Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

new major grant biography by White

see review in NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/books/review/american-ulysses-ronald-c-white.html The reviewer says: I wish that “American Ulysses” delved more deeply into Grant’s contradictions, yet agree with its final tally. White delineates Grant’s virtues better than any author before, and they outweighed his flaws. Rjensen (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I read and reviewed it (I do book reviews and other freelance writing under my real name) and I think it's the best new take on Grant since Simpson's 2000 book. Maybe since McFeely. I wish he'd focused more on the post-war stuff, but White's analysis of Grant's religion, in particular, is interesting and novel. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• White has committed two chapters to the Mexican War (including a map) and doesn't seem to treat the topic superficially as our biography does. He also covers Grant's world tour fairly well, offering a timeline/map. Here is the searchable google listing.
• White, Ronald C. (2016). American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-5883-6992-5.
  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I plan on buying the book. Looks good. There is some criticism of the book, but not much, so far. I read the New York Times book review: Ulysses S. Grant: New Biography of ‘A Nobody From Nowhere’ T.J. Stiles (October 19, 2016) Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Rjensen already found the link to the NYT's book review. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe the White (2016) biography should be used to update all sections of the Wikipedia Ulysses S. Grant article since it is the most current bio on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

You haven't even read it yet, how can you know where if differs from the current consensus? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have the White (2016) book in my hands right now in front of me and am reading it. The article should have the most current research. White's book should be incorporated into the article. Author consensus ? Each bio author on Grant has their own individual view on Grant. Your comment Coemgenus "You haven't even read it yet" is not necessary and offensive at a time when I was hoping for editor concensus. I purchased the book yesterday at Barnes & Noble. I still have the receipt. If White offers a new perspective or detail on Grant, that needs to be in the article. That is what I meant by update the article. Gwillhickers already mentioned that White devoted two chapters on the Mexican American War. Certainly the Mexican American War section can be updated by White. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I like to think that most of the history on Grant has been covered and that the established facts have already been presented as such. Let's not assume that a new source is any better simply because it's the newest. I've only read a handful of pages of White's book, on line, where viewable, so I can't say whether his book has presented hitherto unknown new facts that have significantly changed the biographical landscape on Grant. I am assuming at this point that White's book is par with the other established sources, yet welcome anything new it may have to offer, even new opinion, to a certain extent. We should also be mindful of placing too much weight on any one source, regardless if it may be the newest. Having said that, I welcome White's book inasmuch as it may shed new light on Grant's life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you're right, it doesn't suggest anything new as far as the basic facts of Grant's life. The major departure is in interpretation, and we should certainly add a line to the historical reputation section. I can't think of anything that White wrote that would require significant changes to the main body of the article, though. And I agree with you that newer isn't always better. Here, where White has used letters that other scholars didn't have access to, he may actually be better on some point. But that's because he has better access to the sources, not because he's published more recently. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like we are having a White double take. He is either reliable or not reliable. White supplied dates, that are missing in the Foreign policy section. It is not just content. Grant lobbied Sumner before he submitted the Santo Domingo annexation treaty. White seems to pay attention to details and that is always good for historian, rather then, McFeely who passes gossip as history in two parts of his book. Newer is better. I would think a 2016 car is in better condition and has higher technology then a 1981 car. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here says it's not reliable. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cm, you're comparing apples to grand pianos. Unlike the automobile, newer doesn't 'automatically' mean better. No one has said White is less than reliable, or that he had no new details to offer, so let's dump the straw man arguments and evaluate White's book on a per source basis, using our intelligence, not some rule of thumb. With over 850 pages, the new source no doubt has a lot to offer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the article needs to be updated by White (2016) where more information is offered, such as dates, events, and places. Including context. White calls Grant an American Ambassador to the world. He is in synchrony with Campbell (2016) work on Grant and his expresidential diplomacy. That is the new research, the new car. No straw man arguments. White is 21st Century while McFeely (1981) is 20th Century. I would drive a new car to an old car anyday. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• The strawman was claiming new facts from White were being objected to and comparing literary works (i.e.knowledge, ideas) with mechanical contraptions. Editors/historians 'improve' with experience. New automobiles do just the opposite -- they begin to wear down and become less efficient. There are many literary works that are much better than many modern ones -- all dependent on the 'intelligence' and methodology of the author, not the date of publication. And we don't know if all of White's 'new' facts haven't been covered by other historians, and there are many. For example, many details are found in Young's works (1, 2) not found in most modern sources. e.g.Does White cover, or even mention, the assassination plot on Grant by Japanese hardliners while he was in Japan? Does he mention Grant's comments to his wife about the less than sincere political pomp he was greeted with upon his arrival to Liverpool? What does he have to say about Grant's feelings about visiting a country that supplied the Confederacy and reaped the fruits of slavery before and during the Civil War? Again, no one has said that White has nothing new to offer. What 'was' objected to was the notion that all sections should be updated with White simply because he's the latest source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
• Added a few points of context, cited with the oldest (Young, 1879) and newest {White, 2016) sources. Grant's stay in Philadelphia during the week before his departure was among the most eventful chapters in his tour and included his celebrated review of the Philadelphia National Guard and his attending the grand opening of Memorial Hall in Philadelphia. However, these details, covered well by Young, but not by modern sources like McFeely, Brands or White, belong in the proposed dedicated article. White makes numerous references to Young. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus, thanks for 'fixing' the citation mark-up to my last edits, however, I'm a little uncomfortable with the way the year date reads now. e.g. 1879a Looks clunky. Like with conventional ref links, e.g. |ref=Young1, isn't there a way to differentiate between two sources that share the same last name and year date, using the sfn format? No big deal I guess, but if we can do this that would be nice. I'll see what I can dig up. Always wondered why WP didn't adapt just one citation format style. Seems they offer us ten ways to walk around the same block. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's clunky, but I think it's the only way to do it in this format (we do the same with Brands's two 2012 works). It would be nice to have one standard format for the whole encyclopedia, but then we'd all probably just complain that they chose the wrong format! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, staring at the bright light in our monitors, sometimes things are 'illuminated' way beyond proportion, esp our worst peeves and fears. 'I have nightmares about clunky.' -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

White mentions Young in his narration and references him in his notes. Since White is the most recent reliable source his book needs to be used to update the article. In other words put new research (new car) into the article as needed. No straw man. Just good Wikipedia editing. If White explains events better, then any slop in the article should be cleared up. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Initially, in reference to Young, you said, "I believe these sources can offer better understanding on the extent of Grant's travels and his itinerary." Young is the oldest source, yet you refer to him for "better" understanding. Now listen to you. Once again, 'new' is no guarantee that a work is automatically better and to assume so is sort of intellectually delinquent, esp since it was demonstrated that White doesn't have many of the facts that Young offers. As mentioned, we can use any new facts that White may have to offer, gladly, yet you still carry on like we're opposed to this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Coemgenus, White should be mentioned in the Historical reputation section, if anything, to show how subjective opinion can fluctuate over the years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Young does give better understanding on Grant's world tour especially in details. But White and the other authors McFeely, Smith, Brands and Campbell (2016) give modern analysis of Grant's tour around the world. The new research on Grant by White and Campbell is his diplomacy. White even defined the Gilded Age in his book. Clarification from the White bio on Grant has been added to the Gilded Age corruption and reform section. I have been re reading the article and been making clarification changes using White (2016) where I beleive it is needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for your efforts. Information that offers us clarification is always welcomed and should be added to the article regardless of the date it may have been published. What analysis does White offer about the tour that the other sources fail to offer? Almost any source that covers the tour says that Grant acted like a diplomat and the section title already includes diplomacy and mentions this involvement in the text. If White offers new facts and insights, this is great, but we need to hear the 'what and why' of it all. Iow, we need to hear something more than 'new' if you're going to convince others that White is somehow unique compared to the (many) other sources. I believe this is intellectually honest and fair to all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
• Is White's opinion of Grant's reputation different from 'all' the others? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, not really. I think the biggest departure is in White's estimate of Grant's intellectual life. He thinks Grant was cleverer than people give him credit for, just too humble to brag about himself. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Grant was modest to a fault almost. Unlike Winfield Scott who wore every conceivable decoration (even a plume in his hat sometimes), Grant wore virtually no medals or other regalia on his uniform. Don't have White's book in hand yet, and online viewing is very limited. I'd welcome this view and any other insights about Grant's personal character White can offer, if not covered by us already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

White calls Grant an American Ambassador. No other Grant biographer calls Grant an ambassador. White conincides with Smith who said Grant had ambassador priviledges. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Though not planned as a diplomatic "mission", Grant spoke, unofficially, for the United States, and no doubt was well aware of the ramifications and the weight of his words, as would any ambassador. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• Are we sure no other author refers to Grant as an ambassador? If White is the only one then we should have reservations about referring to Grant in such official terms. The 'newest' source doesn't automatically trump all the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Before 1892 senior diplomats from the U.S. to other countries, and from them to the U.S., were called "ministers." In 1892 four major European countries (Britain, France, Germany Italy) raise title of their chief diplomat to the US to "ambassador"; the US reciprocated in 1893.Dennis C. Jett (2014). American Ambassadors: The Past, Present, and Future of America’s Diplomats. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 30. Rjensen (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

IOW, Grant established the foundation of diplomatic relations between much of Europe and the United States in the 19th century.(?) If so this should be emphasized. White? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I think Rjensen is talking about something that happened after Grant's death. Grant was never accredited as a minsiter or an ambassador, which would require Senate comfirmation. Calling him "ambassador" is not meant to be taken literally. It's a metaphor. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just going by what White (2016) says. Chapter 34 is titled "American Ambassador" and covers Grant's World Tour. I did not say Grant had any official status, and he did not as Rjensen mentions. White (2016) says refers to Grant as an "unofficial ambassador" on page 612. But clearly he had all the priviliges, probably more, of an ambassador. Smith (2001) on page 608 says Grant "was accorded every honor imaginable." I would have no problem mentioning that Grant was America's unofficial ambassador in the article or that Grant was awarded unofficial ambassador status by foreign countries. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"ambassador" is a term that was not officially used at the time and should be avoided, in my opinion. The USA had lots of diplomats --each accredited to one specific country, as decided by US state dept and recognized by the local foreign ministry. Grant did NOT have the rank, title or privileges of an official diplomat of any title or status. He only had a US passport. Rjensen (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus, this was what I was referring to when I said "established the foundation" -- i.e.'after' Grant's tour (and eventual death). As I maintained before, Grant was not an official ambassador, on a "mission", though, as Cm' mentions, he was considered as such, and no doubt more, being an ex-president and a C.W. hero, an idea that our article very adequately relates to the readers. We should not refer to Grant as an Ambassador, however, we can say that he acted unofficially in a diplomatic capacity at times. The article says Grant's tour "assumed diplomatic proportions", which seems clear and appropriate for the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Assumed diplomatic proportions" is fine with me. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Campbell (2016) can possibly answer relevent questions such as how much was President Rutherford B. Hayes involved in Grant's diplomatic relations? Also Grant was given a visa to travel around the world from I believe Hayes Secretary or State. We don't have to use the term "ambassador" in the article because that could be misleading to the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

visas are given not by the US president (Hayes) but by the country you are visiting. I doubt they had visas in those days. As for diplomacy, he did not need Washington permission to provide private informal diplomatic help to China in its dealings with Japan. Did he provide diplomatic assistant to the USA at any point? Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Cambell (2016) xi says the U.S Navy had reason for Grant to be on board. In order for Grant to use the U.S. Navy he had to have permission from the Secretary of Navy, the Secretary of State, under authority of President Hayes. That was the "visa". I believe the U.S. Navy took Grant to India, China, and Japan. Also the U.S. Navy took Grant around the Mediterranean. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Campbell (2016) p 93-94 says Grant had instructions from Secretary of Navy Richard Thompson to travel around the world to increase American commerical interests. Hayes had been keeping track of Grant in Europe and was impressed. There was a decision at sometime to send Grant around the world using the U.S. Navy. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

editbreak1

Grant had 'instructions'? This would suggest that Grant was ordered, was acting in an official capacity and that his tour was largely prompted by this prospect. Politics being what it was (and is) we can assume that various U.S. statesmen and such communicated the idea of 'while you're at it', to Grant, but let's not entertain the idea, too much, that Grant embarked on some sort of diplomatic "mission" with official instructions. Young's work largely lends itself to Grant's 'diplomatic' involvements, with numerous allusions to political situations, but from what I've read, any such engagements presented themselves to Grant in a happenstance manner. There doesn't seem to be anything in the sources that says Grant anticipated and was prepared to address any given situation. Having said that, it seems Grant's tour established or strengthened many political and diplomatic ties with the various countries involved and we should emphasize this in the section with a sentence or two. Presently the section only mentions that Grant's tour took on diplomatic proportions, which is an understatement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Gwillhickers. There were no instructions, no commissions, no tasks assigned. Grant did, as Rjensen notes, perform a diplomatic service for the Chinese Empire, but even then he just passed on a message that he agreed with. He was not accredited, nor was the mission even successful. If you can find a reliable source that says Grant improved diplomatic relations between the U.S. and any country, I'd say let's add that. If not, I don't see how we can justify it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Grant was not ordered. I have the Campbell book. It was instructions in a letter or telegram from Hayes' Secretary of Navy. Grant had to have permission to board the U.S. Naval Ships. The purpose was to improve Grant's clout upon entering Asia. Campbell emphazises this letter prompted Grant to take the world tour knowing that he had the U.S. Navy support. Grant's tour was linked to the Hayes administration. Hayes was monitoring Grant's popularity in Europe. That is why he gave Grant access or visa to U.S. Navy ships to potentiall increase American commerce during the recession caused by the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, even though it's safe to assume Grant strengthened diplomatic ties it would be O.R. for us to say so in factual terms based on references to a couple of instances. We've made obvious deductions on behalf of several sources before, but in this case such a view is not exactly an obvious deduction, so we need a source that nails the idea definitively. I'll see what Young and Remlap say along this line. Brands doesn't say anything other than to suggest the idea based on Grant's successful involvements in Japan, etc. White? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Grant could increase commerce by meeting with European bankers, brokers, manufacturers, importers, exporters etc and bringing along American business experts to meet them. (we know he himself did not understand much about business.) How much of this did he do? Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's original research to go against the research of Campbell (2016). Does one think Hayes is going to give Grant access to U.S. Navy just for the fun of it. His instructions, not orders, in the letter were to increase commerce among the nations that he visited. Campbell says this letter is a turning point in Grant's tour. Grant did not want to go around the world. This letter convinced him to do so. Grant was serving his country again as a private citizen and ex-president. If I am misreading Campbell in anyway feel free to disagree. This was my interpretation of what Campbell was saying. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with or holding reservations about any claim made by one source is not Original Research, for Pete's sake. Also, the Navy was no doubt afforded to Grant on various legs of his journey as a courtesy, and perhaps as a security measure, which is nothing fantastic or unusual. We're talking about Grant, aren't we? Again, Grant no doubt was advised and encouraged to promote American interests when the opportunity presented itself. Does Campbell actually say Grant didn't want to go around the world and that it was various specific objectives that determined his itinerary? There's no issues raised by emphasizing Grant's diplomatic encounters, but it seems you're asserting some unusual opinion with nothing but one source to show for, if indeed it definitively asserts what you claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Can some one quote (on this talk page) the text of Hayes's instructions to Grant? no one here should miss Grant's own letters eg John Y. Simon (2008). The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant: October 1, 1878 - September 30, 1880. SIU Press. pp. 49–. as well as [https://books.google.com/books?id=w1ijHal5rKMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Papers+intitle:of+intitle:Ulysses+intitle:S+intitle:Grant+intitle:1878&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYwLWvivrPAhUJymMKHbSdA4QQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false the previous volume that covers plans for the trip. Rjensen (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Secretary of Navy Richard Thompson to Ulysses S. Grant October 23, 1878, "the department feels assured that...your intercourse with them [countries] would lead to more extended and intimate commercial relations between them and the United States" ... "[Y]our presence on board a Man-of-war, in the ports to be visited by the Richmond, will so arrest public attention as to bring prominently into view, not merely the character and extent of our commerce, but the nature and value of our institutions." Campbell (2016) page 93 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

thanks! Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In essence Grant was not in charge of his tour through India and Asia. He was on the schedule of the USS Richmond. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Insert : This could easily be interpreted to mean that Grant was offered passage by the Navy along with some 'while you're at it' hopes and suggestions from Secretary Thompson. I would assume Grant was still in charge of his own tour during this leg of the tour and that any such undertaking was done at his convenience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• This chapter in the tour is interesting. Any involvement with Thompson, the Navy, Hayes, would do well in the proposed article. The idea of diplomacy and politics merits its own section, so this has been added (in bold) to proposed TOC above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome Rjensen. I would call these instructions because it is telling Grant that his dialogue with the countries, that he was being taken to by the U.S. Navy, would lead to more "extended and intimate" commercial relations...and that his presense alone would bring world wide public attention to the "character and extent" of U.S. commerce, and the "nature and value" to U.S. institutions. In other words, put the U.S. on the world map. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

From 1878 to 1880 U.S. GDP increased by 35 billion dollars in a period of two years, a time roughly concurrent to Grant's travels. This is not original research and not intended to be in the article, but I thought added context to this conversation. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC) GDP 1870 to 1880 Cmguy777 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this discussion is in aid of. Is there something you want to add to the article, Cmguy? I think a lot of this information could be useful in the sub-article you and Gwillhickers want to write, but I don't think it would change the brief summary we have in this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Cm' has brought some interesting items to the table. However, it still seems that Grant was not actually ordered to take on such an undertaking (who would dare do that to an ex-President and war hero about to leave on a long due and well deserved vacation with his wife?) At the same time I've no problems with relating the idea that Grant was encouraged to promote American interests but would not go so far as to say it increased the US economy in the years immediately following, even though this may have been likely. However, for purposes of our summary we should offer more than just a comment about the tour taking on diplomatic proportions. Again, I've no issues with adding a brief comment to this effect. Has White anything to offer here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take a look when I get home, but I think his account of the world tour is pretty standard. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What I would want added is that the Hayes Administration took notice of Grant's popularity and authorized him to use the U.S. Navy to travel around the world on the Man-of-war Richmond. Once sentence would suffice. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sample edit: The Hayes Administration, realizing Grant's popularity in Europe, authorized Grant to voyage around the world on the USS Richmond to bolster international commerce and American institutions abroad. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Grant needed no authorization. How does the source word this idea? Also, the USS Richmond was only 'offered' to carry Grant on a couple of legs of his journey, not around the world. i.e.The SS 'Indiana carried him from the U.S. to England. Much of Grant's travels involved railroad transport. What ship carried Grant from Japan to San Francisco? In any case, we need more clarity as to the extent of any political 'encouragement' Grant received before he embarked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The authorization came from Secretary of Navy Richard Thompson October 23, 1878 in the letter quote I already put in the article. However, the USS Richmond was late so Grant took private ships to India and China. The original plan was to take Grant around the world on the USS Richmond. The USS Richmond did bring Grant to Japan from China and served as his naval escort. I can change the suggested edit: The Hayes Administration, who knew of Grant's popularity in Europe, convinced Grant to voyage around the world in order to bolster international commerce and American institutions abroad. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Odyssey of Ulysses S. Grant Meredith Hindley (May/June 2014), Humanities, Volume 35, Number 3 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that proposed text relies on a pretty strained reading of a primary source document. I'd rather not add it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hindley (2014) and Campbell (2016) are not primary sources. I am the one supplying these sources but get no respect for doing so. Are you Coemgenus rejecting Campbell's and Hindley's research ? Grant did not want to go around the world. He was convinced by the Thompson letter. The ironic thing is that Grant did not wait for the USS Richmond because the USS Richmond would have taken two weeks to arrive in England. Grant criticized the navy for being slow. He took off on his own. The readers don't know any of this. Grant was suppose to arrive in India and China on the USS Richmond. This did not take place until his arrival in Japan. Hayes and his cabinet were attempting to get involved in Grant's world tour. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

These are all interesting issues to explore on the talk page of World tour of Ulysses S. Grant or whatever you end up calling it. I don't think there's anything we need to add to the summary we have now in this article. You guys seem to have a lot of ideas about the sub-article, and I think it could be a good thing to read, once it's done. If you don't think you're ready to go with it, why not create it in one of your userspaces and then move it when it's ready? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Cm' has done great leg work. I don't mind adding a sentence that says Grant's tentatively planned tour grew to include various political and diplomatic undertakings at the encouragement of Hayes. If the Hayes administration is mostly responsible for this change of venue it should be mentioned. Below is a modified proposal (in bold) which should follow the existing sentence thusly: Presumably this can be cited with Campbell and/or Hindley.

Grant's tour, initially planned as a private affair with no set duration,[329] assumed diplomatic proportions at various points of the tour and was an unprecedented undertaking for a former President..[330] Realizing Grant's popularity in Europe, the Hayes Administration had encouraged Grant to extend his tour and voyage around the world to strengthen American interests abroad.<Campbell, Hindley?> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Assuming we can nail down a citation, that's fine with me. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommend combining these ideas into one sentence:

Grant's tour was initially planned as a private affair with no set duration but assumed diplomatic proportions when the Hayes administration, aware of Grant's popularity in Europe, encouraged him to extend his tour and voyage around the world to strengthen American interests abroad, an unprecedented undertaking for a former President.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Condensed proposal has been added, covered using existing sources. Campbell also covers Hayes' involvement on pp. xi-xii, which was added to that citation. Thanks are due to Cmguy777 for bringing this to our attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The edit is acceptable Gwillhickers. But I believe the new research has revealed that Grant's world tour up until his voyage to Japan was by a private carrier to India and China, because the USS Richmond was late in escorting Grant. His voyage would have had more diplomatic impact had the USS Richmond' had taken him around the world. This only took place in Japan and Grant did actually help resolve the land crisis between China and Japan. Thompson said the Man-of-war and Grant combined would have a large impact on diplomacy, but for most of Grant's world tour he was on a private carrier, looking more like a tourist. The reader does not know this. There was initially to more then just encouragement, but the use of the USS Richmond. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

What new research? Grant's itinerary was well-known and widely reported at the time. I'm sure Young gives plenty of detail in his books. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's see Young (1879) over Campbell (2016) and Hindley (2014). I was talking about diplomacy not Grant's itinerary. Grant was initially to voyage in the USS Richmond that would have increased his clout as a diplomat. This is what the Hayes administration wanted. I feel I am doing all the work and everyone is complaining. Again. No respect. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In May of 1877, William M. Evarts of the State Department notified U.S. representatives in foreign countries that Grant was planning a tour of the world and would be arriving in the respective countries in due course. -- This occurred roughly a year and a half before Hayes' letter to Grant encouraging him to act diplomatically traveling by way of the Richmond. Grant planning his private tour with his wife Julia had originally selected the SS Indiana for his departure, not the USS Richmond, a Navy vessel.<Young, 1879, pp. 4-5> In any case, this sort of context concerns the proposed article. The added proposal is fine for our section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure you Gwillhickers are getting what I am saying. Hayes wanted Grant to ride on the USS Richmond to give him more clout when he entered a country's port of call. But this never took place except in Japan when Grant voyaged to Japan on the USS Richmond. Interestingly Grant actually did some signifigant diplomacy in helping settle the land dispute between China and Japan. Was this because he was on the USS Richmond ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

He didn't settle the land dispute! Japan annexed the Ryukyus and China was too weak to stop them. That's not a settlement, it's just imperialism. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus. Grant helped accelerate the process of annexation diplomatically. China could annex the land, on face value, because Grant wanted them too, not out of a military demand from Japan. The article currently states he helped China accept a non option. No one is denying Japan had a superior military over China. I don't think that China was a completely defenseless country at the time. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

editbreak3

Cm', we know why Hayes offered the USS Richmond to Grant. We know Hayes' encouragement changed Grant's original tour plans. Our article now mentions that the Hayes administration impacted Grant's tour without getting into all the many details. What is in dispute here? A dedicated section for Hayes' and the Navy's involvement has been added to the proposed article's TOC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is in dispute. Hayes deserves credit for shaping modern presidential diplomacy too along with Grant. But the Navy was slow and Grant took off on a private ship. Let's say a modern president comes to Japan on a commercial flight for an economic summit meeting flying in coach. Not much prestige. But a president flys in on Air Force One. Now that is prestige. Hayes realized diplomatic prestige counts concerning Grant using USS Richmond man-of-war. The USS Richmond was a kind of proto type for Air Force One. Unfortunately that only occured in Japan. But this concept was way ahead of its times. These are just my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

White raises some issues

(Thanks to our public library I finally have White's book in hand.) -- On p. 608 White states that Grant traveled aboard the British steamer Simla when he departed from India, en-route to Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Siam and Hong Kong. From there White says Grant traveled to China aboard an American Gunboat USS Ashuelot. The Ashuelot article says however that it was the Irrawaddy that brought Grant to China and who was then received by a party aboard the Ashuelot, which then took Grant to various points along the China coast, but that section has no citations. Just for the record. Again, this is content and food for thought for the proposed article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If it makes it easier for you both, you can start the proposed article at User:Coemgenus/World tour of Ulysses S. Grant and I'll move it when you're finished. I mean, you could do it at User:Cmguy777/World tour of Ulysses S. Grant or User:Gwillhickers/World tour of Ulysses S. Grant, but if you want a neutral location, that's fine with me (I don't intend to edit that article very much). --Coemgenus (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft article

All editors are equally welcomed to contribute what they can to the proposed article. With POV, page length and lesser details not an issue this venture should go fairly easy if and when it's launched. I'd recommend that we get square on a few more ideas/questions before the draft-article is initiated, as we frequently seem to uncover new items every time we turn around, and various important questions remain. For example, I'm not sure what stops along the tour were originally planned and which were added to the itinerary for political reasons. How did Grant feel about turning his tour, originally meant as a restful vacation for himself and his wife, into a political undertaking with what appears to be numerous changes in ships. How did Grant feel about visiting English royalty who since the Revolution had less than congenial designs on America? How did Julia feel about all the politics and pomp which were, once again, dominating much of Grant's time? Was Grant just going along with the program? Can't seem to find anything that covers important items like these, yet. Ultimately I'm hoping we can give the readers more than just a chronology of events. Don't mean to be the wet blanket here, but it seems we're not ready for the draft phase quite yet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe in a few days things will change. Regarding Grant's feelings with Britain and the tour overall, Fish seemed to patch things up with Britain regarding the Alabama Claims, during Grant's terms. Seems unclear, to me, how that panned out. Britain was not very cooperative overall. Looking for sources of any type that expresses Fish's thoughts on the affair -- perhaps revealed in letters Fish and Grant may have exchanged during the months that preceded the tour. Seems Fish, or someone, out of concern for Grant's feelings as well as Queen Victoria's, gave Grant a proverbial list of things not to talk about when he arrived in England. Remlap also expresses some interesting ideas, saying unlike Sherman, Sheridan and Farragut who enjoyed restful vacations in Europe after the war, such rest was not afforded to Grant, who it seems felt duty bound to use his legacy and influence to secure U.S. relations with much of the world. Apparently when approached with the idea by Hayes and others Grant could not turn the other cheek, moreover, he seemed to welcomed the idea overall. However, Young gives us a perspective and mentions that Grant was not eager to shake hands and make appearances much of the time. Grant simply wanted a simple(r) vacation, but duty and honor seems to have prevailed and Grant was happy to rise to the occasion on top of it all. Like any U.S. president aware of his immediate surroundings, Hayes must have had Grant pegged well and duly seized on the prospect. We have the sources to present this sort of insight into Grant's feelings about such turn of events in his plans, esp with Young who spent many hours during the various cruises conversing with Grant about a variety of subjects, mostly political, as outlined well in his book. Young doesn't (need to) embellish or misrepresent the advent in any way imo. Still reading White and looking elsewhere for corroboration on these ideas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Off topic discussion moved.

I think we've gone beyond our limit with our continued discussion of an other subject/article on this talk page. I'm going to spend time collecting notes on the tour and clearing up a number of issues and hopefully sometime soon I'll initiate a draft article with a talk page if someone hasn't done so already. For now I'll create a Notes on Grant's world tour section for purposes of bringing up new and revealing information and clearing up issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent addition

@Cmguy777: could you add a citation for the sentence you added today? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Brands, 2012, p. 621, says Ward was sentenced to ten years hard labor at Sing Sing prison. Our article says he served only six. Good behavior? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Could be. Thanks, I'll add the cite. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he had good attornies to reduce the sentence or he was pardoned possibly by a New York Governor. I don't think any President pardoned him or reduced his sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Geoffrey C. Ward (2012) A Disposition to be Rich page 270 says he was sentenced for 10 years hard labor. C Ward titles one chapter The Model Prisoner. I believe Gwillhickers is correct about him being released early do to good behavior, apparently without any pardons from a governor or president. It is possible a clergy relative of his testified of his good behavior and that got him released. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I got F Wards indictment, sentencing, and release dates: Indicted for Grand Larceny $1,000,000 June 4, 1885; Sentenced Guilty October 31, 1885; Released April 30, 1892 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Benson John Lossing and Woodrow Wilson (1905) Harpers' Encyclopædia of United States from 458 A. D. to 1905, Volume 9 page 121 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• New York Times (June 4, 1885) Ward In Great Demand Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be a given that Ward was represented by the best. We don't have to say time off for good behavior necessarily, but we can say Ward was sentenced to ten, served six, if anything. Ward is just mentioned in the Grant article, but one or two more sourced details might be welcomed. i.e.Imprisoned at Sing Sing. Sources always appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus wants details to belong in the Ward section. I think dates are important though, particularly his conviction date. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? I don't think anyone reading about Grant would say "Hey, what was the date of Ferdinand Ward's conviction?" It's tangential to Grant, which is why Grant's biographers don't mention it (although you have that sentence cited to Brands, Brands does not give that information, and for good reason). It's very important to Ward, though, so I'd add it to that article with whatever actual source you have for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? Because history and readers need a time frame. He was indicted on June 4, 1885 while Grant was still alive. We must assume people reading the article are actually interested in reading history. Ward and his secret partner Fish destroyed Grant financially. He brought down an ex president. Certainly Grant's family was still alive when Ward was convicted. There is no POV in putting in a date. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not POV, it's just irrelevant and tangential. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, if anything we should mention the date of conviction for chronological context, sources permitting -- but that would be it for Ward in this section. No pressing need to mention length of sentence v time served after all. Also, which term is better? Was Grant actually "exonerated" or simply "never charged"? i.e. 'exonerated' implies that Grant was charged but not convicted or that there was compelling evidence that Grant was not (intentionally and maliciously) involved. If this is the case we should say 'exonerated'. Either way, if we can shed light on this idea with a sentence/citation, that would be a marked improvement in terms of representing Grant the person at this juncture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I changed it from "exonerated" to "never charged," to avoid the POV implications of the former. As to the details about Ward's case: I grew concerned when I checked the citation and saw that it didn't actually mention the date. Then I checked other sources, and they didn't mention it either. Which made me think, should we be covering something with more detail than any of Grant's biographers. As I've mentioned before, I think this sort of thing violates WP:UNDUE. Mentioning date after date out of the flow of the article is bad writing, generally, but in this case it's also bad policy. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I gave two reliable sources for the conviction date the New York Times and for goodness sake Woodrow Wilson. I know you Coemgenus have your own policy of only using Grant biographers, but that does not apply to other editors. There is no violation of Wikipedia policy having two reliable sources that substantiate the Ward conviction date of October 31, 2016. I have never heard of undo weight on a chronological date. You are just making that stuff up. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing about a date in an article as undo weight in the WP:UNDUE. Brands does mention Ward was convicted. That allows the depth. The date allows historical accuracy. "Julius Ceasar invaded Britain in 55 BC". That is more accurate and appropriate then "Julius Ceasar invaded Britain". I have never heard of adding a conviction date as undo weight. If this is too controversial we can always take the date out. I am not trying to be beligerent, but I don't like have to defend myself for every minor neutral edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've left almost all of your recent edits untouched, except for spelling and punctuation corrections. I'm not trying to be belligerent, either, just trying to uphold our standards and policies. Brands mentions the conviction, but not the date (because it's not relevant to Grant's story). --Coemgenus (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It is true Brands does not mention the date, but his reason(s) why he left the date out is unknown. How can any editors speak for Brands in the wikipedia talk page or for any author? That would be POV. I am assuming that Brands does not edit on Wikipedia, but I don't know for sure about that. There has been a book written on F. Ward, by C. Ward, about how he took down the ex-President Grant. I gave the source. I don't have access to the book completely. I would have to purchase, probably online. But if you want to know on a personal level why it is important, Woodrow Wilson thought it was, is that F. Ward was the only Grant swindler who got caught and prosecuted and spent time in prison. Babcock, Belknap, and Robeson were never convicted or served time. Additionally Grant never defended F. Ward. It was the first time Grant ever realized that a "friend" could also be a crook. I think the article has made great improvements and many of them have come from you Coemgenus. We have for the most part been getting along great recently I don't want to let a date get in the way of progress on the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that having too many dates roll by within a paragraph or two can stagger the narrative flow, esp if we are repeatedly referring to full month-day-year dates, but the section in question mentions only three year dates, not including the one for Ward. Which raises another petty issue. Ward is the only one referenced by a full date, while Grant's joining up with the firm is only referenced with a year date. We should either supply the exact date for Grant, which I recommend if we can cite it, or simply mention Ward with a year date also. Either way is no biggie for me. In any case a few dates are always welcomed. After all, the subject is history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

NYC home

Grant's home address in New York City was 3 East Sixty-sixth Street for the record. I think the E was meant to stand of East. Thanks for correcting the mistake Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Commanded by

I might be wrong about the grammar, which is why I bring it here, and I know what is meant but the sentence .. . but, "It was the nation's largest military base in the west, commanded by Colonel Stephen W. Kearny", suggests that it was the largest base commanded by Kearny, does it not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ambiguous. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ward (Ponzi scheme)

There is no evidence that Ferdinand Ward invested any of the invested money in securities, even the money he obtained from loans he obtained by collateral. This was a Ponzi scheme before there was a Ponzi scheme. No money was invested in anything, just went into Ward and his secret partner Fish's pocketbooks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, but it seems we're getting away from Grant here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think investors gave Ward money to buy securities but Ward did not buy the securities. I believe his secret partner Fish just put the money in another bank and used that money to borrow as collateral. The current article section assumes Ward actually bought securities. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What do our sources say on the point? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Right now I am reading White (2016) who devotes a chapter titled Grant & Ward. White refers to Ward initiating a Ponzi scheme on page 629. Ward pledged "securities" as collateral on several loans while paying his "investors" high interest payments. Were these actual "securities" or just money ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, once again. How does this translate into what will be added or changed in the biography? White speaks mostly of Ward's involvement with Buck, Grant's son, and once having his money in hand did the questionable affairs begin to occur, Ward using and putting the Grant name first in the company's title, Grant and Ward. How gracious of Ward. Ward seems to have also used Fish, having a private telephone line installed between his office and Fish's. Again, all this seems to be getting away from the Grant Biography. I didn't see anything White had to offer in terms of Ulysses' involvement with Ward that merits any further detailed coverage in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is adding a link to Ponzi scheme, possibly simplifying the narration, just tell what Ward actually did, and mention that he had a partner, Fish. If there was anything good that happened was that Grant apparently finally stopped trusting humans. Additionally, did Ward actually invest money in securities such as stocks and bonds, or was that just a ruse ? White says Grant had no knowledge of what Ward was doing. I just think that the section needs more clarification for the reader and what Ward actually did to Grant and any others who had investment in Grant & Ward. Clarification maybe needed on the Grant in Grant & Ward. I believe the Grant was Buck Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gwillickers here. I don't think White adds much about Grant's involvement. More details on Ward are interesting, but belong in Ward's article. Grant's involvement in Grant & Ward was minimal, and to the extent he was involved, we explain it well. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinon White does a better job then McFeely in explaining what Ward and Fish did to Grant. Hypothecation is two nice a word for what Ward did: grand larceny. White does not use the term Hypothecation nor Rehypothecation. Why not just say that Ward and Fish illegally took out several loans on Grant & Ward securities. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hypothecation wasn't the crime, it was the tool. Fraud and larceny were the crimes, which is already mentioned in the closing sentence of the section. Adding legal details about how the crime was committed with Ward and Fish doesn't shed any direct light on Grant. Currently our section covers this topic better than the dedicated article for Ward does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well it is up to editors. I am not really pushing this but I think the section could be tightened up a bit using the White (2016) as reference. I do think that it is important to mention that Ward had a partner Fish, who was also indicted. To me this has everything to do with Grant because it bankrupted him. It also shows the brazeness of the Gilded Age, Ward lying directly to Grant telling him he needed $150,000 to cover Grant & Ward bankruptsy, when Ward knew perfectly well it would do no good. Grant was devastated over the matter and his personal reputation was ruined. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You might have a point with presenting James D. Fish, a primary member of the firm, also convicted, and whose name is not mentioned in the section. We would do well to mention his name and association once, with no other details, as Fish was in the middle of a number of issues in NY ( 1, 2) and was the young Ward's senior partner. Simple mention of his name and association with Ward and Grant (i.e.his partners) wouldn't hurt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, both Ward and Fish were convicted and sentenced to time in prison. This is noteworthy because Grant did not defend them. This might be a first for Grant. Maybe he was too sick or more likely he finally lost trust in human nature after being swindled most of his life by hangers on and thieves. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

We could also say that Grant didn't (refused to?) defend them. That's a major point of context in Grant's association with these two individuals. If this could be mentioned in the course of existing text that would be appropriate. Anything further than that would be pushing the limits of the section's coverage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

We say Ward colluded with the bank. I'm not sure Fish is notable enough to mention, and might only add confusion since there's already a prominent Fish in the article. It also gets kind of lengthy to explain that Fish was a partner at Grant and Ward as well as President of the Marine Bank, etc. Maybe in Ward's article you could explain the details a bit better. As to Grant not defending them, I suspect it was because he was not involved with the firm and didn't necessarily understand what they'd done. But we should consult the sources instead of inventing reasons. What do they say? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Fish was perhaps not as notable as Ward but being president of the bank that was in the middle of a gigantic money scheme, collusion with Ward and his bank failure and indictment and conviction, I thought it wouldn't hurt if we gave J.D.Fish a contextual peep in the narrative. Grant must have known what was going on by the time Ward and Fish were indicted. He still had his health in 1883, so it would seem obvious that Grant didn't defend them because of betrayed trust, treachery, grand larceny, etc. Ward disappeared the same day the Bank shut down on May 6th,<White, pp. 630-631> so Grant must of had more than a clue about Ward at that point. However, I haven't found anything that covers Grant's refusal to defend the two.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• There is an error on p. 640 in White's book. At the very top of the page he says Grant's health began to deteriorate in "early winter 1885". Since Grant died in July of 1885, this no doubt was intended to read 'early winter, 1884. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am all for mentioning Fish. Smith (2001) page 621 mentions that Grant was distraught and could not trust any human again. He never said this about Babcock, Belknap, nor Robeson. There is no mention of Grant attending Ward or Fish trials and protecting them. Grant was never called to give testimony. There must have been some catharsis. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

• Grant was referring to Ward mostly when he exclaimed his distrust for humanity, as Ward was the one who coaxed Grant into borrowing from Vanderbilt to stablize the bank, orchestrated the fraud and then disappeared with everyone's investments. However, Fish should be mentioned once, and next to Ward, in an appropriate yet brief manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Proposal (in bold) added to existing text:

Investors bought securities through the firm, and Ward and his silent partner and bank president James D. Fish, used the securities as collateral to borrow money to buy more securities. <Brands, pp.619-620> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I still think it's too much detail for a summary section, but if there's consensus to add it, I'd suggest setting it off with parentheses, not commas, to make the sentence's organization clearer. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

How about this ? "Ward and his partner James D. Fish secretly colluded together, reusing invested securties as collateral, to illegally obtain multiple loans while pocketing the money." I am not an expert but this seems to be inline more with grand larceny. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I made changes to the article section trying to use some of the same narration. Added pertinent information and references. Feel free to make any neccessary changes. I thought the paragraph needed multiple narration changes for clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I preferred the version under discussion earlier, to be honest. And rehypothecation is not the same as a Ponzi scheme, so what you've added is incorrect. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

White links "rehypothecation" to Ponzi scheme that is why I linked rehypothecation to Ponzi scheme. The result is the same. Lure investors with high rewards and the multiple loans that Ward secured had no value to the investors. I also was trying to reduce narration and get to the point that Ward was a crook and this is how he swindled investors out of their money. He was indicted for grand larceny on June 4, not "rehypothecation" and antiquated term. He was indicted later for multiple frauds. I just did not want Wards criminal activity to get lost in a discussion on "hypothecation" and "rehypothecation". I will change the link if it is not already been done. Again, my edits are not set in stone. You Coemgenus are free to make any changes to the narration that will make the article better. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I maded changes to the narration giving better clarification. Apparently Ward was pledging collateral on the firm's securities he stole from the companies bank vault. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's how they got multiple loans on the same collateral. It might be better to fully understand the transaction before you start making edits. We're not under any kind of time crunch, so we might as well take our time and get it right. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I've lived a sheltered life -- never heard the term hypothecation. This term/link will only cause most readers to leave the page to clue in on a word the section already explains. Anyway, we've gone from discussion to adding text without ironing out some issues, so yes, let's get it right before we put pen to paper in the future. Since our article now actually explains the fraud in detail, in spite of reservations from two editors to keep them out, it would seem we don't need to add the obscure word "rehypothecation" simply because White happens to use it. It's an unfamiliar and redundant term for the section.
[Add :] If there are no objections I'll remove the term/clause in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

When I realized that this would not be a one sentence fix, I decided to edit. I was using White as my source. In my opinion none of Grant's biographers adequately explains how Ward swindled ex-President Grant and other investors. I knew there would probably be some rough edges in my edits, but I felt the edits would give better understanding for the reader of what Ward did. Basically Ward was stealing the securities behind Grant's back from the bank and this was approved by the bank president Fish. McFeely and White either use "hypothecation" or "rehypothecation". White also connects what Ward did to a Ponzi scheme and I think there are simularities bewteen them, especially the part of promising abnormally high returns to enduce investors. I don't have an issue with using "rehypothecation" in the article. I took out "hypothecation" because I believed it was redundant. Both are antiquated terms. Again, editors are free to make edits at anytime with or without discussions. I felt there was enough discussion and guidance to start editing. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone couldn't edit, I just suggested that any editor who wants to edit on a topic should first understand the thing he's writing about. That's not a Wikipedia policy, it's a basic rule of writing. As to hypothecation and rehypothecation. They're technical terms but are by no means antiquated. And it's not just in White's book. McFeely used it too (p. 492), and it's about as common when he wrote it as it is now. Beyond understanding the subject matter, we should endeavor to write about it correctly, using accurate terms. That's what McFeely and White did. Using their terminology in the manner in which they used it is the best way to avoid errors of interpretation. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It was me, Cmguy777, who started this discussion for better clarification on the subject before I made any edits. I have copies of both McFeely (1981) and White (2016). I used White (2016) as my references. I believed I had enough information and time to understand the subject. McFeely (1981) uses the term "hypothecation" on page 491. White (2016) uses the term "rehypothecation" on page 629 saying "In Grant's day, is was called "rehypothecation"." It is best then just to keep "rehypothecation" in the article. But the visualization of Ward stealing the securities out of the bank adds to the criminality of his indictments. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ward2

• Using the term rehypocathecation, or not, isn't a content/POV issue, so either way is okay by me at this point.
• Grant's misfortune has been covered by most of Grant's biographers well enough for purposes of his biography. Don't see where White, or anyone, has delineated this episode markedly better than those who have also covered it, including Badeau, 1887, who devotes an entire chapter to the topic, and more. Also, Badeau covers Grant's testimony, explaining how Grant gave Ward and Fish 'both barrels' at their hearing. This is a major point of context directly reflecting on Grant and needs to be included in the summary. [Add :] Modern sources like Brands, MeFeeley and White don't even mention Grant's feelings and testimony against Ward and Fish. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I would keep the term rehypocathecation. I just did not feel both hypocathecation and rehypocathecation needed to be mentioned. Grant did go after Ward and Fish after the company collapsed, but he completely trusted them even though there was reason to believe the two were crooks. Ward, in essense, was another Babcock. Ward had complete control of the Grant & Ward firm. Grant can be criticized for lack of oversight in the company he and Buck invested in. Adding that Grant went after Ward and Fish might be undo weight in the article since he never questioned their integrity nor looked into how Ward operated the company. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously Grant trusted Ward and Fish, up to a point. Grant would have had to of been something of an idiot to continue trusting them after learning what they had done to him and others. While there may be opinion that Grant could have been more careful, we still need to mention any direct involvement Grant had, including up to the time when Ward and Fish went to trial -- esp then. Easily done with just a mention. Our account also fails to mention that Julia had also invested great amounts of money, which would of course caused Grant to hold that much more contempt for these characters. As this is Grant's biography, his feelings/actions on important issues should be getting top priority for coverage. Yet we commit pages of talk about whether we should be using "rehypothecation". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe Grant trusted Ward and Fish unconditionally. Did Grant's testimony get them convicted ? Remember Buck himself was an attorney and he too like Grant was trusting of Ward and their money. I think it is possible to mention Grant testified against both Ward and Fish. I don't think there needs to be details of what he actually said. Is Badeau the only source that says this ? A more current reliable source would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Our article says ...how he could ever "trust any human being again."<Smith, p.621> Grant wasn't an idiot. His trust went out the window once he knew what was going on with Ward and Fish. Yes, a modern source would also be nice, but not absolutely necessary. What does Smith or Campbell say about Grant's feelings and testimony here? In any case, we don't need to get into the 'minutes' of Grant's testimony, but it should be mentioned that he testified against the two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If anything Ward represents Grant's tragic flaw by his unbridled trust in human nature and Ward was Grant's last swindle. It was Grant's trusting nature that fueled Ward's crimes. If there is a modern source that validates Badeau I am for inclusion that Grant testified against Ward and Fish. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the modern source: Chris Mackowski (2015) Grant's Last Battle: The Story Behind the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant page 69 Cmguy777 (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, Grant trusted Ward at first and was given no reason not to. Grant's son Buck brought him into the firm so that must have established a good basis on which to build trust. i.e.Interesting ideas for the Ferdinand Ward article. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
• Thanks for finding a modern source and adding the proposed idea to the section. However, even if a new source wasn't available here we still could, and should, for the sake of the readers, include this important perspective that again, directly involves (and further, directly reflects on) Grant. In any case, we now have a modern source and a primary source to cite this idea. Thanks again. Will continue to look to other sources just for the exercise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Piped links

I moved/reduced the number of words in a couple of piped links in the lede. The links were almost a sentence long. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

First non-legislator President?

Noticing he went straight from army command to the presidency, and considering the recently achieved election of Donald Trump, is Grant claimably the first President of the USA not to have had legislative experience (as city mayor, congressman, senator or state governor etc)?Cloptonson (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Taylor comes to mind, for one. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Technically Grant was appointed Secretary of War ad interim briefly by President Andrew Johnson. Grant was part of the executive branch. He sat at Cabinet meetings. Congress approved of all his promotions, so he was tied to the legislative branch in the military. West Point was also funded by Congress in addition to all his military salaries and potential pensions. Coemgenus is correct. Taylor never served on a cabinet. His promotions and any salaries were approved by Congress. Trump, as far as I know, is the first elected President to have no military, appointed, or elected office experiences. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

But this brings up a another concern. Was Grant elected to West Point as a Cadet ? Congressman Hamer "elected" or chose Grant to go to West Point while his father Jesse lobbied Hamer to attend the academy. Grant was not elected to office but was he elected or appointed to West Point ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hamer "nominated" Grant for admission, as were all cadets. Without delving into and reviewing the sources, isn't Grant's entry into West Point pretty much in the category of established facts? Graduating from West Point no doubt was an asset to Grant's political career, a given. Do we need to express this somewhere in the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It is safe to say Grant was never elected to public office prior to his presidency. But if Hamer "nominated" Grant that implies some sort of recommendation for entry into West Point. Who then approved of or "elected" Grant getting into West Point ? Was there competition between others who desired to get into West Point? If so then who else wanted to get into West Point? I am not sure there are any sources on this subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

West Point entry

Grant entered West Point in May 1839 under President Martin Van Buren and Van Buren's Secretary of War was Joel Roberts Poinsett. If Hamer nominated Grant then either Van Buren or Poinsett approved of (elected) his nomination by Hamer. Are there any sources that clarify who actually started Grant's military career ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not an election in any sense of the word. It's an appointment. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Were there other candidates to go into West Point in Grant's district that Hamer represented ? Grant was nominated by Hamer and appointed by Poinsett. Elected in the sense he was chosen or appointed by Poinsett. It was a two step process. Does his military career begin at his entry into West Point or upon is graduation ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• If not approved by one man then I would assume that it was some sort of 'board of approval' at West Point, most likely composed of military officers, that made the approval for Grant. Also, yes, Grant's military career started at West Point. As soon as you join the Army, whether at West Point, or Fort Dix, you're in for the duration. Our article already mentions Hamer, Grant's father, etc. Should we mention Poinsett's approval? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• Along with a dedicated chapter (3), White commits many pages to Grant's West Point involvement. He also commits a large chapter (5) to Grant in the Mexican War. There was once debate whether we should make Mexican War a subsection. Objection at the time was based on the idea that this topic was not covered much by Grant's biographers. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

I put the date of March as Hamer's recommendation because that was when there was an opening. Grant accepted his enrollment at West Point in April 1839, before his 17th birthday. I think I can rephrase the sentence. Secretary of War Poinsett gave Grant's final approval. I don't know if there was a board of approval. Grant almost did not reach the height requirement to be enrolled at West Point. Was there a physical examination of some sort, I don't know. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Grant at 17 was barely five feet tall, and I would assume all cadets underwent 'some' sort of physical examination, though that isn't worth mentioning, unless of course arrangements were made to excuse Grant from this, which I sort of doubt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

White does devote a lot of text to Grant's youth. It's the biggest thing that distinguishes his work from previous authors, although Simpson also get into it some. I haven't come across anything he says that contradicts what we have in the article, but I think it could be useful in expanding the "Early life" subarticle. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Brands cover's Grants earlier life very well, devoting many pages to Grant's involvement in the Mexican War. Don't know if we need to expand on Grant's involvement anymore than we have, which is alot., but with all this coverage we should reconsider making a subsection for this distinctive chapter in Grant's life. Presently we cover Grant's Mexican War involvement in the course of events, all topics covered under the Early military career and personal life section. Also, coverage of West point belongs in this section, with it's own subsection. Don't remember why this wasn't covered under 'military career'. The subsections can be added using the existing content. I'll do this now, tentatively, so we can see and evaluate how it looks in the actual article / TOC.If there are any objections, feel free to restore, and we can discuss it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think his military career should begin with his commission. As White notes, cadets were not actually required to serve after graduation in those days. We could change the first sectrion to "Early life and education" if that makes more sense to you, although "Early life" usually includes education. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Going to wait on making any section changes. We hardly cover West Point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, cadets were not required to serve, but this education, and training I would think easily puts this idea under the heading of military career, as W.P. is hand-in-glove with Grant's commencement of military life, being assigned to the 4th Infantry Regiment immediately following graduation. The Mexican American War soon followed. [add: The Mexican American War, where Grant received his first commission, would be better presented with its own subsection, imo. Again, there'd be no need for any additional content. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

As a USMA cadet Grant was in the military, or an officer in training. USMA was under the authority of the President and Secretary of War. I would say his service started in 1839 because he was required to wear a uniform. He was forced to attend Church. He was punished for not obeying military protocol. That too would mean he is the military. USMA was a federal school and was run by federal money. Tuition was free apparently. When he was commissioned he finally got a pay check. Grant was under authority of the military officers who ran USMA. Grant could not disobey their orders as if he was a civilian. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Without checking this seems to make sense, though I would have to wonder about forcing someone to go to church. That seems completely un-American. Anyway, without belaboring the finer points, I'd recommend moving most of the last paragraph in the Early life section (where various military items are mentioned) to the Early military career and personal life section where West Point and Mexican American War have their own subsections. Seems both topics have enough notoriety to warrant it. I'll make a tentative change to see how this flies in the actual article. Needless to say, feel free to revert or tweak if there are issues. Presently things seem to be run together and somewhat disorganized as content and section headings go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I would do something like this:

Early military career

United States Military Academy [West Point]

Mexican American War

Marriage and family Cmguy777 (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The Marriage and family section does not even say when the Grant and Julia were married. Only says they were engaged. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, calling that section "marriage and family" doesn't make much sense, since his marriage is mentioned later. I combined it into "West Point and early career," which should cover all bases and also avoid having such short sections (remember that an overlong table of contents was one of the things we had to fix to pass GA). --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the way the article currently looks under Coemgenus edit. There are two mentions of Grant's career. I don't think that is necessary. Also, West Point is not accurate since the official name is United States Military Academy although it is located at the West Point of the Hudson River. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Coemgenus' edit is more than acceptable. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, using USMA in the section title doesn't cut it. Few readers will know what this means when they view the TOC. West Point is the familiar term used by the majority of those who refer to the academy. We should use it in the section title and clarify things in the text, esp since United States Military Academy and first assignment is much too long for a subsection title. Therefore I restored the prior title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not officially called West Point. Why do we keep perpetuating this myth. Also [C]areer is mentioned twice in the same title sections. That is sloppy and repetative. Titles are just as important as the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction: West Point does call itself West Point So it is good to call the school West Point in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Colorization of photos

There is a website that can change black and white photos into colorized photos : Colorize Photos Would it be worth to colorize photos in the Ulysses S. Grant article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The terms and conditions suggest that the new work created by the process is not in the public domain or the creative commons, so I don't think it would be eligible for upload here. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. That why I put this in discussion. I had read through the terms and conditions and it was unclear to me if the colorized photo produced was public domain or creative commons. If there was a website or software that could produce a public domain or creative commons color photograph of a black and white photograph, is there any objection to having colorized photos in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

White bio in historical rep section

I added a line about the White biography in the historical reputation section, sourced from a book review in the New York Times. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Great edit. Why not put some of this view in the lede about Jim Crow historians trying to destroy Grant's reputation? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a little too specific for the lede. The last part of the lede already mentions a number of ideas and that opinions of critics and admirers vary in so many words. We should keep things as generalized as possible in the lede, imo. In fact, I'm wondering if we already have too many specifics in that part of the lede. However, this idea would work well in the Historical reputation section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In the lede 'African-American' is mentioned four times, so along with removing this and other specifics, we may want to generalize and change the last sentence in the lede from this:

His critics take a negative view of his defense of corrupt associates, deflationary financial policies, and his failed Dominican Republic annexation treaty, while admirers emphasize his concern for Native Americans, his enforcement of civil and voting rights for African-Americans and his administration's successful Treaty of Washington.

to this:

While historians have generally praised Grant's efforts during the Civil War, they have both admired his efforts at reconstruction while often criticizing his handling of corruption in his administration while President. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's see. Grant defeating a merciless hate group the KKK is admired by historians using the military. Grant used the military to stop illegal Whiskey mills in New York. Grant defeated the Whiskey Ring and oh yeah he started Civil Service Reform, the first President to do so. Grant also outlawed the Franking priviledge of Congressmen. He ended the moiety system and he defeated the Gold Ring in 1869. Grant had an anti-corruption team Bristow and Pierrepont who for over a year rooted out corruption in the Grant administration. What historians are critical of is his associations or protection of gilded age crooks i.e. Babcock, Gould & Fisk. He shielded Delano, Belknap, and Robeson from prosecution. White notes that historians have ignored his replacements such as Chandler, Bristow, and Pierrepont who reformed their respected departments. Even McFeely admired Grant's replacing Richardson by Bristow. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite: While modern historians have generally praised Grant's efforts during the Civil War, they have both admired his efforts at Reconstruction while often criticizing his protection of corrupt associates in his administration while President. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Changing the word handling to protection works fine also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Almost every president has had some corruption scandal or scandals. Grant was slow at getting rid of Delano and Williams. He really protected Babcock. A lot of this stemmed from his stubborness in refusing to believe his personal friends could be involved in corruption. He was this way most of his life, except after Ward. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not. The existing sentence balances the historical criticisms of Grant with the recent improvement in his reputation. And whether we personally agree with it or not, most historians have noted corruption as a major theme of his administration. Saying that they generally admired his efforts at Reconstruction is not accurate, either; only the historians of the past few decades have done so, a revision of nearly a century of existing scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Points well taken. We should try to reflect this without getting into all the specifics, one of which is redundant, as mentioned. e.g. Assessment of Grant's political life has varied among historians over the years, which is covered in the Historical reputation section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think of that as sort of an introductory sentence, but I guess we could cut it. I don't think to hurts to keep it. Everything in the lede is just a boiled down version of the article, after all. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The lede has two passages that are somewhat redundant: -- In the 1st paragraph it says:

His presidency has often come under criticism for shielding corrupt associates...

In the last paragraph it says:

...His critics take a negative view of his defense of corrupt associates..

Also, African-American is mentioned four times, unlike any other topic. There's no content/pov issues but we should try to condense some of these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

In the lede there are more details committed to Grant's reputation than any other topic by far. i.e.1. defense of corrupt associates   2. Reconstruction   3. Washington Treaty   4. concern for Native Americans   5. failed Dominican Republic annexation   6. enforcement of civil and voting rights for African-Americans   7. deflationary financial policies  -- while some topics are already mentioned in the lede and all covered adequately in the body of the text. No need to get into all the specific details about what and why, which are/should be covered in the Historical reputation section.

Proposal 2: Grant's historical reputation has varied over the years with more favorable estimations among historians in later years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that is too general of a statement. The reader is left asking "Why ?". If there is repeating information in the lede I am for editing that out. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the lede is full of things that beg the questions 'what', 'where' 'when' or 'why'. Actually this is good, as the lede is supposed to create interest and curiosity which invites and 'ledes' the reader into the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• To assist the reader as to 'why', etc, I added a link to the proposal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, now I see what you guys were talking about with repetition in the lede. The sentence you just deleted, Cmguy, was not repetitive, it was a summary. It's become a common style on Wikipedia, especially with extra-long ledes like this article has, to make the first paragraph a summary of the whole. The summary is then fleshed out in the remaining lede, then fully expanded in the article. That way a curious reader can get the immediate gist in a short paragraph and keep reading as long as necessary. I'd propose restoring it to keep that pyramid style intact. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Did I miss something? The last sentence in the lede is still there. Coemgenus, are you saying that the last paragraph in the lede is supposed to summarize the above paragraphs? If so there are numerous items that are not mentioned in the last paragraph. Seems all items in the lede have only a brief mention in the first place. Not sure what you want here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence in the first paragraph was deleted yesterday. [1]. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I thought this discussion was about 'the' last sentence in the lede. Not sure what Cm' is trying to do here. We still have numerous details, some repetitive, crammed into the last sentence of the lede, which I'm hoping we can condense and link to elsewhere in the article, per my above suggestion. It would also help to shorten the long lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see what you're saying. I thought Cmguy's deletion was related to this discussion. I'd like to restore that sentence, but I'm open to condensing the part you're talking about. At the very least, we can remove some of the overlinking. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the repetative information in the first paragraph. I thought it best to have historical assessment in the last paragraph. I added information about the Gilded Age in the first pargraph. Does historical evalutation belong in the first paragraph or last ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I thought it was fine how it was, as it gave the reader a brief synopsis to start with. You also left in the previous sentence, which highlights his achievements as president, while deleting the one that notes historians' criticism. That makes the paragraph less neutral, don't you think? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The lede is more then one paragraph. Criticism is given in the last paragraph. The lede as a whole is neutral. But if editors want to add the criticism in the first paragraph, then criticism should be left out of the last paragraph. The lede as a whole is more neutral then it was. The previous lede criticized Grant twice. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Now it just reads as a jumbled mess. Can we go back to what it was a few days ago? We all agreed on that, at one time, so it would serve as a good starting point for the changes Gwillhickers was proposing. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not a jumbled mess. I removed repetative language. I don't understand all this double talk. I moved criticism to the first paragraph as you suggested Coemgenus, and now you call that a jumbled mess. The whole lead was a jumbled mess when I began my edits and inaccurate. You can restore the lede to its orginal confused language, but that gets back to square one. I don't control this article and I made good faith edits. Gwillhickers was only saying that there should be no repetative information in the lede, especially double criticism of Grant. I removed that. I have also been trying to trim the lead to get to four paragraphs instead of five. Again, feel free to make edits you believe will make the lede better. Grant's reputation was not restored until Smith's 2001 work. McFeely's negative view dominated the 1980's and the 1990's. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said there's no content or POV issues. Whether we mention criticism at the end or elsewhere in the lede, all I'm proposing is to remove the many details related to criticism, replace it with a general sentence and a link, maybe two. I'll let one or both of you handle it, if you would. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Details of criticism should be left in the lede. I am not pushing Grant POV as has been suggested. In that Coemgenus is correct to leave in details. I only objected to Grant being criticized twice in the lede. Coemgenus is a great editor. Yes. I know I rocked the boat a bit in my lede changes, but I felt something had to be done. I am trying to get the lede to four paragraphs rather then five. Coemgenus is welcome to make any edits that improve the article lede. I have cut repetative detail and put criticism in the first paragraph. Coemgenuse mentioned the first paragraph was not neutral so I added the criticism to the first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• For the third time, no pov issues were at issue. Cm', we were in the middle of discussion and what seems to be a tradition for you, you just up and go off and have at it with the lede anyways, without discussion and forgetting to add a major point of context regarding historical assessment, which I've added. No you don't need our permission to edit, and I suppose I don't need yours to condense things, but I did so anyways out of consideration for editors who have put much time and effort into the article. Thanks for reciprocating. Not. I moved this passage, as you wrote it, with no changes, to the end of the lede, consistent with the order of the article where historical analysis is also near the end of the article. Why you decided to stick this in the middle of the lede I dunno. I object to having all of these details about criticism in our (very) long lede when they should be, but are not, discussed at length in the section, but that seems to be the consensus. Nothing much has changed, and for that we had to walk around the block with you five times? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Criticism of Grant's handling of the Treaty of Washington, a detail mentioned in the lede, is not mentioned in the Historical reputation section. Mention of historians' concern for Grant's dealings with Native Americans is in the lede, but this, also, is not mentioned in the Historical reputation section. Historical criticism of Grant's failed Dominican Republic treaty is mentioned in the lede but is also not mentioned in the Historical reputation section. This should have come out in the discussion but Elvis left the building before that ever happened. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Historians are not generally critical of Grant, Fish, and The Treaty of Washington. Grant also did his part in not demanding England admit guilt over the Alabama Claims. We can add criticism on the Dominican Republic annexation attempt, and Grant's dealing with Native Americans in the Historical Assessment section. In my opinion the lede has improved. I prefer criticism at the end of the lede, but there is criticism in the first paragraph for neutrality. Coemgenus can make any edits or reversions. I just did not like the way the lede was written. It should be as straight forward and to the point for the reader. Its not meant to be a book, but just state the facts and/or opinions. I was trying to give the reader the most neutral review of Grant's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for reducing the size of the lede and removing duplications, but let's do one thing at a time. If we restore the last consensus version of the lede, it would be easier to start from there and make changes we can all agree on. Does that make sense? Since you've just said that you don't object to any reversions, Cmguy, I'll do that now and we can start fresh on the changes Gwillhickers was proposing above. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I believe the lede could be tightened up. I was trying to do that in my edits. If this helps editor concensus then we can make a fresh start. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Even though the lede is long, it was generally okay, esp since there's no pov issues. My criticism was only aimed at all the details, seven of them, regarding historians' opinions. Hoping we can make a definitive and inclusive statement about historians and changing opinion in the lede, without the string of details, and then cover them in the 'Historical reputation section, and anywhere else if needed. Seems the Historical reputation section needs more work than the lede. Note: Historical opinion is not directly related to Grant's life. As such it seems inappropriate to devote so many details to this topic in the lede. However, I've no objections about covering these things clearly and definitively in the Historical reputation section, which is at the end of Grant's biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)