from Washington concerning shipments of gold. Sarna states there is no record of any orders from the War Department warning Grant of a gold shipment by Jewish interests. I believe my edit was signifigant and in order...We can't put unsupported claims into the article...I do agree that this issue is important, but we need to put in the most reliable and recent research into the article. Sarna believes Grant's order came after his visit with his father Jesse lobbying for Mack and Brothers. That is most current research. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: -- To repeat, Sarna only claims there is no record of a telegram sent. Is there some official archive/directory of telegrams sent during the Civil War, and is that directory 100% complete? Maybe the warning about gold shipments was delivered by dispatch from nearby Memphis, which very likely could be where the information was uncovered, as merchants in that city were largely involved in the cotton business. Sarna has no evidence of anything, either way. You shouldn't base conclusions on that. It's doubtful Grant issued the order over the one incident with his father and partner. There was major trouble with speculators before Jesse & partner arrived on the scene. In any case, we have a reliable source, Simpson, that says Grant received a warning, and he cites sources, i.e.two letters from Grant. Try to look at it this way: Are we going to dismiss McFeely, published more than 30 years ago in 1981, with a later source whenever there is an apparent discrepancy between the two, simply on the basis of a later publication date? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus:I'm willing to try and settle this without dispute resolution, which is sort of over-kill, considering that we are simply debating whether a topic should be covered with five, six or eight sentences. The footnote you authored is informative and fair. Cm' removed the bit about gold shipments. I suppose this will have to do for now until we can iron out the disagreement about whether the warning was sent. Sarna has no evidence to back his assumption, Simpson cites two of Grant's letters. Is there anything else you'd like to add/modify/remove from the topic? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It is evident that editors find your excessive emphasis undue and they have discussed why -- so the majority want multiple cut-backs and an ending to the adding of text. That's what settles this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Alanscottwalker...First I would like to speak for myself as an editor...Second the issue of anti-Semitism is important to the Grant article...how much weight there should be in this summary biography is debatable, but I think for now one paragraph and a footnote will suffice. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. I was speaking on the majority editors, not for anyone. The note has been eliminated as unneeded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers...I would not discount Sarna 2012 so lightly...Sarna stated the War Department kept accurate records...admittedly this order was a low point in Grant's career and he may have been trying to cover some tracks in his letters stating he was following orders from Washington...but this is all speculation...Bringing in his father into the foray of speculation is the most likely reason why Grant gave the order to expel Jews, as a class, from his military department. Grant and his dad did not get along well all the time. How about stating that Grant alleged he received informtation concerning the gold shipment and mentioning that Grant was angry when his father lobbied for Mack and Brothers taking a 25% commission. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No more, per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ I appreciate the gesture Alanscottwalker. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers...McFeely (1981) does mention Grant's father Jesse entering headquarters lobbying for a Jewish trader (Mack and Brothers) and that Grant was upset, although McFeely does not believe Grant as angry as Sarna (2012) states. Sarna stated an eyewitness stated Grant was livid or angry. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• We have a RS, Simpson, used in this bio' a fair number of times, that says Grant was warned about gold shipments coming into Tennessee -- almost immediately thereafter he issued the order. The idea of large quantities of gold falling into rebel hands is very important context. To intentionally leave this one statement out of the narrative with the argument of undue weight is nonsense, as the paragraph is still in the same ball park in terms of length -- one additional sentence. i.e.If we were going to add many more sentences then the undue weight argument might have some integrity. Thus far, no one has given a sound reason why this very important and revealing detail should be left out.
• (Cm') I agree that biographers should not be the only RS used, but Sarna in this case gives no evidence either way, whereas Simpson cites two of Grant's letters. Once again, the problems with speculators/collaborators was a major problem before Garnt's father showed up with his partner, however, I have no problem admitting that this could easily have been the last straw, but no one, including Sarna, knows this for sure.
• Much more could be added, including Grant's quote: e.g.In an interview with Rabbi E.B.M. Browne on Aug. 27, 1875. Grant claimed 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>, but I am willing to compromise and will settle for the inclusion of the above important detail regarding the War Department's warning about gold. One sentence. Don't quite understand why at anyone would want to leave this particular detail out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, whether you understand or not, just so there is no confusion and we don't start going down the expansionist rabbit hole again - no consensus to add this, either (or perhaps we can add Julia . . . but no). The section has already been expanded more than quite enough. As has been the case repeatedly in the last 4 months, there are sub-articles for extended details and discussions of source's disputes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again ASW, three editors just recently have had a hand in 'expanding' the section, if you must resort to your usual hyper-speak, so your claim of "consensus" is a little fuzzy. Once again, adding this revealing detail is important, and it would seem that anyone wanting to present a clear picture in terms of the situation and urgency Grant was faced with would welcome this bit of information. For some reason an additional sentence is causing 'monumental' problems for you, the only one who was opposed to 'any' sort of additional info here. Perhaps it's time to call in other involved editors because you're clearly arm-wrestling with the editor here. I've gone along with much around here, have tolerated several of my edits being reverted but in this case it's sort of difficult to sit back and watch this one vital detail being blocked under the guise of "undue-weight" concerns, which is sort of transparent as again we are only discussing the inclusion of one sentence. Again, when there is disagreement a compromise should be reached. I thought the inclusion of one sentence here was more than a fair compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

ASW speaks for me here. I don't think further expansion would improve the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, General Order No. 11 (1862) could be greatly expanded, if any editor is so inclined. You could probably get it to FA by itself, if you wanted, considering the wealth of information about it. Why not add this all there? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just add the one important detail and be done with this? The idea of "expansion" is a gross over-statement as again only one sentence would be added. (That is a fair compromise: Article topic compromise.) Failure to compromise is what caused many long debates during the FAC process. I've compromised on several items. It would be nice to see this reciprocated when a particular edit adds more insight (one of Grant's primary concerns) to the G.O. advent than any other statement. It would seem the inclusion of this one very definitive fact is more important than the concern for "expansion" in this case -- one sentence. Why such rigid opposition over a single sentence? I'm retracting the statement about calling in other editors -- that would just tick at least two editors off and further aggravate relations and editorship, so I am only appealing with the idea of including one last important detail and a fair compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The matter has been compromised on more than enough. We do not want two more on gold (yours and Sarna), or yet another on father (Mcfeely and Sarna), or yet another on Julia (passim), or yet another . . .. We have more than enough on it. Let's return to the FA version, or leave as is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Only the War Department's warning was the issue here. I don't want to add "yet another, and another" of any thing else at this point. Regarding Sarna's contention of 'no record of telegraph sent' -- bear in mind that Grant was on the move, setting up HQ in Holly Springs and then in Oxford. I doubt there was time to set up a telegraph line, which no doubt would have been repeatedly cut in this unsecured area, given Van Dorn's and Forrest's numerous cavalry raids in the greater Vicksburg area. Grant was no doubt warned by dispatch from Memphis, the center of the cotton trading activity in this part of the country. In any case, we should leave the paragraph as is -- at least Simpson's perspective is mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Done, then: left as is. [2] (Disagree with the rest, but don't need to discuss that further.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just for the record, numerous complaints were coming from many Union officers and others about unsavory cotton trading practices by Jewish speculators. In particular, one Phillip Wadsworth of Chicago wrote to the War Dept of the gold shipments to Tennessee. It was his letter that was referred to Grant. No known copy of the letter exists at this late date, which is nothing amazing, as it's doubtful all many thousands of letters sent to the government survived the war and all the years that followed. In any case, the 'Registry of Letters Received' records such a letter, while there is no mention of any telegraph. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers, If readers are told there was a gold shipment telegram then information that there was no record of this message from the War Department should be put in the article...That goes beyond the scope of this section and belongs in the General Order No. 11 article...Maybe Grant did get information from Washington, but Sarna (2012) states there was no record...We can't tell the reader orders were sent from Washington as a fact if there is no record of such an event. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

See revised account directly above, i.e.The 'Registry of Letters Received' records the letter. Regarding scope, this Featured Article should at least present a summary with the vital important facts. Let's not get into this again. The dedicated article is for indepth coverage -- this 'well covered Featured Article' however should summarize the important facts since this topic was included at FAC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A record of a letter that was sent is not the same as the actual message or what was in the message...The only verification is if the reader has access to the actual letter...What source gives the 'Registry of Letters Received' ? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I see no need to add anything more. To my mind, we should probably cut some. Leaving it as it is, with the recent expansion, seems a fair compromise. We certainly should not be going behind the scholarly sources and interpreting the primary source documents for ourselves. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Coemgenus, funny that you would refer to a balanced account with the important facts as a compromise.
• Cm', I provided a link to the source, and the page, in full view of your response. Please stop making up rules. We have two RS's that cover the War Dept warning -- that's all that is required of us. i.e.We don't need a copy of Julia's birth certificate or marriage license to say she was married to Ulysses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No. We are not adding to the section anything else. (I thought we were done, but if not, we are done now). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, there may not be a consensus for much on this article, but every other editor seems to be against adding what you want to add. Please stop with the tendentious talk page filibuster. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Gwillhickers...Simon states the letter to the War Department from Philip Wadsworth stated that Jews were taking in large amounts of Gold into Kentucky and Tennessee...and this letter was referred to Grant...however Simon states there is no copy of this letter. We do not know if Grant actually got this information...that is speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to state, The War Department reportedly referred Grant a letter that stated Jewish merchants were shipping in gold to Kentucky and Tennessee. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons already stated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777: - That would be fair and in accordance to FA requirements that a topic summarize or cover all important facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, 5 times today you've begged for the inclusion of just "one sentence" on the grounds it's an insignificant expansion. Turning the tables, have you considered that leaving it out would be an insignificant omission? Why are you making so much fuss over "one sentence"? YoPienso (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've explained the importance of this particular detail at least "five times". It's significance should be obvious to even a sixth grader. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777: - We are simply relating what the sources say. Again, that is all we have to do.
• @Coemgenus: - No one is interpreting the sources, primary or otherwise. Primary sources are allowed as references so long as we don't advance a new position. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. No one has done this here. This is basic stuff even a new-bee should know after being here a couple of weeks. As I said, I can go along with the present albeit incomplete version, as it includes Simpson's perspective which gives balance to Smith's. What I find difficult to go along with are these off the cuff arguments and the flip and rather silly response by one editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As we have agreement on what we can all live with, there is nothing more to discuss. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't oppose the inclusion of the above sentence but I am sensitive to editor concensus. Is the sentence actually necessary...We don't know if Grant actually got the information...and two there is no copy of the actual letter...Cmguy777 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. Not needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

ASW, what are you saying 'yes' to? Cm' asked if the sentence is needed. The sentence in question is needed if you want to provide the readers with a clear picture of the situation and the urgency Grant was faced with. Presenting a clear picture should be your top priority. One of Grant's primary motivations remains unclear -- or are we really supposed to believe that he was not concerned about large amounts of gold falling into rebel hands? As it is, all we have is a fuzzy statement that 'Grant believed' with no indication as to why. Cm', if you want to include the statement and bring needed clarity to the topic you have my support. All we need is the RS's, and we have at least two. We can put this on hold for now until more editors chime in. As I said, I can go along with the current version, but this doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve the coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Every regular editor of this page has chimed in, and we all want you to stop filibustering and move on. Everyone except you is willing to live with the compromise language. Let's put an end to this time-wasting discussion, or else request administrator intervention. Your choice. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please speak for yourself. Cm', a major contributor, has expressed interest and has maintained an open mind on the topic and is still willing to discuss the matter further. The prospect of gold falling into rebel hands should be a topic that concerns anyone who wants to present a clear picture of Grant's motives here. If you are tired of the discussion, no one is forcing you to participate. If you feel your time is being wasted, you can move on and put some of that steam into the effort of filling in all the gaps that still exist in this biography. No one is preventing you from doing so. I have even initiated another talk-section to this effect. Btw, please curb the hyper speak and misrepresentation of my discussion. I have already informed you that 'filiburstuing' involves carrying on about irrelevant topics in an effort to impede progress. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I was thanking Cm' for being sensitive to the several other editors who oppose expansion, who do not agree with you that this addition is in any way an improvement [see, WP:ONUS), and I took the fact that there was no question mark as a statement (not needed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Moreover, do not misrepresent Simpson: . . . Simpson maintains, that despite later denials, Grant's writings during this period were anti-Semitic, as was General Order number 11 . . .; if you want a fuller account of Simpson, to be true to the source, that is how it would have to be stated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

ASW, please do not misrepresent my discussion here. I am only asking for inclusion of the War Department's warning to Grant. This warning has nothing to do with Grant's writings, regardless of how anti-semitic his terminology appears, which btw, was prompted by real life events, not his "anti-semitism", such that it was. It would seem any General during this time would have done all he could have to prevent large amounts of gold from falling into Rebel's hands, regardless of whose feelings may have been hurt. Grant articulated this situation to Jewish Rabbi Browne and other Jewish community leaders. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How many ways can the others of us to say we disagree with you -- we disagree with your presentation, your emphasis, and with your edit - you should not expect of us to say the same things over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I only emphasize some points because from the start your emphasis has been anti-semitism -- nothing else. The warning should be included for overall perspective. Unlike yourself I have done much more than repeat some things, (i.e.often in response to your repetitious emphasis on anti-semitism) and have introduced items like Grant's interview with Jewish community leaders, dispatches, dates, Registry of Letters, etc, in the hopes that that light will click on at some point. In any case, Grant's writing has nothing to do with the War Dept's warning, so please make more of an effort to keep your line straight. Regarding 'my edit' -- what edit? As I said, I can live with the compromise version, but strongly feel that the War Dept's warning needs to be included for reasons that should be obvious. It very likely was the major reason why Grant issued the order as it informed him of the magnitude of the situation. This is a controversial and sensitive topic and we should make every effort to be clear about the surrounding circumstances Grant was faced with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, entirely. I too could now launch into a repeat (you have said all these things before) but I won't repeat all the reasons (I will note you began this whole thing by harping on your dislike of the FA version's use of the word "antisemitism", and we have never agreed with you that the FA version did not adequately and appropriately cover the circumstances of the GO - the FA version, by consensus of the FA process, met all policy - that's why it was the FA version). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

edit break2

For arguement sake let's say Grant did receive information concerning a gold shipment in Tennessee and Kentucky...That was December 1...Grant's order came immediately after his father Jesse visited at headquarters lobbying for Mack and Brothers in mid December. Sarna (2012) believes this was the most likely event that caused Grant to issue the order, rather then the gold shipments. As has been suggested by Coemgenus, this information is best put in the General Orders No. 11 article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Simpson mentions no specific date regarding when the War Dept's warning to Grant was received. I have no problem however acknowledging that the visit from his father & partners spurred him on in issuing the order. The visit no doubt further confirmed the magnitude of the situation Grant was facing. Was Grant's father approached, or did he seek out Jewish merchants? It would seem the merchants needed Grant's father more than he needed them. I don't wish to include this in the narrative, but we should be aware of such perspectives if we are going to write about the G.O. at all, whether it be in this article, or any other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As CMguy suggests and as Coemgnus and I have suggested, go to Talk:General Order No. 11 (1862). - Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Simon stated the message about gold shipments came into the War Department on December 1...Grant's General Orders No. 11 took place in mid December...If Grant presumbably got the message from Washington in early December, he did nothing about it... Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: - Okay, now we have three RS's that mention this important warning. Grant apparently didn't (re)act immediately, but as you must know, he certainly didn't do nothing. Again, Grant, a seasoned Commanding General who I think we can assume knew what was necessary at this juncture, resorted to such blunt measures for fear that large amounts of gold would fall into rebel hands, and as he explained to Jewish community leaders, he simply did not have time, in the midths of war, at the brink of another major battle, to pussy foot around making sure feelings were not hurt while soldiers lives were at stake in such a huge capacity. I remain amazed that this particular point, of all points, is not welcomed in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. CMguy is right - it is unnecessary expansion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

More of your nonsense and hyper speak. Adding a single fact is not "expansion" in the manner you would have people believe. Sorry. This is a gross overstatement and suggests I want to add many sentences to the topic. I do not, thank you. Cm' only mentioned here that Grant did not act immediately and only expressed concern about consensus before that. He has never said anything about "unnecessary expansion". Please try to regain what composure you are capable of and stop with this flagrant misrepresentation of other editors. The only thing you managed to get right is that editors don't want to include the statement about the War Dept -- everything else was and continues to be complete nonsense. Please try to get a grip and not drag the discussion into the mud. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you not read what other people write, to quote CMguy: "As has been suggested by Coemgenus, this information is best put in the General Orders No. 11 article." As for the rest, you are simply wrong, if you are having trouble getting a grip on that, don't take it out on me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder -- directly above, in full view of your response here, I clearly say that the only thing you've gotten right was that editors don't want to include the statement about the War Dept, and here you are asking me if I read what other people write. "As for the rest", when I initiated the Still room for improvement section no one had said anything about Vicksburg/G.O.chronology besides you, no one, while in several instances both Cm' and Coemgenus, do not disagree, per your "IDHT". I bring this to your attention because if you're going to continue in these discussion you seriously need to pay attention to what you're doing, not make sweeping accusations, [personal attack redacted] If you require further clarification in these matters I'm sure you'll provide me with the opportunity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You're still not responding to what I am saying, which makes me wonder if you have read what is written: "as for the rest" did not refer to the section below (why would it) - my very short response (of 22:27, 20 May 2015) that you decided to get all personal about was just that CMguy had already said the text does not belong in the section you propose to put it in, it belongs in another article entirely (ie., uneeded expansion, here - that's not nonsense to anyone else, here, but you apparently) - and since you have apparently decided your tactic now is to regularly make personal attacks, you need to stop. Alanscottwalker (talk)

King cotton

Cotton played a major role in the Civil War and in particular in the events leading up to the Vicksburg campaign, in more ways than one. The Vicksburg subsection doesn't mention that the rebels were burning all the cotton bales in and just before Union troops entered any given area. At one point there were so many burning bales of cotton floating in the Mississippi that Porter's gunboats did all they could to steer clear of them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Fleeing blacks, etc

Before the actual battles at Vicksburg commenced there was much organization and preparation that needed to be effected first. In the days before Grant began the siege, Grant not only had to bring all the speculators and collaborators under control, he had to organize all the many escaped blacks, making sure they didn't get in the way of or otherwise disrupt military operations, and did this by putting them to work, with pay. Since Grant's order, and its aftermath, effectively stopped most of the cotton from falling into rebel hands, who were unable to carry it all away, it was burned just before Union troops would enter a given area. A summary of these things should be included at the beginning of the Vicksburg subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)