Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

GO11 and Vicksburg Campaign

GO11 belongs in the Vicksburg Campaign, not Shiloh. Grant started the Vicksburg Campaign November 2 capturing Holly Springs. Shiloh was a two day battle ending April 7. Eight months passed between Shiloh and GO11. Grant was not in active service for about three months having been relieved of duty by Halleck on April 9. There also needs to be mentioned that Grant was under attack by Forest and Van Dorn. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The most signifigant fact is that Forest cut off Grant's communication four days prior to Grant issueing GO11. Grant was isolated by having no communications. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Didn't we already discuss this and decided against it after months of back-and-forth? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall the discussion or if I participated. GO11 had nothing to do with Shiloh. I think that this misleads the reader. Grant launches Vickburg campaign on November 2, 1862. Grant gets attacked by Forrest 4 days earlier I believe on December 13 before Grant issued GO11 on December 17. Communications are broken in Grant's department. That is signifigant. No direct communication to Washington. Forrest is still active. That is signifigant. I am not recommending any major changes to the GO11 parargraph, rather GO11 paragraph placement in the Vicksburg campaign section and information that Grant was attacked by Forest and Van Dorn. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I added information to the Vickburg campaign section. I understand there are narration concerns so I am open to keeping the GO11 in the Shiloh and aftermath section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

This is just the sort of addition that would make an excellent addition to the sub-article, Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War. --Coemgenus (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that an order ? Wikipedia policy is against editors who control articles...The edits belong in this article because Grant was attacked four days before Grant issued GO11. I added this information and it was deleted. The current paragraph is misleading because Grant started his Vicksburg campaign in November, not December. In good faith I offered discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not an order. I've explained summary style so many times now, I just thought you might respond to a different approach. There's all these details out there, and we can't fit all of them in the main article. That's why we made the sub-articles, which could definitely benefit from your expertise, now that we've gotten this one improved to the highest level. The paragraph as it stands is substantially the one that emerged from GA reviews, an A-class review, and two FA reviews. No one is misled by it. As to deleting it and discussing it here, that's the preferred procedure for disputed edits. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader does not know Grant was attacked four days before GO11 was issued. I am all for summary style that is neutral. Forrest destroyed Grant's communications in essence Grant was without any orders from Washington, on his own. The Forrest information adds to the neutrality of the article summary. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how it "adds to the neutrality". --Coemgenus (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The reader does not understand Grant was attacked four days before issueing GO11. Catton (1960), a generally pro Grant author states two events effected the Vicksburg Campaign. Forests attack destroying his communications lines and Van Dorns attack capturing Holly Springs. I edited that Grant was attacked on Feburary 13 by Forrest. This was taken out. The reader is left to believe that Grant had communications to Washington and that Washington was communicating to Grant. Grant was on his own when issuing GO11 without direction from Washington. There is no ownership of this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty strained reading. I think you're seeing anti-Grant bias that isn't there. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I now like fitting GO 11 into the Vicksburg section. Reading through both the Shiloh sections and Vicksburg sections, I see the chronology break between April’s Shiloh operations then a transition paragraph on returning to subordinate command, combat success in September and District of the Tennessee command in October.

December’s developments include Grant’s plans to “take Vicksburg by an overland route”, Confederate raids on his supply lines, and Pemberton’s repulse of Sherman’s approach. That’s where GO 11 goes, between raids and repulse. The Jewishness and non-Jewishness among the merchants operating out of St. Louis and Memphis, and Grant's presidential amends to the Jewish community, and placement of GO 11 in Jewish-American historical literature are not salient WP:DUE to either the Vicksburg Campaign or the biographical narrative here on Grant in the Civil War, so that sidelight should be in a footnote, with perhaps a mention in later Grant's presidency as it reflects on him there.

In the Vicksburg section, the narrative should address the Forrest raids breaking his line of communications and capturing weapons and supplies and GO 11 on December 17 addressing weapons and supplies trade for cotton by merchants in St. Louis and Memphis, as preliminaries to the Vicksburg offensive, then on to December 29 repulse at Chickasaw Bayou in the direct advance to Vicksburg. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand your due argument, so, what explanation do you have for why GO11 is important to reliable sources, at all? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

My problem with putting it in the Vicksburg section is that, chronologically, we'd have to lead with it, which seems undue. Having it at the end of the "Shiloh and aftermath" section, we tack it on at the end as a mention of an important, but ultimately less crucial part of the military campaign. That said, every one of Grant's biographers devotes significant space to GO11 in his book. To reduce that would not be true to the sources or the scholarly consensus. Much of the extra language added came at the insistence of editors who thought the original wording was too slanted against Grant. (There was a months-long mediation on it). --Coemgenus (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Am in general agreement with TVH and Cm'. There are two solutions to the perceived problem of relocating the G.O. paragraph. One, cover the Order in and at the end of the Vicksburg section and simply mention the chronology. (After all, the Order was issued from Grant's HQ near Vicksburg.) Sometimes items are mentioned out of chronological order. We are not authoring a 'timeline' here. It's called a narrative. Two, give the order its own subsection between the Shiloh and Vicksburg subsections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• More importantly, we are only hearing a (most one sided) opinion (i.e."notorious") from one modern day historian, while Grant's viable explanation regarding his pressing reasons (i.e.Kid's Gloves...there was no time) has been blocked by a (very) marginal consensus for no viable reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think one thing that is clear is that GO11 took place during the Vicksburg campaign and was unrelated to Shiloh. There are two unknowns however, where was Grant when he issued GO11 ? Holly Springs or encamp advancing to Greneda. The other unknown is when were communications reestablished to Washington after Forrest destroyed Grant's Tennessee communication lines on December 13th. I think it is clear Grant was on his own when he found out McClernand was getting troops prior to Grant issuing GO11. I think it is crucial to add that Forrest attacked and destroyed Grant's communication lines on December 13th. I don't think it would take a alot of narration change to move GO11 into the Vicksburg campaign. This is why I put this in discussion. Not trying to open a can of worms. I don't think the actual GO11 paragraph needs any signifigant changes at this time. The kid gloves statement was made in 1885 and should be put in that time frame of the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: these are interesting questions. Until we figure out the answers, it's premature to consider adding the information to the article, isn't it? And we do already say that Grant was "delayed after Confederate raids on his supply lines." Adding in all the detailed troop movements isn't necessary in this main summary article and doesn't increase the reader's understanding much, although the Civil War sub-article certainly has room to grow for those who are interested in reading more details. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: will you ever stop working against the consensus we agree to abide by at mediation (and thank you for admitting that there was such a consensus,) or will we be having this conversation for the rest of our lives? It's been talked to death, and you didn't change anyone's mind. Unless some new scholarship is published that changes the historical consensus, there's nothing more to say, is there? That was the whole purpose of mediation. We all compromised and now it's over. Continuing to argue about it is just tendentious. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: I don't think that adding that while Grant's army advanced to Grenada that he was attacked by Forest destroying his Tennessee communication lines. That was Catton's whole point: Forest and Van Dorn, not just Van Dorn, prevented Grant from connecting to Sherman on the Mississippi River. With Grant delayed, Pemberton put his full force against Sherman. Maybe I added too much details in my first edit...The other issue is that Grant's communication lines to Washington were destroyed four days before issuing GO11. Van Dorn raid took place three days after GO11...suggested edit: "'Grant planned to attack Vicksburg from the east on land while Sherman attacked the fortress from the Mississippi River. However, two seperate Confederate calvary raids, on December 13 and 20, prevented Grant from joining Sherman's army." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's fine. If you don't mind some slight edits, I think this is a little tighter: "Grant planned to attack Vicksburg on land from the east while Sherman attacked the fortress from the Mississippi River, but two Confederate cavalry raids, on December 13 and 20, prevented the armies from connecting." Sound good? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That sounds good to me Coemgenus...The reader then knows Grant was attacked four days before issueing GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy, I added it to the article. Does that look good to you? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

GO11 and Vicksburg Campaign - editbreak

• Cm' you opened this discussion with the idea of covering the General Order under Vicksburg. We can assume Grant issued the Order, not while on the march, but from his HQ. Besides, all we need do is mention the Order was issued just prior to the battles in and around Vicksburg. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Coemgenus, regarding changed minds, both Cm' and the TVH have expressed reasons why we should cover the General Order affair under Vicksburg, as it should be -- the Order was issued from Grant's Vicksburg HQ for Pete's sake. This is really simple math. As Cm' and I have pointed out several times, you do not own the article, and your reaching and controlling attempts to block important and simple context is becoming rather ridiculous. Your concerns for chronology have been addressed and can easily be remedied in the narrative. You've yet to offer one viable explanation along historical lines as to why we should not cover the Order under the same section that covers the time and location involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Coemgenus, several times during the Mediation I maintained that there was a glaring neutrality issue that also needed to be addressed, and that if it wasn't resolved then it would have to be resolved later. You repeatedly ignored it without even a hint of compromise on that note. You were even reminded that the Mediation decision was not set in stone, and that consensus could easily change. We even discussed the commentary matter before the Mediation began and saw fit to include a balancing opinion, per Smith, that Grant did not act out of anti-semitism. What happens? We delete Smith's commentary, quote Sarna's one sided "notorious" opinion and then ignore Grant's quote/explanation in his own biography. Amazing. No one is forcing you to continue these discussions, and no one is preventing you from making edits, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Gwilhickers, Grant could not have issued GO11 at his "Vicksburg HQ" because Vicksburg was occupied by the Confederate Army under Pemberton in December 1862. Grant had captured Holly Springs November 13 and then was advancing to Greneda. Grant was either at Holly Springs or encamp marching to Greneda when Grant issued GO11. I am in favor of moving the GO11 paragraph to Vicksburg campaign as long as there are limited editing changes to the Vicksburg campaign section. Right now the GO11 paragraph is good as is in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This was explained to you once. Grant's HQ was not actually 'in' Vicksburg. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't know where Grant was at the time he issued GO11 exactly. What is known is he was attacked four days earlier by Forrest who destroyed Grant's Tennessee supply lines. Grant was out of direct Washington communication. Halleck did not even know Grant issued GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, if you never intended to abide by the mediation, why did you agree to take part in it? I don't own the article and I don't claim to. All I've done is ask that you keep your word and abide by the results of the mediation. I'd also like you to abide by the rules about article size and and more detailed information in the sub-articles, where it belongs. I know you don't agree with that rule. There are some rules I don't agree with, either, but when we edit here we all agree to follow the rules of the encyclopedia. Can you agree to do that, or should we ask for administrative intervention? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We use Jean Edward Smith’s biography as a reference for GO 11, and a view is found at [1]. The topic is discussed beginning on page 225 in the Vicksburg chapter. On the one hand, that would argue for inclusion in the Vicksburg section.

However, this is a section on the Vicksburg campaign in summary style, and I note that in John Keegan’s American Civil War: a military history, GO 11 is not mentioned at all. The point of the order was to address illicit cotton trade, not to exclude Jews currently serving in the Union army, as noted even by Halleck. Grant subsequently apologizes to the Jewish community as president, the episode can be addressed during Grant’s presidency.

If GO 11 is to be in the campaign summary sections at all, it should be inserted after Grant’s planning for the Vicksburg campaign and the cavalry raids, and it should emphasize the intent of the Order as it related to cotton trade, and in that sense it was ultimately upheld by the War Department; the Confederacy gained more arms in its US cotton trade in the first year of the war than from blockade runners. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the GO11 paragraph should be inserted into the Vickburg campaign section possibly the second paragraph. The GO11 paragraph went though mediation and is fine as is without any changes. We don't know why Keegan failed to mention GO11. For that matter neither does Bonekemper in Grant & Lee. My guess is that both author's avoided the controversial subject even though GO11 was a military order and Grant did so in hopes of gaining a Union military advantage. But again the current GO11 is good as stands for now and should be placed in the Vicksburg campaign section with minimal narration changes to the section. I did not have any intension of changing the GO11 paragraph, only inserting the GO11 paragraph into the Vicksburg campaign section. Without communication from Washington due to Forrest's destruction of Grant's Tennessee lines, Grant was on his own. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Keegan is a military historian. I expect he mostly focused on battle and maneuver. Grant's biographers all wrote a great deal about GO11, which is more germane to this article, which is itself a biography. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Forrest destroyed Grant's Tennessee communication lines on December 11, not December 13, six days prior to Grant issueing GO11. The communications were down throughout GO11 since GO11 was never fully implemented. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: Please make a better effort when speaking of past accounts here. During the Meditation I several times said I would abide by the Mediation results and would not edit against consensus. I believe I've kept that promise. I also said that the Mediation results were not to be carved in stone for all time, as you seem to think they should be. I've also noted that before during and after the Mediation you've not proposed one improvement or addition of context and have opposed all such efforts to do so. This is unusual to say the very least. If you would compromise on 'some' things we would avoid half of the debates that so often get dragged out -- even where it concerns simple and reasonable proposals of context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• @TheVirginiaHistorian: Agree, coverage of the Order should come after the battle accounts of the Vicksburg campaign, and as I said, we simply mention the chronology. For purposes of our little paragraph we need not pin point/mention Grant's exact location and can assume the Order was issued from HQ regardless of its location. This simple correction, having no impact on neutrality, should have been resolved months ago. Ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition

• Located on the high bluffs of the Mississippi River, Vicksburg, Mississippi was the last obstacle to Union control of that river; both Lincoln and Grant saw it as the key to victory in the West and were determined to take the rebel stronghold...On January 29, 1863, Grant assumed personal overall command and then began a series of attempts to move his army through the water-logged terrain to bypass Vicksburg's guns; these also proved ineffective, however, Union soldiers became better trained.

Along with his military responsibilities in the months following Grant's return to command, he was concerned over an expanding illicit cotton trade in his district... Grant made amends with the Jewish community during his presidency.

On April 16, 1863, Grant ordered Admiral David Porter's Union gunboats south under fire from the Vicksburg batteries to meet up with his Union troops who had marched south down the west side of the Mississippi River... Pemberton surrendered Vicksburg to Grant on July 4, 1863. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I contracted the paragraphs to save space...but the proposed edit is to move the GO11 paragraph from the Shiloh and aftermath section to the Vicksburg campaign section... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I did some editing to prepare for a potential move of the GO11 paragraph to the Vicksburg campaign section. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the Cmguy777 solution; I'm still looking for a reference for the arms dealing, as the military objection was not so much to the cotton for New England mills per se, as it was to cotton as the medium of exchange for arms coming out of St. Louis and Memphis being converted to Confederate use in rebellion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it could work. If the other usual editors around here agree, I could see moving it there. Let's wait for a day to let others weigh in? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My only concern with moving GO11 down one place was that it not lead the section, otherwise fine. In response to TVH (12:39, 20 November 2015), the new section will become, as its previous section is, also summary of the GO11 article, as well as [2]Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Grant, Sherman and Stanton all acknowledged a greater concern for the money/gold paid for cotton falling into rebel hands than they had for the British. All claimed that such sales were helping the rebel war effort and greatly prolonging the war. In any case, Cm' seems to be handling the ball well here, and has my support also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Any concerns for the GO11 paragraph should be done independantly of this discussion in my opinion. I just wanted to move the paragraph into the Vicksburg campaign section for now. Catton (1960, 1988, 2004) The Civil War has a good chronology of Civil War events toward the back of the book pages 281-304 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree Alanscottwalker. The paragraph would be second in the section not the lede paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if there is support among editors for the move. I am ready to make the move. Editors have wieghed in and I believe it is time for the move. Only moving the paragraph without edits to the paragraph for now. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for all editor contributions to this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Foner's assessment of Brand's book

Should Eric Foner's book review of H.W. Brands' The Man Who Saved The Union Ulysses S. Grant in War and Peace be removed from the Grant article ? Foner is writing a review on Brands' book rather then an article on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

that's historiography/ memory/ legacy of USG and yes it belongs. Rjensen (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it belongs. That section is about historiography, and Foner is an eminent historian. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, Foner is reviewing Brands' book not himself authoring an article or book on Grant such as Brands did. Foner seems to be making light of Brands' work and using Brands' book to critisize Grant, somewhat defending McFeely's (1981) negative POV. Foner is an eminant historian ? His book on "Reconstruction" was originally made in 1988 but republished in 2014. The book is bascally the 1988 anti-Grant pro McFeely version and neither reflects the works of Smith (2001) or Brands (2012). Even in Foner's 2015 article on Reconstruction Grant is only mentioned in link to scandals and is given zero credit for creating the Justice Department and prosecuting the Klan under Akerman, Bristow, and Williams. Here is Foner's 2015 article in the NYT's. Why Reconstruction Matters Eric Foner (March 28, 2015) Foner in someways is more critical of Grant then McFeely. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

please do not argue with the RS in terms of your private POV. Foner is a top expert on the Grant era. -- much more so than Smith or Brands who cover all of US history and do not specialize like Foner does. Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No arguments here. This is a discussion and not my private POV. Foner (1988)(March 28, 2015) does not reflect the current research on Grant neither Smith (2001) nor Brands (2012). Foner may be an expert on Reconstruction but he is not an expert on Ulysses S. Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cmguy, this argument is absurd. Foner is widely recognized as an expert in the era, much more so than Brands. Please don't argue with the opinions of historians--that's not our job as editors. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Foner is an "expert" on the Reconstruction Era. Even if Foner had a positive opinion on Grant Foner is not an "expert" on Grant and as far as I know has never written a book on Grant or an article on Grant or his eight year administration during Reconstruction specifically. Grant seems to be only mentioned by Foner (1988) passively in his Reconstruction book. Foner's groundbreaking book on Reconstruction was in 1988, 27 years ago, a great book for that time. I don't think Smith nor Brands should be discounted as historians so lightly. The current research is that Grant prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently this discussion is going nowhere. Maybe adding that Foner is an "expert" on Reconstruction would be good for the Grant article. Other editor opinions are welcome and I appreciate all input given by Rjensen and Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed clarification edit: "As Reconstruction scholar Eric Foner wrote..." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Any objections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

ok by me. Rjensen (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

of course we have other reviews to look at re Brands. Timothy B. Smith writes in Civil War History online a fairly negative report saying it's popular and based on weak research & has little analysis, but is very well written.

Smith writes: the book is a straightforward popular rather than academic narrative of Grant’s life.....There are chapters in the book in which Grant is, in fact, hardly mentioned. Still, this is a well-written biography. The narrative flows easily, and the reader sweeps through the book quickly and almost without any mental effort....There is little discussion of previous historians or analysis of Grant’s actions. Rather, the narrative is just that—a straightforward telling primarily of the events as gleaned from Grant’s own words through his memoirs or contemporary letters. To be fair, however, Brands does subtly make a case for greater or lesser emphasis on certain aspects of Grant’s career in his levels of treatment of major events. An example of this is the almost glossing over of the famous scandals in Grant’s administration: Brands is obviously saying that these should not be seen as major factors in judging Grant as a president. The research itself seems limited to contemporary letters and memoirs...." Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I actually agree that Brands glosses over the scandals, possibly Smith too. I just wanted to clarify that Foner is not a Grant scholar in terms of biography and or even articles written on Grant. I believe that is neutral. I was just stating Smith and Brands represent "current" research on Grant just as McFeely did in 1981. Coolidge (1922) did a good biography on Grant and represented current research for his times. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The edit is unnecessary, but it doesn't hurt to emphasize that Foner is an expert in the era he's writing about. That Timothy Smith review is quite cutting! Accurate, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to emphasize that Foner is not an expert on Grant having neither written a book or article specifically on Grant. I would say that Brands, Smith, and McFeely are more experts. The only historian who completely covered Grant's life and presidency, through Grant's papers, was John Y. Simon. Among historians Simon probably knew Grant best. Foner does not say whether he himself has "sympathy" for Grant's "forceful and temporarily successful" prosecution of the Klan. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought Pierrepont said the public was tired of outbreaks against African Americans. Why does Foner attribute this statement to Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

get it straight: Grant wrote that in a letter to Atty General Pierrepont. please read for the context: John Y. Simon (2003). The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: 1875. p. 312. Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the link Rjensen...I got it...but Foner is not quoting all of Grant's statements in that letter to Pierrepont...Grant did not give up on Reconstruction..."I heartily wish peace and good order might be restored without the issueing of a proclamation. But if it is not the proclamation must be issued; and if it is I shall instruct the Commander of the forces to have no child's play." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Cabinet lists

Do we want this added back in? We took it out a while back, and modern FAs on presidents tend to leave them out and replace them with prose, like we did. (It also duplicates the template at the bottom of the page.) --Coemgenus (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Readers deserve to know Grant's full cabinet for neutrality. The article tends to associate corruption in Grant's cabinet. Not all members of Grant's cabinet were corrupt, some were even reformers. Grant was a 19th Century President not modern so I don't think these can be compared. I would remove the template rather then the Cabinet infobox. That would save space. The picture of Grant's 1876-77 cabinet shows how Grant's cabinet evolved. Belknap was gone and so was Delano and Richardson. Robeson was the only one left on Grant's cabinet associated by corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Both Andrew Johnson and Rutherford B. Hayes have Administration and cabinet sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The template below takes up no space: it's collapsible! The one you've added takes up a massive space in the middle of the article. But that's aesthetics, about which reasonable people can disagree. Your neutrality argument is a non sequitur. How does a list of cabinet members make the article more NPOV? Am I missing something? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This allows readers access to Grant's full cabinet. I think that is obvious. The article picks and chooses Grant's cabinet members. Andrew Johnson and Rutherford B. Hayes have their full cabinet listed. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The question then is whether to keep the section. As has been noted the template does not take up space but it is at the bottom part of the article hidden. The space that would be saved by removal would be virtual. Since Grant's cabinet is associated by corruption then it is neutral to allow links to every cabinet member. Historians associate Belknap, Richardson, Delano, and Robeson by corruption. Babcock was not an official cabinet member. Wilson and Colfax were associated by corruption but not under Grant rather during their tenor in the House of Representatives (Colfax) and Senate (Wilson). Allowing links to each cabinet member gives readers better understanding of each Grant cabinet member and that all cabinet members were not involved in corruption. Some cabinet members prosecuted corruption including Bristow and Pierrepont. Cox set up his own civil service in the Interior. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, leave it, I don't care anymore. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I care. I understand the need to save space but this is a neutrality issue in my opinion. I am not against adding a section on Grant's judicial appointments. Not one of Grant's orginal cabinet was involved in a scandal while holding office. Delano, Robeson, Richardson, and Belknap were not Grant's original choices. Also, the cabinet infobox shows the instability of Grant's cabinet and the battles between reform and corruption elements of his administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian child

Might as well get this over. Is Grant's rumored Indian child only a rumor ? Did McFeely talk about Grant possibly having an Indian child ? Was the rumor more of a political stunt to possibly effect Grant's 1868 election ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing it mentioned in any of the mainstream sources. Seems like more of a fringe theory to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It could be fringe. I seem to recall McFeely discussing the issue or it possibly came up during the 1868 presidential election. There seem to be very few sources, maybe just one or two, that even discuss the issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I found the McFeely 1981 source on Grant and the rumored Indian daughter on page 282. The child may have been born to Richard Grant. The child was born in less then 9 months when Grant arrived in Vancouver. McFeely's source was Reminiscences of Delia B. Sheffield Washington Historical Quarterly January 1924 page 62. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion (or lack thereof)

Grant was never a member of any church (nor did Grant ever elect to receive Christian baptism), and while enrolled in the United States Academy at West Point, Grant received eight demerits for failing to attend chapel - a punishment that he would complain in a letter "that it was "not republican" to be forced to go to church" (Brown's Life of Grant, p. 329, cited by Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents)."Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The article does not present Grant as a great theologian. I don't have any issue stating Grant desired to tax churches. That may be a reform measure believing that Churches were buying up properties to make profits rather then profession of any faith. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Political affiliation

Should that article call Grant a Democrat since he voted for James Buchanan ? I believe Charles Sumner and Edwards Pierrepont referred to Grant as a Democrat. Also Grant was living in the South and he was influenced by the Dent family. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I propose adding Democrat and National Union to Grant's infobox. Since Grant voted for Buchanan he should be considered a Democrat. In 1868 Grant ran under the National Union banner as Lincoln and Johnson did in 1864. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Does voting for a Democrat one time make you a Democrat? I'm not sure about that. And historians generally use National Union only for the 1864 campaign, but if you have one of the sources saying that he, for example, won the National Union nomination in 1868, then I guess that would be legit. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe Sumner believed Grant was a Democrat knowing that Grant voted for Buchanan and Sumner did not like Grant not voting for Frémont. Pierrepont believed Grant was a Democrat. That is a good question. I would say yes. I don't believe there was official voter registration or a secret voting ballots. I think when voting in the 1850's you registered by voting and your vote was made public. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Grant Colfax 1868 Campaign Poster

was voting public--in some states (Indiana) yes. Usually no. you cast a paper ballot made by a party and filled out for you. You could fold it so no one could tell, then you put it in the box. But voters often called out their vote and were cheered by their compatriots (and treated to a drink). Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen and Coemgenus. Here is a link on Grant and his party affiliation John Y Simon (1969) The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: April to September, 1861 pages 4-5 According to Simon Grant lost the county engineer election because of his allegiance to the Democratic Party. From 1859 to 1861 his "preference for the Democratic Party is unmistakable". Grant denied being a Democrat. People in the South thought Grant was a Democrat because of his farther in law Dent. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Direct quote from Simon (1969), The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: April to September, 1861  : "...USG was unquestionably a Democratic at the outbreak of the Civil War..." page 5 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The county engineer job wasn't an election, it was an appointment by the county council. But, yes, Grant's identification as a Democrat is what cost him that job, so yes, you're partly right. But when would you start his affiliation with the Democratic Party? 1856? When you're not talking about career politicians, it's hard to say. That's why I only put the indisputable affiliations in the infobox. I'm still not sure about the National Union thing, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say he was a Democrat from 1859 to 1860 and a loyal Democrat at the beginning of the Civil War. I believe he was going to vote for Douglas, not Lincoln, in 1860 if he could have voted. As for when Grant became a Democrat I would say 1855 when he started his farm on his father in law Dent's property. Dent was a prominent Democrat and Grant was influenced politically by Dent. That brings up another question when did Grant became a Republican probably 1862-63. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not an unreasonable position, but do you see the problem? It has us deciding on the historical interpretation. That's the historians' job, not ours! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is a guess because the Simon (1969) source says Grant's opinions were inline to Dent's opinions. We don't have to give an exact date. I would say that during Grant's stay on Dent's farm he became a Democrat. We don't have to have the exact date. There are no voter registration files back then. I guess it was "whiskey" politics. Vote for a candidate and get a drink as Rjensen mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Potential edit: Grant allied himself to his father in law Dent's Missouri Democratic Party. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that sort of thing is fine, if you add a citation. I just didn't want to try to get too exact where the sources are vague. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Political affiliation continued

Any objection into putting the Grant was a Whig and/or National Union Republican Party ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a citation for it and work it into the flow of the text, I guess it's OK. I don't remember him ever voting for a Whig, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

His Whig support came from his allegience and admiration for Scott and Taylor both Whig Party presidential candidates. This is referenced by John Y. Simon (1969) in the above source provided. The National Union is a technicality because the Republcians kept the National Union Republican Party ticket in both 1864 and 1868, but non the less that was the name of the Party in 1868. National Union was dropped in the next election and Grant ran only as a Republican candidate. The National Union Republican Party is referenced by Arthur Schlesinger (1973), History of U.S. Political Parties: vol II: 1860–1910 2:1287 Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Admiring generals doesn't put you in their political party. Is there any evidence that he spoke on their behalf during their campaigns? Or that he even voted for them? Much of the military was non-political in those days, many officers never voted. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just going by what Simon (1969) said concerning Grant being a Whig. I suppose Simon believed since Grant admired Taylor and Scott militarily he also admired their politics. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• "His earliest political preference seems to have been the Whig Party (his father's choice) and this may have been confirmed by the Whig choice of his two commanders in the Mexican War, Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott, as presidential nominees in 1848 and 1852." --- Simon (1969) The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: April to September, 1861, page 4 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your current editing on the matter Coemgenus looks good. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Mexican War: San Cosmé Garita (Gate)

This article incorrectly states that "At Chapultepec, men under Grant's direction dragged a disassembled howitzer into a church steeple, reassembled it, and bombarded nearby Mexican troops."

Actually this happened at the San Cosmé Garita (Gate). The cite, "Simpson, pp. 41–43 (the second half of pg. 43)," shows this. This fact is also stated in the Section titled "Belén and San Cosmé Gates" in the Wikipedia entry for the "Battle of Chapultepec": Lieutenant Ulysses S. Grant, and some 4th Infantry, used the bell tower of San Cosme Church south of the causeway to place a mountain howitzer."

San Cosmé Garita was not "at Chapultepec." It was an entrance to Mexico City.

Joseph A. Rose (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Joseph A. Rose

Grant the artist

Should Grant be put down as an artist as an occupation ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes. He was trained by Robert Walter Weir at United States Military Academy. He has multiple works and his art work was discussed by McFeely. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• Sandra Trenholm (09-02-2014) Ulysses S. Grant at West Point, 1839 The Gilder Lehrman Institute of Amerian History Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Grant the artist Ulysses S. Grant Homepage (2006) Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure he never worked as an artist, just made some art in school or as a hobby. George W. Bush has done some well-known paintings since leaving office, but his article does not list him as an artist. Nor should it. It's his hobby, not his living. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Coemgenus. Referring to him as an artist would be inappropriate. We might want to mention painting as a hobby of Grant's, no more than one sentence, that he produced a few (good?) paintings, but only if the paintings were good and are somewhat noted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, a sentence at most. If McFeely discusses it, we should cite his book. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

George W. Bush never attended West Point nor was he trained by a qualified romantic artist such as Weir. Grant learned how to be an artist when he was 18 years young at the Academy...Bush only took up art after his retirement...and older gentleman...Certainly not an inappropriate subject...if scholars like McFeely and Smith discuss Grant's art. Smith also dicusseses Grant style architecture while Grant was President. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Smith (2001), Grant, page 27 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• McFeely (1981) Grant: A Biography, pages 17-19 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Brands (2012) does not mention Weir in his The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace Grant autobiography. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Grant's paintings are rather nice. Just a note (re Bush), many accomplished artists were not formally trained and sometimes did not take to painting until later on in life, not that Bush is accomplished, I dunno. In any case, one good sentence should cover this, as this is Grant's biography. i.e.Grant the person. Is there a source that mentions (at least approximately) how many paintings Grant turned out? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, one sentence should do it, and nothing in the infobox. I didn't deny that he painted. But, like Bush, and Churchill, and many other famous men, his art was a hobby, not an occupation. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree on all points. Referring to him as an artist would be suggesting Grant was involved in painting in the same capacity he was as an army officer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disagree Grant's art was a hobby. It was part of his education at West Point, like modern students. He was trained by a talented Romantic artist Weir...That is the difference between Churchill and Bush...None of them went to West Point... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardoned Whiskey Ring members

Did Grant actually pardon Whiskey Ring members or set them free as time served? A presidential pardon absolves the crime...and who were the members of the Ring that Grant pardoned ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sentence in dispute: "Grant later pardoned several Ring members." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

McDonald apparently was pardoned by Grant on the last day of his presidency March 3, 1877. Source: Mary E. Seematter John McDonald Missouri Civil War Sesquicentennial Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

McDonald (1880) page 321 Secrets of the Great Whiskey Ring says Grant pardoned him on January 26, 1877. Grant did not pardon Col Joyce. McDonald (1880) pages 322-323 Secrets of the Great Whiskey Ring Cmguy777 (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose mentioning that McDonald, the ringleader, served 17 months in federal prison, no easy service, and that Grant pardoned him on January 26, 1877. Kohn does not list whom Grant pardoned. 06:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

W.O. Avery was pardoned by Grant on November 17, 1876 serving six months and one day. McDonald (1880) page 285 Secrets of the Great Whiskey Ring Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So it sounds like the sentence is accurate. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Several is defined as more then two...So far there are two confirmed pardonings...In both of these pardons the persons did serve time in prison or jail. There were no apparent immediate pardons where any persons did not serve time upon their conviction. Also McDonald the king pin of the operation was convicted and served time in prison apparently for 17 months. Kohn's sourced sentence could be interpreted by the reader that Grant gave immediate pardons to all members of the ring. This has neither been verified nor substantiated. Pardoning of prisoners is in the power of the Presidency so Grant did nothing unconstitutional. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you were the one who wanted Kohn used as a source instead of one of the standard biographies. Are you now saying it's not accurate? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I am saying Kohn does not give any details to substantiate his claim...Do any of Grant's biographers state who Grant pardoned? This is a source that states how many pardons Grant gave in his eight years of office. I can find no source that specifically states who Grant pardoned specifically. We know he pardoned many former confederates under the Amnesty Act. The Whisky Ring is specific. He did not pardon Joyce one of the ring leaders. Hayes I believed pardoned Joyce. The two above persons mentioned that Grant pardoned served jail or prison time. For McDonald it was not a fun experience. I don't believe Kohn is the best source if there is an alternative source that exists. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe I suggested Kohn for lack of alternative sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Grant pardoned or gave clemency to 1,332 people. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit

• Grant pardoned two ring leaders W.O. Avery on November 17, 1876 after serving six months in prison and John McDonald on January 26, 1877 after serving 17 months in prison. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure it was only two? Do your sources say that? By getting more specific, you may be introducing new errors. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit does not say "only two", but I believe MCDonald is more accurate then Kohn. The whole issue is to mention the confirmed pardons...and Grant issued over 1000 pardons during his presidency and to just point out the Whisky Ring pardons is POV. Until more pardons are confirmed or sourced I would only mention two for now. Kohn does not mention the others pardoned or when the others were pardoned or who was pardoned. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

POV article

There is no mention of Grant starting Civil Service Commission in the lede or that he appointed reformers who cleaned up cabinet departments. The Chester A. Arthur article calls the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act Arthur's centerpeice administration...no mention of course that Grant created the first Civil Service Commission and implemented its policies...Of course this was temporary and he allowed Delano for awhile to defy Civil Service reform...Grant did appoint reformers to his department and some did establish civil service reform in their cabinets; Fish, Cox, Hoar...In my opinion the article reads as if Grant were a corrupt despot...holding Charles Sumner's view of Grant and McFeely's view of Grant...that is POV... Do any other editors agree there is POV in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

It's amazing that article passed GA, A-class, and FA reviews and no one noticed this supposed POV problem. The reason, of course, is that no one thinks it has a POV problem but you. And we've had this discussion countless times already. The Civil Service Commission? We discussed it a year ago, here. The other issues can also be found easily enough in the talk page archives. Why do you continue to push your pro-Grant POV against all the rules of common sense and of this encyclopedia, even after other editors have repeatedly and consistently rejected your opinion as contrary to the consensus of Grant scholarship? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you speak for other editors Coemgenus "no one thinks it has a POV problem but you" ? A year ago is awhile. Maybe nothing has changed. So be it. I am talking about neutrality, not pro or anti Grant. In reading the Arthur article Grant is not even mentioned as starting the Civil Service Commission...or the Pendleton Act copied much of the recommendations by the first Civil Service Commission that Grant started. It is not disputed that Grant created the first U.S. Civil Service Commission. Smith (2001) discusses Grant and the Civil Service Commission on pages 587-590. "Grant was the first president to recommend a professional civil service, pressed the initial legislation through Congress, and appointed the first Civil Service Commission." p 587 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Brands (2012), The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses Grant In War and Peace, p 614 says "The 1883 Pendleton Act established a permanent Civil Service Commission, similar in spirit and function to the commission Grant had convened..." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, we've already had this discussion in this archived talk page section. Since nothing in Grant scholarship has changed since then, I'll just refer back to the points Alanscottwalker and I made then, rather than wasting time by repeating ourselves. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Smith and Brands are two Grant biographers. I am supplying the sources to support Grant and Civil Service Reform...To state that Civil Service reform does not belong in the lede because civil service reform does not belong in the lede is a circular argument. Are editors to disregard Brands and Smith Grant's biographers ? I cited sources and page numbers too. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

My discussion was to be open for all editors. There may be new editor input in a years time. I quoted Grant scholarship Brands and Smith... Cmguy777 (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that Smith discusses it on page 587 and Brands discusses it on page 614, does not suggest it is 'lead[ing]' material -- rather the opposite, very much down the article . Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, not everything in the biographies belongs in the lede. Also, I read the sentence you quote from Brands. The sentence before it calls the 1883 Act "...the kind of civil service reform Grant had hectored Congress about before finally giving up." So even the most favorable biographer finds Grant's efforts to have been ineffective. That doesn't sound like one of his signature accomplishments to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Smith (2001) devotes 4 pages in discussion of Grant and his Civil Service Commission from pages 587 to 590. Page 589 says: "Grant came down on the side of reformers. Patronage, he said, was the bane of his existence. In his second message to Congress he denounced the spoils system as "an abuse of long standing" that he said should be remedied as soon as possible." also "Prodded by Grant, Congress enacted legislation in March 1871 establishing a commission to devise rules and regulations for reforming the civil service." The page number location for discussion of civil service in books is not relevent in terms of being leading material. I don't recall that being a Wikipedia rule. Grant was ineffective at establishing permanent Civil Service Reform...true...but he was successful at establishing the Civil Service Commission: Smith (2001) page 589 "Grant appointed Harper's George William Curtis to chair the commission, with Joseph Medill of the Chicago Tribune as vice chairman, thus guaranteeing the support of two of the nation's most influential journals...Grant informed Congress the rules would go into effect on January 1, 1872.". The rules included that appointments and promotions were by examinations and each department would have its own board of examiners. Political assessments were forbidden on federal officers. In my opinion this is enough to be put into the lede section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It would seem a brief mention of this is warranted. Also, let's not throw out the WP-academic argument that 'none of the FA reviewers noticed it', because as was discussed and pointed out before, on numerous points, there was much that they missed during the FA review here (and during the Thomas Jefferson GA review for that matter). Unfortunately, there are little to no requirements for being a FA reviewer, which is why many editors have legitimate reservations about the GA and FA review process altogether. That is not to say all FA articles are not up to speed. Many of them are. Nuff said on that note. Again, don't see any reason why we can't at least mention "'Grant came down on the side of reformers, etc", however I wouldn't go quite so far as to say there is a POV issue involved here. Though an interesting point of context, I don't however think this should go in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The POV issue is that the lede only mentions the corruption charges but does not mention any reforms. No one is denying there was corruption in the Grant administration. But Grant did appoint reformers and he instituted, the first President to do so, Civil Service reform, by executive order. Congress refused to back Grant and Civil Service Reform. Congress finally passed the Pendleton Act in 1883 signed into law by Chester A Arthur. The Whiskey Ring was primarily a Republican scandal that Grant allowed prosecuted by Bristow and Pierrepont, politically damaging to the Republican Party. But Grant is portrayed as a protector of the Ring because of pardoning privilege granted by the Constitution. McDonald and Avery did serve prison or jail time. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue of corruption should only be clarified in the body of the text and should satisfy any POV issues you feel exist. Besides, the lede only says that "Grant was faced with charges of corruption...", not that he was in fact a part of that corruption. Had Grant actually been found guilty of corruption it would then warrant mention in the lede, imo. As I said, I would support brief coverage/clarification of this in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue of reform should be clarified in the lede and article. Grant pardoned 1,332 people but the article only focuses only on the Whiskey Ring pardons and does not even clarify that two of these pardons were done after the persons served time in prison or jail: Avery 6 months and McDonald 17 months. McDonald, the ring leader, was angry Grant did not pardon him sooner. The lede only mentions corruption but not Civil Service reform; ending the moiety system; or Bristow shutting down the Whiskey Ring that led to the prosecution of Grant's own party members. What other President approved of their own party being prosecuted ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lede coverage of corruption

• All very interesting, but there is no pressing reason why this needs to be covered in more detail in a lede section. "Civil Service reforms" were in response to corruption charges and are details best covered in the body of text. Again, had Grant been found guilty of and famous for being corrupt it may warrant more prominent coverage there. In fact we may want to strike details about "congressional investigations" in the lede. Again, I support brief coverage/clarification in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps the lede could read this way. (addition in bold)

Throughout his presidency Grant was faced with charges of corruption in executive agencies, including congressional investigations of two cabinet secretaries, but was himself never implemented. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Gwillhickers. I could go either way on that proposed edit to the lede. Both versions are true, so it's just a matter of style. If most editors wan the change, I'll agree with that consensus. I also agree with Gwillhickers that the attempt at civil service reform is not significant enough to mention in the lede. The section in the main article is enough and, if anything, presents too rosy a view of Grant's efforts. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Historians H. Wayne Morgan, Ari Hoogenboom, and others reevalutating the Grant administration find its reputation for unbridled, unprecendented, and unsurpassed corruption exaggerated. Hoogenboom suggests that one of the reasons there was so much talk about corruption at the time was that as last some people, indluding Ulysses S. Grant, wanted to do something about it. He stresses, for example abolition of the moiety system during Grant's administration rather than the notorious abuse of it by one of its last practitioners, John Sanborn ... He credits Grant with appointing the first Civil Service Commision rather than blaming him for abuses that made later civil service reform essential." McFeely (1974) pages 133-134 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested lede change: "Throughout his presidency Grant had to respond to many charges of corruption in executive agencies, but he is credited for ending the moiety system and creating by executive order the first federal Civil Service Commission." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I could go with:"Throughout his presidency Grant had to respond to many charges of corruption in executive agencies, but he is credited for ending the moiety system and creating an unsuccessful Civil Service Commission." Does Gwillhicker's mean "implicated" in his proposal. as in 'although not personally implicated'? (That seems not quite right or only kind of right). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a problem to overlook the fact that Grant repealed the civil service reform rules before the 1876 election when Republicans needed the old spoils system to help them crank out another victory. It was a temporary measure, halfheartedly implemented, withdrawn when it became inconvenient. The system was the same when he left office as it was when he entered it. Was his heart in the right place? Maybe. It's impossible to say. But given the enthusiasm with which the most anti-reform faction of Republicans supported Grant in 1880, it's a stretch to say he was always for reform. That, I think, is why most historians give him little credit for the executive order he temporarily enacted, and why we should follow their lead in leaving it out of the lede section. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hoogenboom in McFeely (1974) and Smith (2001) credit Grant for creating the Civil Service Commission. We are to go by what the sources say as I have been told many times, but I suppose when editors don't agree then of course the sources are not considered. Congress was half hearted about Civil Service Reform. Grant gave up on it because Congress gave up on it. There is no executive order of Grant repealing the Civil Service Commission only an executive order by Grant that created the Civil Service Commission. Editors can't make up history to fit their own opinions. Unsuccessful is a matter of opinion. Remember implementing civil cervice reform got Grant reelected. Whether Grant was firmly committed by civil service reform after implementation is good discussion, but he did implement it and was the first president to do so. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Unsuccessful is a proper summary description. As you appear unopen to it, than I join the others in not having the Commission in the lead. (At any rate, he did not just issue an order, he did so pursuant to a Congressional statute written to allow a president to create rules for civil servants) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Creation of a Civil Service Commission was in response to (charges of) corruption and is best covered in the body of text. Whether actually implemented in corruption or not, Grant was never directly charged for any particular affair. Currently the article mentions Civil Service Commission three times : Mentioned twice in Election of 1872 section where it claims Congress refused to fund it in 1875. Mentioned again in the Gilded Age corruption and reform section claiming it had "limited success". It would seem the commission, regardless of how well intended, was not exactly any sort of accomplishment for Grant, and as such should not be mentioned in the lede. Again, the lede should simply say Grant faced charges of corruption, which his administration was noted for, without going into subsequent details. Imo, we should strike the "including congressional investigations of two cabinet secretaries" portion of the lede statement, as this is a lesser detail that comes under the general idea of corruption.

Proposal for lede :
During his presidency Grant was faced with charges of corruption in executive agencies,
but was himself never implemented. (or 'convicted' , if that works better.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not say Grant was a crook but he never got caught ? Wikipedia goes by sources not editor opinions. Neither Hoogenboom and Smith, both established historians, use the term unsuccessful,...all that is being stated is that Grant is credited for creating the first Civil Service Commission and ending the moiety system...It is POV to insert an editor opinion "unsuccessful" into the lede. Grant did implement the recommendations of the commission in January 1872. Congress did not back Grant up over the next years so he gave up. Collusion of editors "join the others" is the same as control of the article and is against wikipedia policy. The POV is that Grant looks like a corrupt despot and the reader is forbidden in the lede the fact that Grant created the first Civil Service Commission. Why is there such open hostility to mention Grant was a reformer ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Who's even implying Grant was a crook?? Again, let's leave lesser details out of the lede. As for coverage in the body of text, we simply say what the RS's say. If the sources don't say "unsuccessful" then we don't. We simply mention the facts (i.e.commission not funded by Congress, etc) which the body of text already mentions. Let's try to keep it simple. Accusations of POV, "editor control", etc are uncalled for here. At least one editor has mentioned "consensus" and we are only discussing matters. Is the above proposal simple enough with coverage in the body, per RS's okay with you? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Himself never implemented" is another way of saying between the lines Grant was a crook but he never got caught and it ignores Hoogenboom and Smith who credit Grant for starting the Civil Service Commission. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers's draft (I assume you mean "implicated" for "implemented" is probably the rosiest way of presenting the corruption of the Grant administration without crossing the line into POV. I think it's fair to Grant and summarizes the events accurately. I'd be happy to change the line to "During his presidency Grant was faced with charges of corruption in executive agencies, but was himself never implicated." --Coemgenus (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No one is suggesting presenting corruption in a rosey way...This is a sidetrack of my initial discussion concerning Grant creating the Civil Service Commission and implementing its recommendations Simon, Smith, and Hoogenboom credit Grant implementing the Civil Service Commission...this needs to be in the lede for neutrality... Cmguy777 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing NPOV about leaving out one of Grant's minor, temporary achievements. I think we all, except Cmguy, are in agreement about that, yes? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Here again (Cm') when questions of morality, ethics and the like become an issue, we simply present the facts and let readers make the call. Saying that Grant was only 'implicated' is not saying anything between the lines to any objective reader not inclined to advance an opinion before learning the facts. I remember reading awhile back that Grant on occasion 'looked the other way', (i.e.not so rosey) no doubt because of partisan sympathies, thinking perhaps it was best not to draw attention to a problem that was going to be soon solved anyway. e.g.Via the Federal Service Commission. In any case, let's leave these details, for better or worse, out of the lede and simply make matters clear on the various topics involved in the body. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Grant's minor, temporary achievements" is an example of editor opinion being inserted into the article and this discussion. Hoogenboom, Smith, and Simon are valid sources are in agreement that Grant appointed the first Civil Service Commission by executive order. Editors need to go by sources. Neither Hoogenboom, Smith, nor Simon specifically say the Civil Service Commission was a "temporary" or "minor" achievement of Grant's. The Commission failed because Congress refused to fund the commission going against Grant's request to make civil service reform permanent. The issue here is one of POV and neutrality...The article implies Grant was a crook or his administration was a cauldron of corruption but then refuses to put the Civil Service Commission in the lede. By the way the Democrats and Congressman Joseph Blackburn tried to impeach Grant in 1876. Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials “‘Why We Laugh’ Pro Tem” Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

edit break1

• No on is proposing that we start adding one sided (or any) opinion into the article -- and keeping the lede simple while being clear about the facts (including the ones you mention) in the body doesn't do this either. Yet you still seem to think there is this POV problem. If there's an existing passage that effects this, in your opinion, please outline it now, or let's move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• "Grant's minor, temporary achievements" is actually an accurate assessment. As outlined in the Gilded Age corruption and reform section, Grant's commission didn't get Congressional support in 1875. Both Smith 2001, and Simon 2002, maintain that the commission had "limited success" -- esp since "Interior Secretary Columbus Delano, however, exempted his department from competitive examinations, and Congress refused to enact permanent Civil Service reform." Is it really so POV'ish to claim "temporary achievements"? I nnow have to wonder, was there ever any achievement to speak of at all? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The first President to appoint and implement Civil Service is an achievement...This was groundbreaking...Arthur followed Grant almost 12 years later because Congress did not want Civil Service reform especially in New York where Conkling had all the power at the New York Customs House. Hoogenboom, Smith, and Simon recognize this achievement...This balances the article and adds neutrality to the lede section...I have no issue stating there was corruption charges in the Grant administration, but why not mention reform ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Lede proposal change: "More then any other 19th Century president Grant had to respond to charges of financial misconduct in executive offices by federal appointees. He is given credit for appointing the first Civil Service Commission and ending the moiety system." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Cm'. Very compelling. Yes, Grant was the first. As for 'all of this' going into the lede, once again, we should get consensus on that. I wouldn't mind seeing your proposal there with a couple of minor changes -- not that I think there is any POV issue here, but simply because this is something that distinguished Grant's presidency. Currently all we have in the lede re corruption is :  "Corruption charges escalated during his second term..." Again, In light of your assertions here, let's see how consensus pans out on this (modified) proposal for the lede, replacing the current and rather sketchy passage.

"More then any other 19th Century president Grant had to respond to charges of financial misconduct corruption in executive offices by federal appointees. He appointed the first Civil Service Commission, and signed legislation ending the corrupt moiety system." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How about "More then any other 19th Century president Grant had to respond to faced charges of financial misconduct corruption in executive offices by federal appointees. He appointed the first Civil Service Commission, and signed legislation ending the corrupt moiety system." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I can accept Coemgenus's edit for the sake of compromise. This adds neutrality to the article. I appreciate the effort made by editors in this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, 'faced' charges will easily be interpreted to mean that Grant was himself charged also, along with his administration. Best to use Cm's phrase, 'responded to charges' -- much less of an implication there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Many people did accuse him! The historical consensus is that Grant was not personally corrupt, but he certainly faced charges from the Democrats and even some Republicans. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then maybe we should say 'Grant's administration was charged more so than any other...', just to be clear. However, I can go either way at this point, so long as we're clear in the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I prefer "responded to", but was agreeing for the sake of compromise. McFeely (1974) says "Ulysses S. Grant had to respond to..." Woodward (1974) says "Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct" in the book title. Gwillhickers has a good point. Grant's associates and his appointees faced charges...not Grant himself. I favor using the term "responded to" since that is more inline to Woodward (1974) and McFeely (1974). The resolution to impeach Grant was abandoned by Congress in December 1876. There was no impeachment trial for Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My preferred version: "Grant responded to charges of corruption in executive offices more then any other 19th Century president. He appointed the first Civil Service Commission and ended the corrupt moiety system." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but Gwillickers's change about the moiety system is important. He didn't end it by fiat, he signed legislation ending it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Revised version: "Grant responded to charges of corruption in executive offices more then any other 19th Century president. He appointed the first Civil Service Commission and signed legislation that ended the corrupt moiety system." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• This is just a side note but Grant signed legislation that created the Department of Justice used to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan and the Whiskey Ring under Grant's Attorney Generals Amos T. Akerman and Edwards Pierrepont. Was the Department of Justice a reform measure ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This looks best. Recommend adding our proposal to the lead before other topics are ventured into. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If there are no objections, then the edit can be added to the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd say this flows a little better, if that's all right with all of you: "Grant responded to charges of corruption in executive offices more then any other 19th Century president. He appointed the first Civil Service Commission and signed legislation ending the corrupt moiety system."--Coemgenus (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that is both reliable and neutral lede information. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)