Jump to content

Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Grant's reputation

Re: this statement in the ' Reputation section: "..as the popularity of the pro-Confederate Lost Cause movement increased early in the 20th century, a more negative view of Grant became common."

Was this the only reason Grant's popularity decreased? Naturally the South embraced this perspective, but didn't the so called "progressive" and anti-American movement have a hand in this trend also? The existing statement is sort of narrow in its scope it seems. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

From what I know there was a historical movement of reconciliation where northern historians dropped the slavery issue over the Civil War, a major omission supported by the Lost Cause movement. Grant's presidency was a target of corruption. Lincoln and Johnson were heroes because their Presidencies supported Presidential Reconstruction and immediate admittance of Southern States to Congress. Congressional Reconstruction was considered Northern traitorism. The real fact is that much of the South and parts of the North refused to treat blacks as equal citizens to whites. Democratic Woodrow Wilson establishes segregation in Washington D.C. The KKK had a revival in the 1920s. In this hostile era and environment of segregation and racism, Grant's reputation naturally declined. It was not until the 1960's and Lyndon Johnson that Civil Rights helped revive Grant's reputation. Many historians I believe favor McFeely's view of Grant that he was nothing special. Smith is respected, but I believe works by Brands and White have been ignored. These are only my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Progressivism dropped Civil Rights to get Southern support in Congress. Congress could not get even an anti-lynching law passed in the 1920s. Progressivism also declined in the 1920s and the nation became more conservative: Prohibition: KKK revival: Government regulations were not popular especially regarding Civil Rights. There were three Republican Presidents in the 1920s. Wilson's term that ended in 1921 ended what was called the Progressive Movement. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Lynching is murder. An anti-lynching law would be redundant. Probably suggested for its symbolic value. In any case, it seems our existing statement might fare better if it was more inclusive of other factors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the main factor is the reestablishment of segregation by Wilson and the rise of the KKK. Hollywood may have been involved with the movie The Birth of a Nation. FDR was elected President for four terms in office. Not much time there for a Republican President revival until the election of Ike. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Existing statement needs work. Did Grant's reputation suffer accordingly in the north because of southern sympathies? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It was called Reconciliation. The North forgot about slavery as a cause of the Civil War. Wilson was elected. He implemented segregation in Washington. No public outcry by white people for social justice. Wilson coldly told blacks you should not have voted for me. Grant's Postmaster General John A.J. Creswell by comparison implemented desegregation in the Postal System. An anti-lynching law was squashed during the Harding Administration by the Southern Democrats and one Idaho Republican Senator. The KKK was popular among the Republicans as well as the Democrats. I believe it even infiltrated churches. It was this type of environment that fostered negativety for Grant. Historians just focused on Grant corruption charges and not anything good or great he did during his administration. It is possible historians have their "pet" Presidents, such as Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, FDR, and why not Ronald Reagan. Grant is not often on their agenda. Historians today have not completely broken from McFeely's view that Grant was nothing special. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the wake of the bloodiest, most destructive war of the century, the North and South sought political and cultural reconciliation. Soldiers on both sides sought to reconcile with former enemies by recognizing and commemorating their shared sacrifice. The Reconstruction-era goal of equality for Americans of color was largely abandoned by white Americans." Reconciliation, Commemoration, and Preservation Cmguy777 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " The reconciliation movement was an effort to obscure the legacy of emancipation and black participation in the war in favor of remembering the conflict as a fight between white Americans, Northern and Southern, which ultimately proved the honor and dignity of both sides." The Reconciliation Movement 21:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps people in the North were hit over the head with the issue so many times by activist types, news people trying to sell papers and politicians needing scapegoats to further their own career, the issue just took a back seat to one's own problems. In any case, how do you connect what you just outlined here to Grant, other than via remote associations? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The Lost Cause kept going through the next generation. Grant and Reconstruction were corrupt. White-supremacy was emphatically stressed. This was a hostile time for Grant who prosecuted the Ku Klux Klan staring in 1871. This Lost Cause view of the War carried over into the 1940s. Grant's reputation only began to rise from the 1950s through 1960s. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Reminder -- Grant himself was not corrupt, except in the eyes of south, KKK, whom he prosecuted, etc. You still haven't connected anything directly to Grant, and seem to be breathing more life into the lost cause than there was in reality as far as the north is concerned. He saved the Union. What happened? Did everyone just up and forget about that in the North? I'm thinking maybe Grant's reputation wasn't effected much in the North after all. Is there a RS that outlines the lost cause's influence, if any to speak of, in the north? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what everyone in America thinks, but starting with Wilson and through the 1920s, there was an attack against Civil Rights, promotion of segregation, lynching, and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. Those are not favorable environments for the support of Ulysses S. Grant, the President who broke up the Ku Klux Klan. Even today Grant is not honored as a great president. Smith, Brands, and White have not had that much impact on Grant's overall reputation. Here is the White House's cold view of Grant: "Although a man of scrupulous honesty, Grant as President accepted handsome presents from admirers. Worse, he allowed himself to be seen with two speculators, Jay Gould and James Fisk. When Grant realized their scheme to corner the market in gold, he authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to sell enough gold to wreck their plans, but the speculation had already wrought havoc with business.[¶] During his campaign for re-election in 1872, Grant was attacked by Liberal Republican reformers. He called them "narrow-headed men," their eyes so close together that "they can look out of the same gimlet hole without winking." The General's friends in the Republican Party came to be known proudly as "the Old Guard."[¶]" Grant allowed Radical Reconstruction to run its course in the South, bolstering it at times with military force. No trace of Brands, Smith, or White in this negative view of Grant. Things have not changed. Maybe the Lost Cause is alive and well. Ulysses S. Grant Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey (2006), “The Presidents of the United States of America,” Copyright 2006 by the White House Historical Association. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Do we know what the largest of the "handsome presents" amounted to? After his presidency, Grant lived with Hamilton Fish. After his world tour, which depleted most of his savings, he returned to New York, became sick and moved to a cottage at Mt. McGregor, NY, which was lent to him by a friend, where he struggled to write his memoirs to provide for Julia. From the time Grant left the Whitehouse he had little money. This more than suggests that these "handsome presents" didn't amount to anything to speak of, let alone make issue of. Yes, he was seen with Gould and Fisk, but as you say, he countered their efforts as soon as was possible. He made efforts at reconstruction, prosecuted the KKK, etc. It would seem that the lost cause "movement" was little more than a continuation of the attitude towards Grant in the South that was already there in the first place. I've seen nothing that would indicate that Grant's popularity declined in the North in any significant measure, if at all. Again, our existing statement seems a bit narrow, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The "scandals" never affected the outcome of the Election of 1876. The only member of his cabinet that was ruined by scandal was Belknap, whom never served in political office again. While he was living his popularity did not decline in the North or the world for that matter. He had dinner with Queen Victoria, the first, possibly only, ex president to do so. After his death I think his popularity declined somewhat, but he did get a memorial in Washington D.C. in 1922, although, that seemed to be for his military service rather then his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Coemgenus, Rjensen, and TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Thanks Cm', but we're concerning ourselves with Grant's overall reputation. We need to distinguish his military rep' from his presidential rep', which it would seem never changed much between the North and South, which we should also distinguish. i.e. Grant's reputation contrasted between the North and the South -- sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
When Civil Rights is taken into account Grant's presidential ratings go up overall, McFeely the exception. His military career gets better ratings depending whose version of history, such as the Lost Cause's admiration for Robert E. Lee. Bonekemper uses statitstics and Grant comes out the winner. Catton admires Grant's stealthful crossing of the James River, out smarting the great Lee. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm away from my source materials this week, but as I recall there was not that much divergence in Grant's reputation between the North and South in the early 20th century. Sherman? Yes. Grant? No. I think the current language in the article, itself the product of a hard-fought compromise, is adequate and accurate. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Existing statement :
"..as the popularity of the pro-Confederate Lost Cause movement increased early in the 20th century, a more negative view of Grant became common."
The statement makes it seems that everyone was on the same page during the lost cause movement. In the early 20th century the Civil War was still fresh in everyone's mind, with many veterans still alive. The South resented Grant both for his military record, a "butcher", and for his presidential record, ala reconstruction, prosecution of KKK, federal laws and other incursions on State's rights. The North, though it may have been critical of abuses in Grant's administration, did not see Grant through the same lens as did the South, esp for his military record. Also, the phrase "a more negative view" suggests that it was overall negative to begin with. And how much "more"? The same, North and South? The language of the existing statement is dubious and not very comprehensive. White, on page xxiii, does not specifically say the lost cause views were that of the North. He also says, "The nature of Grant's greatness is a puzzle with many pieces". We are not relating these things very well. We need to better distinguish between North and South and clarify other fuzzy phrases. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it is better to say Grant's civil rights accomplishments were minimized. It wasn't just the Lost Cause. It was Woodrow Wilson, himself a historian, a racist, who did not think much of Grant or Reconstruction. It was also the influence of the Ku Klux Klan a resurgence that took place under Woodrow Wilson starting in 1915. The rise of the Second Klan and the Birth of a Nation. Wilson implements segregation in Washington D.C. America became hostile to Civil Rights of blacks. It was in this environment that Grant's reputation was forgotten and Robert E. Lee was god. I think there needs to be more clarity on this but I am not sure the best way to say it or what sources to use, if there are any that specifically focus on Grant's reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggested sentence: "..as the popularity of the pro-Confederate Lost Cause was passed onto the next generation, the implementation of segregation by President Woodrow Wilson in Washington, and the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan in 1915, it was in this hostile civil rights environment that a more negative view of Grant became common." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
We're substituting one dubious statement for another with nothing to distinguish the attitudes of the North and South, while dragging in Wilson. I don't see how Wilson's policies would have changed the minds of people in the North about Grant. And we're still assuming the lost cause movement just reversed everyone's mind in the North. Also, we're breathing far too much life into the klan, a group of fanatics in the South apparently with a lot of time on their hands. It's almost like we're saying Grant lost popularity in the North because he once prosecuted the klan. We should still mention the lost cause, distinguish it as mostly a Southern view, and leave Wilson and the klan out of it, as both items are not only questionable, but raise undue weight issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Wilson was a Virginian born in the South, the Klan was in the North and South, and Washington of all cities represented the North and South. This time period was extremely hostile for any historian to buck the system and be pro Grant. By this time Grant was forgotten as a President both in the North and South. Segregation was king. The society that Grant had opposed. He wanted blacks and whites to live without conflicts and share public places. I am not sure what it is exactly you are asking Gwillhickers to be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
A Brief History of African Americans in Washington, DC Cmguy777 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I've already made that clear at least twice. You keep coming back with more ideas that are highly questionable. If Grant was "forgotten" about, how is it his reputation declined? Wilson has nothing to do with Grant's reputation. And the KKK, which you seem to suggest were everywhere, were not hiding under everyone's bed changing the view on Grant throughout the North. You're saying the North just up and got stupid with no regard for the fact that Grant saved the Union, tried to bring the South back into the fold, reconstruction, etc. Guess I'll hunt around on my own. It shouldn't be difficult to find old sources from the early 1900s that speak of Grant factually, per his accomplishments and efforts at reconstruction, etc. Thanx for your time at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I am saying the American people today and toward the turn of the 20th Century have forgotten Grant, both North and South. Americans cared more about segregation, implemented by Woodrow Wilson. Wilson is suppose to be a great President. The KKK was in every bed in the U.S. in the 1920s. Grant was buried in Grant's tomb but they wanted to bury his historical reputation along with him. He was a nobody. A drunk. The so called progressive party was one of white supremacy. TR was a white supremacist. Historians emulate Washington and Jefferson, major slave owning Presidents, rather then a man who gave his slave away when he was flat broke. Honoring Grant is unpopular because historians would have to face America's slave owning past. Okay. I have done enough ranting. But many Americans today and in the past have forgotten about Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I made changes to the section. In part influenced by the discussion. Reduced wording, just cut to the chase. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
In the early 20th century Grant was no more forgotten about than Washington or Lincoln. Once again, how can one have a "more" negative view of Grant if he's been forgotten about? Let's be rational. Though we now mention reconciliation, we're still presenting the same picture, as if the North and South in the early 20th century were mindlessly goose-stepping with the same view of Grant, which doesn't add up to anyone with a knowledge of the social and political demographics of the country. Even today, do you think Grant is very popular in the South? Btw, your notion that the KKK where everywhere not only denotes a rather unhealthy view of the country overall it reeks of POV not supported by the sources. If they were everywhere it would mean that they were not roundly opposed and would have flourished as an organization, which never happened -- not even in the south. You are building up the prominence of the KKK for reasons of your own it seems. However, at least you didn't go so far to put that sort of activist garbage into the narrative. Since the sources, so far, don't distinguish between North and South, at all, then all we can do is pass the buck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Eric Foner pegs the differences between the North and South views with this statement. "As the Confederacy’s reputation rises or falls, Grant’s rises or falls in the opposite direction." That this phenomena didn't exist in the early 20th century seems a bit odd, esp since (very) many in the North had family that fought in the Union, while many veterans were still alive and whose voices still had an impact in the social realm. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The Ku Klux Klan was at its zenith throughout the 1920s and at its highest membership. Union soldiers believed they were fighting to end slavery. That is different from equal rights and citizenship for blacks. The Lost Cause and the Dunning school controlled history or how history was perceived. President Wilson indirectly supported the Klan by implementing segretation in Washington. None the less, Grant was honored by a memorial in Washington D.C. in 1822. He was not completely forgotten as a general, but he was forgotten as a President, and still is today by many people. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I would think that the klan was never anything that effected how intelligent and educated historians wrote history, except in the south, tentatively and exceptionally. Most Union soldiers were fighting to save the Union. Slavery was something that most in the north disapproved of on moral and religious grounds, but the idea of 'equal' rights was something that didn't have a lot of weight for those struggling to get by and who were themselves subjected to the whims of the rich and powerful, regardless of race. Many ethnic groups lived in "segregated" communities, by choice. How do you spell 'China town'? Silly humans. In any case, views of Grant have always contrasted between North and South, per Foner, as they still do in great measure today. I was hoping our comprehensive article would relate this to the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Wilson to his credit did not support Klan violence, but he stood for what the Klan wanted, black segregation, and he implemented it in Washington. I believe that segregation lasted into FDR's administration. Grant wanted blacks to have the right to public accomadations, not segregation. That is an extremely hostile environment for a Grant revival. Grant was not perfect either. He did not dine with Douglas at the White House, when he should have. The KKK, segregation, and reconciliation were powerful forces. The Republicans had lost their "moral" clout. It was a Republican Senator who killed the anti-lynching bill so Harding could not sign it. Even recently there was violence in the South over removing a Confederate statue on a Virginia Campus. What historians supported Grant during this period 1910-1940 ? I don't think there were any. We're talking forced segregation and a time of lynchings for blacks and whites, not "Chinatown". Asians were not welcome by the white community either. That is a different subject. It would help to name historians that supported Grant starting from President Wilson's era to FDR. Who ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
White nationalist rally at University of Virginia "One of the counter-protesters apparently sprayed pepper spray at the marchers and the two groups clashed violently. Police moved in and the marchers extinguished their torches, filling the hot air with acrid smoke." Things have not changed much. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

All very unfortunate, but all this has little or nothing to do with Grant. We need to distinguish how Grant was viewed in the North and South. As Foner mentions, the views have always contrasted. Grant's popularity may have waned in the early 20th century, but since this was effected by the lost cause movement, and if you prefer, the all powerful and pervasive kkk, it was much more a southern phenomena, as it always has been. This should not be anything amazing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That is what I was asking, who are/were the historians (Southern or Northern) who supported Grant between the 1910s and 1940s ? There was another incident today, someone ramming there car at a White Nationalist ralley. Our country is still divided like it was in Grant's times. I will drop the KKK, Wilson, and Segregation. Louis Arthur Coolidge wrote a biography on Grant. Was he for or against Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I think Coolidge was the first historian to analyze Grant's Presidency. He thought Grant was the best person who could have replaced Lincoln. I am not sure that is an endorsement. He did say Grant had made great achievements. That might be worth mentioning in the Reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggested edit: "Louis Arthur Coolidge in his 1917 Grant biography was the first scholar to give an objective and critical view of Grant's presidency." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I added Coolidge's 1917 view that bucked the trend of negativity. Grant's presidency just as signifigant as his generalship. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that was an improvement. Foner mentions "reconciliation among whites". Is this to say black opinion remained positive? Again, Foner mentions the contrast between North and South views. We should mention that also, per the existing Foner source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Foner is reviewing Brand's Grant biography The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses Grant In War and Peace. His review is on Brand's book, rather then giving his own personal assessment of Grant. Foner is overly critical of Brands. He never really states his own view of Grant. Foner treats Brand's like little child and he seems petty in his criticisms of Brands. That's just my take. I don't know if he is protecting McFeely work on Grant. Foner seems to side with McFeely's view of Grant was nothing special. Foner is not particularly kind to Grant in book on Reconstruction and seems to minimalize his role in Reconstruction of the United States. In his review I can't find where he specifically talks about a Northern and Southern view of Grant. I believe Coolidge was Harvard graduate. Maybe that counts as a Northern view. I can't find a complete biography on Coolidge, or where he was born. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

editbreak1

  • This Foner v Brands contention is all highly argumentative, and Coolidge is an aside to the idea of a North and South view. All we need concern ourselves with is that Foner states a common knowledge fact, that views of Grant between North and South have always contrasted for reasons that should be obvious to anyone half familiar with Grant. Foner 2012 is a reliable source and used twice in the article. We can't start cherry-picking which portions we want to use. If he had made the North v South statement in a newspaper editorial it would still be a valid source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Dunning School also played a big role in the negative trend in Grant's reputation in the early 20th century, on into the 60's. Dunning is not mentioned in the biography anywhere. Foner, 1988/2005, p.609 (the book I have in hand) says the Dunning school impacted opinion on Grant well into the 1960's. Even so, it would seem opinion in the North was not swayed near as much as it was in the South, who sought to rectify and even rewrite its role in the Civil War. The North had no such concerns as it didn't need to justify winning the war, or its stand against slavery, or its efforts towards reconstruction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Foner says nothing about the views of the North and South. I don't think he cares anything about Grant or Brands for that matter. The Dunning School could be mentioned. Coolidge counters the growing trend against Grant. He seems to be the only historian to do so in this time period. That is why I put him in the article. This was the "Reconcilition" period. White people were moving away from the North and South. That was Foner's contention. Its in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Still more opinions about Foner? Again, he is a source used in the article. In a cursory search I found a fair number of sources from the early 20th century that tend to praise Grant, esp King, McCormick and Fuller. Finding more shouldn't be difficult, considering that the North and Grant had nothing to rectify or apologize for as was explained already for you.
  • Conger, 1931, The Rise of U.S. Grant
  • King, Charles (1914). The True Ulysses S. Grant. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, London.
  • Wister, Owen (1900). Ulysses S. Grant. George H. Ellis, Boston.
  • Crummer, Wilbur F. (1915). With Grant at Fort Donelson, Shiloh and Vicksburg. E. C. Crummer & Co.
  • Fuller (1929) The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant
  • McCormick (1934) Ulysses S. Grant: The Great Soldier of America
  • Edmonds, Franklin Spencer (1915). Ulysses S. Grant. George W. Jacobs, Publishers, Philadelphia. (read the preface!)
  • Davenport, Northrop, (1903) Heroes of history and their grand achievements; Chap. 33: Grant, Hero of Federal Army

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

None of the above address Grant's presidency in depth, but rather treat him as a soldier, not a politician. Coolidge is the first to acknowledge Grant's Presidency is on par with his generalship. In essense, Coolidge is the first "modern" biography of Grant. Wister's biography barely touches Grant's Presidency. Foner is biased towards McFeely. From his negative review of Brands, I think it is clear Foner does not accept any "sympathetic" view of Grant. He puts down Brands like a "school boy" in his analysis of his Grant biography. Why was Chernow's book deleted from the reputation section? Italie is a reliable source printed by the Chicago Tribune. It is not speculation. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Grant's reputation in its entirety is at issue. The contention was his reputation took a nose dive during the early 20th century, i.e."butcher", et al. The sources don't have to address Grant's presidency "in depth" to relate any negative view of it. If they had any strong negative feelings of his presidency it seems they would have said something -- they don't from what I've seen, which is more than cursory. I could be wrong, but judging from their overall tone, it doesn't seem likely. Again, the lost cause movement was mostly a southern phenomena, mostly an effort to rectify the South's defeat and social-political position. I just produced eight sources that don't support the idea that this movement was as influential as our narrative suggests, and the modern sources don't come right out and say Grant's reputation suffered all the way around the block. Even you came up with Coolidge. Btw, Foner treats Brands rather objectively, with complements and some criticism, not much at all actually. Don't know where you're getting this "school boy" notion. Regardless, we're discussing how historians treat Grant during the early 20th, even if Foner actually tarred and feathered Brands, which he doesn't. Reconciliation was not all that prevalent in the north, as numerous sources support, and we should relate this fact. The idea that the entire country was on the same page here is just silly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • re: Italie. Nothing but conjecture was offered. Let's wait for Chernow's book to speak for itself, which I am looking forward to . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Historians did not believe Grant had a great presidency. That is why they did not talk about it. Coolidge broke this trend. Are there any historians, 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s who supported Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The only Biographical sketch of Grant that includes details of his presidency I can find between the 1920s and 1940s is in the Dictionary of American Biography in the 1930s. This seems to be some sort of "drought" period for Grant presidential scholarship. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We are we adding back the Paxson & Bach thing? I thought the point of making the sub-article was that we could have a brief summary here and the fuller story there. The previous summary was a fair compromise and admirably brief. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
In the narration I only added one Paxson & Bach sentence. Clarification is needed. It was not all bad for Grant in the 19th Century. As far as I know from 1931 to 2001 not much was said positively concerning Grant. Even Catton, surprisingly, did not think much of Grant's presidency. That is why he did not write about it. I included Paxson & Bach four postitive things concerning Grant's presidency in a note. There has to be something concrete in the narration. We can't just give the reader empty platitudes and shuffle everything into the other article. Two paragraphs is not much. McFeely was anti-Grant. He did not think Grant was anything special. If Grant was nothing special then how did McFeely win the Pulitzer ? I don't want to balloon the section, but just add a few things historians like or admire Grant for. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, historians don't herald Grant's presidency as they do his Civil War record, mostly, with some modern exceptions, per Brands, White, etc. Once again, my concern was about distinguishing North from South views. However, it seems the only way we can say this is on a tertiary basis, in light of the many sources over the years. Regrettably, there doesn't seem to be a singular source that remarks about such North-South differences, which I'm assuming we're all aware of. As editors, we deal with many sources, and as we've done before, we should be able to make an overall statement in terms of their varied accounts. Btw, Cm', I wouldn't go so far as to say McFeely is "anti-Grant" -- he is simply objective and unflattering, imo. It would be nice if other learned editors would chime in here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no literal North-South view concerning Grant. Each historian has a different view. What sets Grant back is the frequent scandals. His administration is still viewed as corrupt, even though he had some of the ablest cabinet in U.S. History. Bristow shut down the Whiskey Ring. Akerman shut down the Klan. Fish makes the Treaty of Washington, 1871. Creswell was inovative, modernized and integrated the postal system, considered a "man of the future". Cabinet members such as Belknap, Delano, and Robeson hurt Grant's reputation. Grant's extreme loyalty to Babcock did not help either. Between Coolidge 1917 and McFeely 1981, I can't find a complete biography on his life. When McFeely calls Grant nothing special, even though Grant defeated Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy, implemented Reconstruction, was Commanding General, and President of the United States for two terms, voyaged around the world, dined with Queen Victoria, chatted with Bismark. There was no positive biography of Grant until Smith 2001, the 21 century. Coolidge 1917 biography of Grant is positive. McFeely offers good detail and insight into Grant's life, but to say his subject is nothing special, is arrogance. White 2016 calls McFeely out on that. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is indeed a North-South view for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Civil War, and it started immediately after the war with the Lost Cause movement, and took on further proportions during the reconstruction period. Don't want to get into speculations about what one author thinks about another. We're not here to discuss McFeely, but views of Grant in the Early 20th century. I provided eight that say the lost cause movement wasn't as influential as our present narrative suggests. Easy math. Let's not try to evade and cloud the issue with the typical wandering into other topics. Foner says North-South views have always contrasted. We need a statement to remind the readers of the obvious. For some reason you seem to prefer to believe that the entire country frowned on Grant in the early 20th, which when you actually think about it is not likely, as once again, the Civil War was still fresh in the nation's collective mind, with many Union veterans and war heroes still about and whose voices I'm sure kept Grant's name in overall good standing in the North, as was already explained for you. I've no issues with the idea that Grant's reputation began to suffer in the 20th century in significant measure, per the lost cause voices, but we should keep things in perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
First none of the eight sources you gave talk about Grant's presidency in depth. Coolidge (1917) and Paxson-Bach (1931) do. That's why I put them in the article. I can't find anywhere in your link Gwillhickers where Foner says anything specifically about North-South. Columbia University, the Dunning School, is in New York City. It's in Upper Manhattan, not the Deep South. I don't want to expand the article section too much. Two sources have been added 1917 and 1931 that show not all was negative for Grant historically. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Once again, the Lost Cause movement is not limited to Grant's presidency. And you seem to be forgetting something -- Grant's presidency was criticized by many before the Lost Cause because of all the scandals. No one needed the "Lost Cause" to see this. (!) Once again, no one has to cover the presidency "in depth" to make overall comments about Grant's presidency. Further, King, 1914, covers Grant's presidency quite well. It doesn't support the Lost Cause view definitively. Once again, Foner says, "As the Confederacy’s reputation rises or falls, Grant’s rises or falls in the opposite direction." We need to be clear about these things. Once again, the Lost Cause is mostly a southern view. It was started by Confederate General Jubal A. Early in the 1870s for the Southern Historical Society. It was also promoted by United Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Yale University history professor Rollin Osterweis summarizes the Lost Cause's position when he says " The Legend of the Lost Cause began as mostly a literary expression of the despair of a bitter, defeated people over a lost identity." Union veterans in the north must of been laughing. I've provided eight sources that don't support the Lost Cause view, along with Foner's analysis between North v South, even though he says Confederacy v Grant. For some reason you seem to prefer the obtuse account where the North and South goosed stepped in agreement during the early 20th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the Chapter titled Storm and Stress in Kings 1914 book is hardly an account of Grant's two terms in office. More of meandering writing and gossip. The Dunning School was a racist white supremacist view of Reconstruction. Then Dunning School came from New York City, not the South. Foner does not mention a North and South view of Grant. Historians did not write on Grant's Presidency because they did not like Grant's presidency, or possibly out of pier pressure from anti-Grant historians. The only one who bucked this trend and wrote a full biography of Grant in a book was Coolidge 1917. Paxson & Back wrote bio summary of Grant. I don't know what you want to add to the article Gwillhickers. This talk is becoming unproductive. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've repeatedly made clear what the narrative is lacking. All you're telling us here is that your memory fails you often. We should add Foner's quote. Your contention that he doesn't use words like North and South is typical reaching. It is still indicative between the contrasting views that have always existed and the mindset responsible. Once again, the Lost Cause movement was inspired by a defeated South, aimed at Grant's reputation in its entirety, not just his presidency. Dunning was popular immediately after the Civil War, and we should also mention that he exerted influence in how reconstruction was viewed, even into the 1960s. Is there more than one source that says this influence was prevalent in the North? Once again, the Lost Cause was very critical of Grant's Civil War record. You produced Coolidge. I've produced eight books that clearly indicate that the Lost Cause movement wasn't as far reaching as you seem to want to believe. Many historians were supportive of Grant during the early 20th century, regardless if they didn't cover his presidency in depth. Many people in the North, including Grant's contemporaries, were already critical or skeptical of his presidency before the Lost Cause. Sorry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, when can you face that fact that Lost Cause and Dunning School buried Grant's reputation as President, General, and mocked Reconstruction. The North and South were against Grant. Coolidge was the first to buck the system in 1917. Foner says the Dunning School destroyed Grant's reputation. It was located in New York, not Savannah, Georgia. I am not giving credit or due to any racist organizations. Please don't go there ! Grant's reputation was at his lowest ebb between 1900s and 1930s. I challenge you to find a full Grant book biography, Coolidge 1917 excluded, that discusses both Grant's generalship and presidency in detail between 1900 and 1960. This concerns his reputation after his death in 1885, not while he was living. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
My only contention is that Grant's reputation was not "buried" in the North, as numerous books in the early 20th' will testify. What happened? Did everyone in the North just forget that Grant was the individual that preserved the nation as a whole and brought the Confederacy to its knees, given his victories in the Western theater, the Overland campaign and on to Appomattox? Did the Lost cause, Dunning, et al, somehow make everyone in the North simply forget all the lives that were lost in this effort?? -- Or Grant's efforts to bring the Southern states back into the fold? As I said, I've no objections for covering how Grant's reputation suffered, esp in regards to his presidency, but to a reasonable point. Reconstruction was but one facet of Grant's presidential record. Remember, Grant had grave reservations about sending the military into the South simply to enforce a social program. Our account should not be black and white in this area. We should temper the account with Foner's perspective, because if there was lasting substance to the Lost Cause, and Dunning's academic view, it would be present in today's Northern perspective and in the accounts of Brands, White, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to get political Gwillhickers. The Lost Cause is apparently alive and well today. Historians have been retreating from the Dunning School, I am not sure all have done so. Just look at the controversy and violence over the Confederate statues in 2017. Foner's perspective has been added to the section. There were historians that supported Grant, Coolidge, Paxson & Bach. The eight sources you have may have supported Grant's generalship, but not his presidency. Robert E. Lee was god and Grant was a bum. It is sometimes difficult to discern between Grant the general and his presidency. McCormick wrote on Grant's generalship in the 1930's and he said in his book there was an active conspiracy among historians to castigate Grant concerning his general ship. Strong indictment of how historians can twist history to their own world view or political ideology. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sort of unsettling to see so many forget the big picture. Can only wonder where we'd be today if the nation became divided in 1865. Thanks both to you and Coemgenus for your last edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The McCormick 1934 source you gave Gwillhickers I think can be used. He actually attacks historians for overlooking Grant's successes while General because he came from a humble non aristocratic family in the Mid West. McCormick says Grant's low reputation as a General was done to prop up Robert E. Lee. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cm'. 100+ years ago, most people lived in the same community, or region, all of their lives, so in terms of the social collective, attitudes and such remained the same overall. I suspect the Lost Cause school of thought hardly impacted the views in the North, save some historians, whose works by and large were not read by the common populous. I'll leave it up to you, per consensus, to add what might be appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It was a combination of the Lost Cause and the Dunning School. The Lost Cause had Robert E. Lee as their champion. Lee himself was against propigating the Confederacy or Confederate statues. At Lee's funeral no one wore a Confederate uniform. As far as I know Lee was buried or entombed in civilian clothes, not his Confederate uniform. Lee was emulated for his aristrocratic background. Grant's humble origins were used against him. McCormick calls out the Lost Cause in his book. I thought for 1934 he was ahead of his times. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Good addition, thanks -- that gives some good insights into some of the ill inspired motivations of Lost Cause writers without requiring the reader to jump to and mull through another article to learn about this one important perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought McCormick hit the nail on the head concerning Grant. He really confirmed that there was a "conspiracy" against Grant. Historians who did not like his Presidency ignored it. Lee was made to be a god because of his aristrocratic family background, while Grant got ignored or degraded. This was 1934 too. McCormick was ahead of his times. I think Coolidge 1917 was along with Paxson & Bach 1931 were ahead of their times too. I think the historical section looks really good. I like that it focuses on Grant's reputation from the 1900s to the 1980s. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, McCormick has some great insights. He speaks of Grant's unique character, the common man, ergo a natural leader of volunteers, and a West Pointer, who could also command respect from officers. (p.xi) It would appear McCormick was about as polar opposite to the Lost Cause view as was possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Grant and Lee

Though Lee is mentioned in the Grant Biography more times than I care to count, it is almost entirely in regards to battle tactics and such. Grant and Lee, both 'West Pointers', were of course opponents in the last years of the war, and when Lee finally surrendered, to Grant, there was more going on there than just military affairs, it would seem. I'm speculating. Other than the surrender at Appomattox, I have not read much in this area yet, but our biography doesn't say much in terms of these two minds meeting. It would seem we should cover the affair with more than just a passing statement about surrender, as this is the Grant Biography. Grant in his memoirs doesn't say much about his opinion of Lee, mostly battle stuff, but since these two individuals shared the same military background, love of country, albeit divided in war, we should say 'something' about Grant's feeling towards his otherwise adversary in war time, if there is anything there that merits mentioning. If the sources give weight to this affair, so should we in due proportion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe this goes beyond the scope of this article. The term "love of country" is very subjective. Grant fought for the Union. Lee fought for the Confederacy. Lee caused Union casualities. Grant caused Confederate casualities. The two were diabolically opposed to each other. Lee surrendered at Appomatox to Grant. There may have been a friendship between Lee and Grant after the war. Grant did not want to have Lee put on trial for treason. Grant protected Lee from prosecution. They shared the same battle ground during the Mexican American War fighting on the same side. Grant thought that leadership in the Army of the Potomac respected Robert E. Lee too much. Grant believed Lee was beatable. He was right. The term "feeling" or "feelings" is very subjetive too. If you have a proposal Gwillhickers, go ahead and make one. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Cmguy. The two barely knew each other (Grant remembered meeting Lee once before the war, in Mexico; Lee did not recall the meeting.) I don't recall his biographers giving much weight to Grant's feelings about any of his adversaries, including Lee. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The only thing that could briefly be mentioned is that Grant kept Lee from being prosecuted by Johnson for treason. He personally intervened on Lee's behalf to Johnson. Smith 2001 discussed this on pages 416-418. But really the two were not close friends. Lee visited Grant at the White House in 1869. Lee supported Seymour, not Grant, during the Election of 1868. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Their "friendship" was one of cold civility: Lee's Interview with Grant, May 1, 1869 Appendix IV-6 Vol. IV p520 R. E. Lee: A Biography Douglas Southall Freeman Charles Scribner's Sons New York and London, 1934 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing about 'friendship' was proposed by me, so I don't know who you're supposed to be quoting, and the so called "cold civility" you refer to came years later in 1869. Just thought coverage of any association and/or feelings, good, bad or indifferent between Grant and Lee during the war would be appropriate for Grant's biography, which is more than just an outline of Grant's battle involvements. It would seem any personal feelings between the two would be apparent at the surrender. Is there an account of Grant's opinion of Lee the man anywhere? Before the signing, there was small talk between the two. Grant's priority was given to healing the country, rather than vengeance. He didn't seek to conduct mass imprisonments or executions or the parading of defeated Confederates through Northern streets. During their meeting Grant granted Lee's request that his men be allowed to keep their horses. Again, if the sources cover any association worth mentioning so should we with a sentence or two. That's all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Not quoting anyone. " " was meant to make the word friendship an unknown. Lee was an aristrocrat. He had no sense of humor. The two never really communicated very well together, even during the Civil War. There was a dispute over taking care of the war wounded. Lee did not like small talk, such as at Appomatox. Their meeting was the White House in 1869 was akward and lasted about 15 minutes. Different views of what was actually said. I have yet to find anything of mutual respect or admiration between the two. I thought that Lee defended Grant while he was President of Washington University, but I can't find any sources that say so. I mentioned that Grant defended Lee before Johnson concerning amnesty and gave Smith as a source reference. That might be worth mentioning. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Even their meeting in 1869, regardless of any akward atmosphere, might be worth mentioning in the President' section, but I'd like to see better coverage than that web cite you refer to. In any case, I remember reading an account of Grant and Lee in my travels some months ago, but as usual, I was earnestly hunting around for other things and didn't stop to pay it much mind. We all know the Confederates were widely regarded as traitors who came close to marching on Washington itself more than once, but I do remember that when Grant and Lee finally met and sat at the same table there was some mutual admiration and respect involved. Just a note: The best way to hold the reader's attention is to add some human color to the narrative, appropriately, esp when it comes to someone's Biography. If we just give them a static account that looks like it was written by an inventory clerk we'll lose many of the readers along the way. If there's anything there to speak of, and noted with more than a passing reference by any of our best sources (McFeely, Brands, Smith, Simpson, White, et al), we should cover such interaction with at least a statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This book would help. Crucible of Command: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee--The War They Fought, The Peace They Forged William C. Davis (2014) I don't have a copy of the book though. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the White 2014 book Grant's and Lee's 1869 White House visit was 30 minutes. That was the last time they ever saw each other. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Lee died in 1870, of a stroke. It was an unusually raining season, causing flooding everywhere, and consequently only a relatively few attended Lee's funeral. White's bio' of Ulysses was published in 2016, btw, as you know. I'm still mulling through the sources. So far I can only say that our account of Grant, Lee and the surrender is understated for a featured article. There should be a separate section for Appomattox, the surrender and end to the Civil War. This is not to say we need to expand the text much, as some of the coverage already exists. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Their relationship was essentially non-existent and our sources say almost nothing about it. This seems like trying to shoehorn current events into an historical article, like the "Grant and Christmas" fiasco of last December. The current section on Appomattox is long enough, though the article on the battle could probably use some expansion. An interested editor could even make a featured article of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to draw current events into the article. I hope that was not the intention of starting this discussion. Both Smith and White discuss Grant intervening on Lee's behalf for amnesty. Davis (2014) discusses in detail their 1869 White House meeting. I don't have a copy of the book. Grant gave preferential treatment to Lee at the White House. Grant wanted information on Reconstruction in Virginia from Lee. I think though this is the cart before the horse. Gwillhickers, if you have a proposal, please be more specific. I don't have an issue with mentioning Grant kept Lee from being put on trial for treason. Grant threatened to resign if Lee was prosecuted because it would have overturned, according to Grant, their Appomattox surrender and parole agreement. I am not sure their White House meeting in 1869 amounted to much, unless further information is given. I don't want the "Grant and Christmas" fiasco of December, either. Meandering discussions go nowhere. The only thing I can see worth mentioning right now is Grant representing Lee before Johnson. Two Grant biographers cover this. I don't want to do research for other editors either. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a clarification edit on Grant's personal intervention of Robert E. Lee, who had been indicted for treason, along with other Confederate officers. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the reference to "current events" is all about, but the sources indeed cover the surrender of Appomattox as one of the main features of Grant's biography, whereas our coverage here seems not in proportion to the coverage, or its significance. There was of course no personal relationship between Grant and Lee, but there was a professional relationship, esp at the surrender, and since the sources cover it well we should also, in proportion. Appomattox was a major battle, the final battle, yet it doesn't get its own subsection, it's just lumped in at the end of the Overland Campaign section. This is no place to be passing off B-class coverage to all the Civil War enthusiasts and students of history eager to read about these things. Cm's last edits are a big step in getting this episode of Grant's biography up to Featured Article standards. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Gwillhickers, I appreciate the compliment, but I respectfully disagree there is "B-class coverage" of Grant in this article. A lot of work went into it by editors, including yourself, to get and maintain Feature Article status. I honestly did not know Lee was indicted for treason until I read Smith. That is why I felt is reasonable to put that Grant kept him from going to trial. Grant personally saw Johnson over that matter. Grant's Appomatox surrender is in somewhat controvery over whether Grant actually had the power to parole or give Lee and his army amnesty. Lee, himself, somewhat backs out of the agreement he apparently just signed, by asking Grant to allow officers to take their horses home. Be that as it may Appomatox was a very generous surrender document. Appomatox should be viewed from Grant's perspective, not Lee's, and not as co-equals signing a document. Lee was a defeated general. Grant had the superior military and man power and he generously dictated the terms to Lee. Maybe it could be mentioned Grant to his soldiers not to celebrate and he gave Lee's army rations. That's the other thing. Lee's army was starving. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I made it clear that my comments about B-class was in reference to coverage of Appomattox. In fact B-class requires that no major facts are overlooked. We mention a few things before the Battle of Appomattox, but the only thing we say about the actual battle is that Lee surrendered there, after it was over, on April 10. Nothing about Grant's role just before and during the battle on April 9. Nothing about Grant letting Lee chose the place of surrender. Grant's biography covers many areas of history, and no one or two editors are expected to cover all points on all the topics, so I'm hoping my comments are received in the spirit they are given. We should cover Appomattox a bit better, so it runs par with our comprehensive coverage of major battles and events throughout the rest of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
A section for Appomattox, per due weight, was added, along with a few basic points of context regarding Grant and Lee. Much more could have been added, but page length is a due consideration here, as much as I would love to expand the section further. There is much to tell. I stayed away from battle tactics and such, and added and moved some images. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Cm', thanks for adding some points of context, esp this passage -- "Grant ordered his troops to stop all demonstrations of celebration, saying the "war is over; the rebels are our countrymen again." -- Even though this is not 'the' last sentence it's an excellent closing statement for the section and gives additional insight to Grant's overall attitude during the surrender. Grant is now well represented in this significant chapter of his biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Also added an excerpt/quote from Grant that pegs his feelings about Lee. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Lee did not initially surrender. He asked Grant to have a "peace conference". Grant did not bite. Lee later surrendered. Grant also had a migraine at this time. The migraine went away when Lee surrendered. Grant saying he was saddened at a later date may not be completely accurate twenty years later dying of cancer. Most likely Grant was relieved the war was over. I think the section has overall improved and I appreciate your edits Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, knowing that death was just around the corner, perhaps Grant saw things more clearly than ever. No one can say for sure, but then it would seem a pragmatic Grant actually meant what he said. In any case, thanks again. I don't see where the section needs much of anything else in terms of portraying Grant, and Lee, at this final point of the Civil War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Grant and Meade

What was the relationship between Grant and George Meade during the Overland Campaign ? Was Meade a fighting general ? I read that Meade at Gettysburg was planning to retreat, not fight Lee, but his subordinate commanders refused to do so. Did Meade slow down the Overland Campaign ? Was Meade anti-Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added more information on Meade and why Grant remained in camp. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
We're not really adding much in terms of defining their relationship. Your last entry 'almost' comes off as a stand alone statement:
"Meade had followed Halleck's cautious approach to fighting, and Grant was there to give him direction and encouragement to be more aggressive.<Smith pp.292-293> Grant devised a strategy ... while Meade would lead the Army of the Potomac, with Grant in the field..."
Okay, did Meade comply with Grant's advice? Was Grant's strategy actually employed? You asked if Meade was "anti-Grant". Was there something in particular that prompted the inquiry regarding a Grant-Meade relationship? Not trying to be difficult, but if there's something there worth mentioning it seems we should, with a statement, ultimately tying it in with whether Meade actually followed Grant's advice or encouragement. It doesn't make sense to say Grant gave advice without following through with an indication if such advice was actually used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It explains why Grant's headquarters were in Meade's camp. Meade may have been against Sheridan as leader of Shenandoah Campaign. I can't confirm this. Grant over ruled Meade and placed Sheridan in command. Lincoln was upset at Meade not pursuing Lee after Gettysburg. Meade, before Gettysburg, had planned to retreat before Lee but Meade's subordinate commanders kept fighting. That is why I put this in discussion. It was Smith 2001 that said Meade was following Halleck's cautious approach to fighting. Actually Halleck was against Grant attacking Lee in the Wilderness because he thought it would make Washington D.C. vulnerable. In some of his private letters Meade seemed to disparage Grant as "amusing" and belittle Grant's left flank tactics against Lee. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing all the reading you just did. For purposes of our summary article all we need do is explain whether or not Meade followed Grant's advice, and whether it had anything to do with Meade being anti-Grant per your original inquiry. Otherwise the last edit doesn't accomplish much. Hope you find something that is clear about this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Grant gave Meade command of Petersburg Campaign and set up headquarters at City Point. Maybe Grant should have stayed in camp. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Shiloh

After the battle there were dead bodies everywhere. Hospital ships were discarding limbs from the wounded by the score into the Tennessee River as they went along. P. G. T. Beauregard, who replaced Johnston, killed in the battle, asked Grant if they could tend to their own wounded and killed, but Grant declined, given the unstable situation in the battle zone, maintaining he was tending to all the wounded and killed. On the surface, this doesn't shine on Grant favorably, but it seems we should mention this as part of the wrap up in the Shiloh section, per Groom, 2012, pp. 387-388. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Added a statement, without getting graphic. Gives insight into the tragedy Grant had to deal with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Since Grant decided who buried the dead that would mean Grant was in control, not Beauregard. It might be important to state Shiloh ended in a draw. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't recall any of the sources saying anything about a draw. When Buell and Wallace arrived with reinforcements on the second day it was all over. Beauregard retreated to Corinth, with too many of his forces dead or wounded to even think about a counter attack. Anyway, the statement was added to reflect on Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I know that Battle of Shiloh article says it was a Union victory. There were heavy losses on each side. The Confederates won the first day and Grant won the second day. The Confederates thought it was a draw. Source: The Shiloh Campaign Steven E. Woodworth (2009) page 137. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure the Confederates had their opinions, as did/do Lost Cause proponents. The Confederates retreated to Corinth, where they again had to retreat.. Woodworth doesn't say the battle was a Confederate victory. He said this is what the Confederates claimed, which just goes to demonstrate that the truth, per above, can be staring you right in the face and some folks will just keep on talking. Sad. Victory is not determined simply by counting the number of dead or battles won. It's determined by who is left standing, who is in control and in occupation of the disputed territory. It wasn't the Confederates. My last statement was added to reflect on Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
The Confederates according to Woodworth thought Shiloh was a draw, not a victory. In fact more Union soilders were captured then Confederate soldiers. I think the reader should be told whether the battle was a draw or victory for the Union in the article. It obviously was not a Confederate victory. It was a controversial battle. It was the beginning of the end for the Confederates in the West. Buell was late because he marched overland instead of just taking ship transport. Halleck told Grant not to engage the Confederates but to wait for Buell. Grant, Halleck, and Buell share some blame for the first day of defeat at Shiloh. I think more clarification is needed in the article, maybe who was at fault, and was the battle a victory or draw for the Union ? It was obviously a set back for Grant who had successes at Donaldson and Henry. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you don't count number of dead and captured, etc, to determine victory, or any sort of "draw". The Confederates retreated, and remained in overall retreat until the end of the war. If both sides withdrew and left the area, then it would have been a "draw". That, also, never happened. Since there's no way we're going to say Shiloh was a "draw", in view of the glaring facts, and numerous non Lost Cause sources, regardless of any argumentative conjecture we may dig up, it would seem our valuable time is best spent in more productive areas. My last statement was added to reflect on Grant at Shiloh. He made a difficult, perhaps harsh, decision. If you have anything of significance to add to that idea that might be interesting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not supporting any Lost Cause sources. Woodworth is not Lost Cause. What I am saying is there is confusion in the section. If Shiloh was a viewed as a victory by the North, then why was Grant put in second in command by Halleck ? I think the reader needs some explanation why Shiloh was a victory for the North. Shiloh was actually a breakdown in Union command in the West. Grant did not have his full army, including Buell's Army and Wallace's missing division. The National Park Service is the source that says Shiloh was a Union Victory. Shiloh This is what NP says: By the next morning, the combined Federal forces numbered about 40,000, outnumbering Beauregard’s army of less than 30,000. Beauregard was unaware of the arrival of Buell’s army and launched a counterattack in response to a two-mile advance by William Nelson’s division of Buell’s army at 6:00 am, which was, at first, successful. Union troops stiffened and began forcing the Confederates back. Beauregard ordered a counterattack, which stopped the Union advance but did not break its battle line. At this point, Beauregard realized that he could not win and, having suffered too many casualties, he retired from the field and headed back to Corinth. On the 8th, Grant sent Brig. Gen. William T. Sherman, with two brigades, and Brig. Gen. Thomas J. Wood, with his division, in pursuit of Beauregard. They ran into the Rebel rearguard, commanded by Col. Nathan Bedford Forrest, at Fallen Timbers. Forrest’s aggressive tactics, although eventually contained, influenced the Union troops to return to Pittsburg Landing. Grant’s mastery of the Confederate forces continued; he had beaten them once again. The Confederates continued to fall back until launching their mid-August offensive. It is a bit confusing. Grant returns to Pittsburg Landing at the same time he beats the "Confederate forces". Then Halleck takes over and Grant is demoted to second in command and Thomas takes Grant's place in the field. This is why I think more clarification is needed in the section. Again, not supporting any Confederate Lost Cause. Just want more clarification. There is no author cited in the NP source. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There is still very little coverage on the second day of the battle. All that is said is Grant got reinforcements and counter-attacked the next day regaining the field, with still no comment about a Union victory. The section almost reads like the writer just got up and walked away at that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned that Grant had won the battle, per McFeely, but the overall situation remained almost the same. Also mentioned Grant's realization about the South's resolve to fight, and that the war was not going to end quickly, per his quote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, McFeely says Grant had won that battle but the failure to capture and destroy the Confederate army diminished Shiloh's value. Sounds like he is saying two things, Grant won, but it was a draw. Both armies returned to their original starting places. If Grant won, it does not reflect why Halleck punished Grant after the "victory". If Grant had won, why was he punished? The section is getting better, but is McFeely the only author source that says Grant won? McFeely also says Halleck told Grant to stop fighting. Grant wanted to pursue but Halleck said no. Maybe there needs to be more emphasis that Halleck was not giving Grant a free hand to fight the Confederates. Does "Grant won" mean that Shiloh was a victory ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Only the Confederates retreated, the Union Army remained where they were -- in occupation of the disputed territory. Smith, 2001, also mentions Grant's victory, per one of my last edits. Halleck "punished" Grant for the high casualty counts, and no doubt based his decision on the overwhelming criticism Grant received from newspapers and others, and possibly to deflect criticism aimed at him for taking almost three weeks to pursue the Confederates who were still at Corinth. In the opinions of his subordinates the over cautious Halleck belonged behind a desk and lacked the dynamic and natural intelligence of most other generals. If you want to further explore the Grant-Halleck relationship here I've no objections, so long as we don't cover it with anything more than a statement or two. As for page length concerns, trimming should be aimed at coverage of battle tactics, and such, that goes into length, and are so covered in dedicated articles. More room is needed to cover Grant the person and his personal relationship with e.g. characters like Halleck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
We should be accurate concerning the actual Battle of Shiloh too. Both sides went to their original starting locations:Union Pitsburgh Landing Confederate Corinth, Mississippi. Grant was demoted by Halleck. That's not a good relationship. Halleck had attempted to get Grant fired after Donaldson and Henry. Did Halleck want to take credit for taking Corinth, rather than Grant ? Halleck was jealous of Grant. Are there any author sources that say specifically Shiloh was a Union victory, not a Grant victory ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing inaccurate about the section. McFeely and Smith refer to the battle as a victory. Groom, 2012, pp.358-359, also acknowledges a "great Union victory", but like most other accounts doesn't ignore the high casualties and resultant public shock and criticisms. High casualties, often involved in many victories, along with criticisms, are mentioned in our account, per multiple major sources. Once again, the Confederates retreated, driven back by Union forces. Three weeks later the Confederates evacuated Corinth and were allowed thanks to a cunning Beauregard, managed to escape, to the surprise of Halleck and Pope, for which Halleck was heavily criticized.<Groom, 2012, p.372>  Halleck's treatment of Grant was largely based on petty disgruntled jealousy, esp since Grant won the first major victory for the Union at Fort Donelson without 'authorization' from Halleck. His attitude towards Grant is well understood but has no bearing on the victory.
Wallace's division was wandering around lost the day before the battle. Buell didn't arrive until the second day. Days before the actual battle Grant wanted to engage the Confederates at Corinth, but Halleck ordered him to wait for Buell, which he did. It could easily be argued that Grant, and Sherman, in spite of all the chaos and disorganization, still prevailed as few others would have and accomplished a near impossible task. If Halleck was in command, at the battle, he would have folded and retreated on the first day and everyone would have been carping on him for losing the battle instead. It was an ugly costly battle, with high casualties on both sides, but it was still a Union victory that opened the door to further invasions on southern objectives. i.e.Vicksburg and ultimate control of the Mississippi, which Grant was also responsible for. Since there is no modern or non Lost Cause source that clearly says Shiloh was not a victory we can't even begin to think about inferring that the battle was anything else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a difference between a "Grant victory" versus a "Union victory" ? Grant had nothing to do with Halleck taking over and capturing Corinth three weeks later. I am only concerned about making the article clearer for the reader. Maybe the section needs to emphasis that on the first day Grant was able to hold off the Confederates. Does the section adequately explain why Beauregard did not finish the job or continue the attack the first day or why Grant did not continue the pursuit of the Confederates the second day ? Maybe the section should emphasize that the Confederate Army after the second day was severely damaged and/or demoralized and more importantly unable to launch a counter attack. I am not advocating that Shiloh be called a "draw". I thought more clarification was need in the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
At this point it looks like we've pretty well described the situation. i.e. Sherman dismissed warnings, Grant was ordered by Halleck to wait for Buell, Confederates launched a surprise attack, Union forces retreated, but counter attacked the next day with reinforcements, the Confederates retreated, Grant was criticized for high loses, Halleck took his sweet time pursuing Buell Beauregard at Corinth, who slipped away during the night, while we provide various points of context in between. -- Suggestions for any needed clarity always welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Since the article says Shiloh was a Grant victory, then there should be some evidence of that victory in the article. Two things would clarify. That Grant's army rallied on the Tennessee River, and that the Confederate Army was either destroyed or severely damage, on the second day of battle, unable to launch a large counter attack, I think only minor skirmishing. The Rebels never launched an attack on Halleck's combined army of about 120,000 troops marching to Corinth. The Confederate Army slipped away. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Editbreak2

Evidence of victory is well stated. i.e. The Confederates retreated to Corinth, which they soon evacuated. No need to say they didn't attack Halleck's army at this point, it's understood. At the same time we provide context, with mention of high casualties, etc. We don't say anything that gives the impression that it was an overwhelming or decisive Union victory. What else needs to be said, or clarified? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're good here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a quote from White (2016) page 341 "Victory in war is always a matter of perception." Smith (2001) says the Confederate Army was broken after the second day of battle on page 206. It might be good to mention this in the article. That was Grant's victory. Grant had broken the Confederate Army on the second day reinforced by Buell and Lew Wallace. The other issue is that Buell himself was taking the victory at Shiloh. But I think biographers Smith, Brands, and White believe it was Grant who deserved the victory. My suggestion is to add that the Confederate Army was broken on the Second Day of battle by Grant's reinforced army and forced to retreat to Corinth. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't use the term "broken", but the section already and clearly relates this course of events. If you'd like to add that adjective I suppose it's okay, however, I believe the summary section, not to mention the summary article, is about as good as it's going to get without pushing guidelines any further than we have. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe Cm's addition, ala an edit by myself, wraps it up for the Shiloh section. We've represented Grant and the battle as well as can be, given the summary limitations of this section, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no more issues concerning Grant and Shiloh at this time. It is clear that Beauregard really had no way to make a counter attack while the Union troops were slowing marching to take Corinth. Grant having Buell's army and Wallace's lost division on the Second Day did a lot of damage to the Confederates. It was not a draw. That has been stressed in the article. Clarification has been added. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_34&oldid=802901134"