Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 15

The use of Scalawag and Carpetbagger

I see there's been a small disagreement about the use of the above terms. For my part, I think there's more than ample documentation among sources of diverse political beliefs to warrant inclusion in an article like this one. If challenged, I'm sure User:Rjensen could produce many reliable sources by historians and historiographers which would demonstrate the neutrality and accuracy of those terms, originally used as disparaging. I encourage the user deleting those terms as pejorative to make a case and gather consensus for before removing them again. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes BusterD is right. Here is how recent scholars use the term: 1) Richter, Historical Dictionary of the Civil War and Reconstruction (2011) writes: "The Tennessee legislature was no Carpetbag (q.v.) body, but perhaps the largest Scalawag institution in the whole nation." ... "Indeed, most of the Scalawag voters seemed to come from hilly, remote, and less prosperous areas of the South." 2) Book title: Blacks, Carpetbaggers, and Scalawags: The Constitutional Conventions of Radical Reconstruction by Richard L. Hume and Jerry B. Gough (2008) 3) book title: The Scalawags: Southern Dissenters In The Civil War And Reconstruction by James Alex Baggett (2004); 4) book title Moses of South Carolina: A Jewish Scalawag during Radical Reconstruction (2010) by Ginsberg. 5) Article title: "Albion Tourgée: A Carpetbagger's Passion for Justice" The North Carolina Historical Review (2011). So it's standard scholarly usage. Rjensen (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Jensen's argument. I have seen these terms used in a non-derogatory manner ever since I began to read about the history of the era. Should we ban "Whig" and "Tory" next? These, too, were once terms of abuse that are now inoffensive. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen on Coemgenus. In this article the terms are non-derogatory. Of course during Reconstruction and possibly during the Jim Crow era these words were meant to be derogatory. However, Reconstruction ended during the Rutherford B. Hayes Administration and Jim Crow ended during the Civil Rights Era. The words originally were meant to convey that Reconstruction was "corrupt" rather then giving African American citizenship and civil rights. Also the terms are dated and do not apply to modern politcal discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Derogatory or not, I do not see a basis for exclusion on that alone. Their purpose in the lead seems to be to adequately and briefly convey the political landscape facing reconstruction in the south, and they seem to do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Belated comment: The main consideration is how the term is used. i.e. context. Unless the given term is obviously offensive, like the f-word or the n-word, I don't see anything derogatory with the terms in question either, as their use in the lede seems incidental and explanatory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources section reduction

Shouldn't the sources section be reduced? The Bibliography of Ulysses S. Grant has already been created. Can we agree on how to reduce the sources section? I propose to remove all sources that are not used in the references except for the sources mentioned above by Rjensen. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Any objection to moving Bonekemper III (2004) and Bonekemper III (April 2011) from Historiography section to Military section? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
yes on 2004 but no one 2011--the second one is mostly historiography: "The butcher's bill: Ulysses S. Grant" Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
On the question of sources: there are not too many. I think it's about right. This section is designed to help "S people" find useful books (whether or not they are cites in the footnotes)-- where S are mostly students. Everyone else not-S can and will ignore it so the length is not a problem for them. Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen. That is fine with me. I can add his two Inaugural Addresses and his State of the Union Addresses to the Primary sources. In my opinion Grant seems to be the most understudied possibly under rated 19th Century Presidents. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Blaine amendments& anti-catholicism

copy ex: " History of Catholic education in the United States "

In 1875, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant called for a Constitutional amendment that would mandate free public schools and prohibit the use of public funds for "sectarian" schools. He said he feared a future with "patriotism and intelligence on one side and superstition, ambition and greed on the other" which he identified with the Catholic Church. Grant called for public schools that would be "unmixed with atheistic, pagan or sectarian teaching." ref: William B. Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant, Politician (New York, 1935), pp. 377-378 Senator James G. Blaine of Maine had proposed such an amendment to the Constitution in 1874. The amendment was defeated in 1875 but would be used as a model for so-called "Blaine Amendments" incorporated into 34 state constitutions over the next three decades. These amendments prohibited the use of public funds to fund parochial schools and are still in effect today. ref: Steven K. Green, "The Blaine Amendment Reconsidered," American Journal of Legal History (1992): 38+ end copy. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Foreign policy II

Does Grant's Foreign policy deserve better treatment in the article? I might as well get this out there before any FA disussion. Fish is rated as one of the top Secretary of States by historians. Santo Domingo annexation could be considered a reform effort since Grant wanted to relieve the violence against African Americans in the South. Does Grant's deserve credit for handling the turbulent situation in Paris France during the Franco Prussian War through by his former Secretary of State Washburne? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Simpson, Brooks; Kelsey, Marie Ellen (2005). Ulysses S. Grant: A Bibliography. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • American Heritage Editors (December 1981). "The Ten Best Secretaries Of State…". American Heritage. 33 (1).CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Grant's foreign policy efforts to end slavery internationally seemed to have some success in Puerto Rico under Spanish rule. Slavery apparently was abolished and slaves could purchase their freedom. Grant acknowledged this in his 1873 State of the Union Message. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Something appears wrong with your American Heritage Link - Are there secondary sources that we can examine to see what weight may be appropriate for any of this (also, Fish's biography and Gran't administration are different articles form this biography, and info may be more appropriate there). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Historians generally give Fish the credit not Grant. They also have a negative view of the Santo Domingo fiasco (and the motives re Southern blacks are not at all convincing). Is the Paris business important in US history? IO doubt it. Rjensen (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Rjensen. Both Fish and Grant deserve credit for the foreign policy. Your above statement then implies that Fish was successfull and that Fish was appointed by President Grant. Why should his foriegn policy be mixed? Particulary the detante between the South American countries that lasted about 5 years. Simpson-Kelsey (2005) stated concerning Grant: "His handling of foreign policy was ambitious if not completely realized....First and foremost he sought to protect the rights of blacks in the South...His ambition to annex Santo Domingo as a haven for blacks who faced relentlessly harsh treatment from southerners was thwarted by Charles Sumner. Grant kept the United States out of a European war and helped the Paris victims of the Franco Prussian war. . Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker. The American Heritage website appears to have been un renewed. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Santo Domingo was a major fiasco and whatever Grant himself believed there was no demand from southern blacks to escape there--they wanted protection in the South, not exile. Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Simpson-Kelsy (2005) labeled under Santo Domingo as a Grant reform. Puerto Rico abandoned slavery. Frederick Douglas supported the annexation of Santo Domingo. This was a Grant initiative. The article does not present Santo Domingo as a failed reform effort. Why should Grant's foreign policy by judged by one treaty attempt to annex Santo Domingo when the rest to his foriegn policy was successful? Is that entirely neutral? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Brands (2012) has noted that Grant destroyed the Ku Klux Klan under the force acts he signed into law. That was successful. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am all for editor consensus on foriegn policy. I appreciate the discussion. Regarless of what one thinks of Grant and Santo Domingo, I thought that Fish's works as Secretary of State under Grant could get better recognition. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Simpson-Kelsy (2005) is an annotated bibliography that summarizes in a few words thousands of studies. S-D is a "fiasco" in cite #2216. only Grant considered it a "reform" (p xxiii) Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


Here is a proposed edit that I believe would improve the article for FA status:

  • "After his Santo Domingo initiative failed, Grant gave the talented New York statesman Secretary Fish full authority to run the State Department." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
good idea! Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Where do you want to put it? At the end of the first paragraph in "Foreign affairs" would make sense. And I don't think we have reintroduce Fish after he's been discussed several times in the article to that point. I'd just say "After the Santo Domingo initiative failed, Grant gave Fish greater authority over the State Department."[appropriate citation here] --Coemgenus (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen and Coemgenus! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

McFeely (1981). Grant: A Biography. p. 346.
Smith (2001). Grant. p. 491. Mentions Fish as capable Secretary of State
Brands (2012). Grant. p. 454.

I added that Grant convinced Fish to stay on the Cabinet and gave him more authority in the state department. Charles Sumner thwarted the Dominican Republic treaty. Was Sumner deceptive to Grant? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sumner and Grant

Smith (2001), Grant, page 504 Sumner defeated Grant's effort to fully repeal the Tenor of Office Act, blocked the nomination of Alexander Stewart, held up diplomatic appointments, and ran his own foreign policy independent of the President in the Senate. Smith stated Sumner was "deceitful", although "not deliberately". I am not sure what that means. Sumner believed the Republican Party agenda was to be made in the Senate, not by the President. In my opinion somehow Sumner's "duplicity" towards Grant needs to be reflected in the article to be neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there's enough about Sumner already. More detail might be welcome in the Sumner article, or the Annexation of Santo Domingo article, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Since this is the Grant article I am not sure why Sumner is portrayed as the good guy when Smith (2001) gives a list of Sumner's efforts to defeat Grant's Presidential appointees or and the Santo Domingo plan when two reporters at their meeting heard Sumner state he was in favor of the plan. Sumner's duplicity is is not reflected in the Grant article in my opinion. I am not for giving this full list in the Grant article, but rather to present Sumner as being a hostile towards Grant. That would be neutral. At least put that Grant believed Sumner deceived him. 14:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Sumner is portrayed as good or bad here, just as someone who disagreed with Grant. That's how we should be presenting it: Grant wanted annexation, Sumner didn't; annexation failed; the end. Choosing sides would violate WP:NPOV. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, this was no mere gentleman disagreement with Grant, but rather one in a list of hostilities towards Grant, as stated by Smith (2001). I am going by what a biographer on Grant has written on Sumner. That is not POV. No sides are being chosen. Stating that Sumner simply disagreed with Grant over Santo Domingo is not completely accurate in my opinion. Brands (2012) page 489 states that Sumner even opposed Grant's Force Acts against the Ku Klux Klan. Brands (2012) states that Sumner page 461 was a self appointed "gaurdian of the African race". In my opinion, for the article to be neutral I believe the wording needs to reflect Sumner's personal political hostility towards Grant and indirectly Hamilton Fish. Smith (2001) states Sumner "conducted his own foriegn policy toward Great Britain and the Alabama Claims, Secretary Fish not withstanding" Cmguy777 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I suggest one of the the following phrases to be added to the Foriegn policy section: "Sumner, who was hostile towards Grant,..." or "Grant, who believed Sumner was hostile towards his Administration..." or "Sumner, whom Grant believed was duplicitous..." 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I think those are all unnecessary. The fact the Sumner opposed Grant is evidence enough that he was opposed to him. We should show, not tell. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The article does not state specifically that Sumner opposed Grant. I would be for putting that in the article. That would work. The reader does not know Sumner opposed Grant, only that Sumner opposed the Santo Domingo treaty. I am for adding the clause "In the Senate Charles Sumner, who opposed Grant, did not support annexation..." This is clearly supported by both Grant's biographers Smith (2001) and Brands (2012). I believe would add allot to the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you saying Sumner supported annexation? He didn't, as I understand it. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Sumner and Grant were extreme enemies and it was in all the newspapers. Look at David Donald's bio of Sumner or ANB, which says: "During these [Reconstruction] years Sumner emerged as a prominent Radical Republican and became the Senate's leading advocate of rights for African Americans. Moreover, he received extensive correspondence from both northern and southern blacks, who regarded him as their spokesman in Congress. Surprisingly, Sumner's most frustrating days as a senator still lay ahead in his stormy relations with the Grant administration. Although in agreement on many domestic issues involving Reconstruction, they clashed over the former general's efforts to expand in the Caribbean. Most dramatically, Sumner used his Foreign Relations Committee position to block recognition of Cuban revolutionaries and a treaty annexing Santo Domingo. He believed that the latter agreement had been fraudulently negotiated and argued convincingly that it was not in the best interests of either his own country or the people of Santo Domingo. In retaliation, Ulysses S. Grant directed Sumner's removal from his coveted chairmanship in 1871. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish used Sumner's removal to block the senator's provocative efforts seeking the cession of Canada as retribution for Britain's aid to the Confederacy during the Civil War. In place of Canada, Sumner was forced to accept the Treaty of Washington, under which Britain paid $15.5 million for direct damages inflicted by Confederate raiders built in English shipyards. In frustration over these setbacks, Sumner joined the Liberal Republican movement in 1872, seeking to block Grant's reelection with Horace Greeley's unsuccessful candidacy. Throughout his foreign policy struggles, Sumner continued his crusade for full civil rights for blacks, even as the Congress and the country grew weary of the issue." (from Frederick J. Blue. "Sumner, Charles";; American National Biography Online Feb. 2000. Access Date: Wed Apr 23 2014 Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the sentence. Of course Sumner did not support the Santo Domingo treaty. Blue (2000) is correct that Sumner and Grant were enemies. This somehow needs to be presented in the article. According to Brands (2012) the two were extremely stubborn men. Sumner thwarted Grant's Santo Domingo plan and this caused Grant to remove Sumner from his chairmanship. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edit Foreign policy section


" In the Senate, Charles Sumner opposed annexation because it would reduce the number of autonomous nations run by Africans in the western hemisphere."


" Senator Charles Sumner, who stubbornly opposed Grant, did not support annexation since the number of autonomous nations governed by Africans in the western hemisphere would be reduced." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The adverb "stubbornly" is optional. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
How about "Senator Charles Sumner, who opposed most of Grant's foreign policy initiatives, did not support annexation because it would reduce the number of autonomous nations governed by Africans in the western hemisphere." --Coemgenus (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Sumner was running is own foreign policy in the Senate concerning the Alabama Claims according to Smith (2001). Sumner also held up Grant's diplomatic appointments in addition to thwarting the Santo Domingo initiative. Sumner wanted to go to war with Britain over the succession of Canada as payment for the Alabama claims and he was bitter for not having been chosen Secretary of State by Grant. Sumner's opposition to Grant held personal emnity. Sumner did not respect Grant as a person. The reality is that Sumner opposed almost everything Grant did and he believed Republican policies were set in the Senate not in the White House. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we are making progress.
"'Senator Charles Sumner, an opponent of Grant's foriegn policy and diplomatic appointments, did not support annexation since the number of autonomous nations governed by Africans in the western hemisphere would be reduced." Cmguy777 (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
What I think you're getting at isn't peculiar to Sumner and Grant, but part of the weak presidency situation that Alanscottwalker was discussing above. IT became more pronounced under Grant, but it was fairly common in the late 19th century for Congress (especially the Senate) to try to overrule the President on foreign policy. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, respectfully, this has everything to do with Sumner who was duplicitous to Grant. Weak Presidency? Grant dethroned Senator Sumner from his sacred Foriegn Relations Committee at the same time firing his Consul to Britain, Sumner's friend and accomplice, Motley. That does not sound like a weak Presidency and that allowed Fish to have a successful Treaty of Washington with great Britain and has since been our ally during WWI and WWII. Had Sumner had his way the US would have gone to war with Britain over Canada. Grant kept the peace. We are getting off track. Sumner only needs be viewed as being opposed to Grant in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"Sumner only needs be viewed as being opposed to Grant " -- exactly. there is no reason to rehearse Sumner's many reasons to oppose Santo Domingo (that belongs in the Sumner article). The whole idea was a financial scheme to help some "friends" of Grant. It has very little public support (black or white) and historians have all been negative about the Santo Dom. scheme Rjensen (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. All aquisitions are land deals but for some reason Grant gets singled out. The people of Santo Domingo wanted to be annexed under both President Andrew Johnson and President Ulysses S. Grant. What about all the oil industry profiteering from the Alaska purchase and statehood? Sumner was a full proponent of annexing Alaska. What about the sugar industry profitting from Hawaiian statehood? What about the slaves interests who profited from the Louisiana Purchase? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
1) I think the issue belongs in the Presidency article not here. 2) the people of Santo Domingo had no voice -- but American blacks did and they did not support Grant on this one: they did NOT want to move to Santo Domingo. It is not true that slave ownership was central to Louisiana Purchase, or that oil was related to Alaska Purchase. Hawaii is a bit more complicated but in any case follow the RS on Grant in Santo Domingo. Hamliton 2010: "His attempted land grab revealed a characteristic that stamped Grant's presidency: corruption. Evidence indicated that his chief aide, Orville Babcock, had pushed hard to annex Santo Domingo because he had been given land there ..." Miller 1998: "The unofficial way Grant handled the matter led to its eventual demise in Congress and added to the emerging cloud of corruption beginning to taint the Grant administration."; Werth 2011: "Grant's aide and a friend stood to make a fortune through annexation and had secretly pledged to keep Santo Domingo's corrupt ruler in power with military..."; Upchurch 2009: "American investors in the Caribbean island of Santo Domingo convinced Grant that annexing that land would benefit all parties concerned"; see McFeely p 343; Miller 2008 "The gold conspiracy and the Santo Domingo affair were of little importance in themselves, but they revealed just how easily Grant could be manipulated by dubious characters." etc Rjensen (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Jensen makes the point far better than I could. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Loyal Grant Senators exhonorated Babcock and there was no direct evidence Babcock had acquired land in Samana Bay. Smith and Perry, consuls in the Dominican Republic only suggested Babcock had land in the Samana Bay. Alaska was purchased for natural resources such as fur seals and fishing lanes. That is profit. I believe Grant actually signed a law to reduce seal hunting. Sumner said nothing concerning the original occupants of Alaska who had no say in the treaty negotiations. But that for some reason is not considered corruption. And yes land speculators struck it rich with the Alsakan Yukon Gold Rush and discovery of oil in Alaska. All profit motivations for land investment. The slave population increased in the Louisiana Territory because no American restrictions had been placed on domestic slavery by Jefferson. The sugar industry dominated Hawaii prior to annexation. I am not defending Babcock and he very well could have had land given to him on the Samana Bay. I believe we are getting off subject. A simple edit that Sumner opposed Grant in the article would add to neutrality. I am sure there were dirty deals in Santo Domingo but I am not sure why motivation of profits is excluded from Alaska, Hawaii, and Louisiana Territory. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

there was no profit motive in Alaska or Louisiana, and Hawaii was a more complex issue decided on strategic grounds along party lines. The historians are pretty well agreed that Grant was dead wrong on Santo Domingo (the place was in the middle of a civil war and the deal was written entirely by and for the benefit of a few speculators & cronies who deceived Grant.) Grant as usual defended his friends (Babcock esp) regardless of how much they misbehaved. That was Grant's deep character flaw. Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Admiring Grant does not mean ignoring his flaws. He was good at some things, bad at others. He was still a great man, to my mind. More importantly, we should remember to follow the consensus established by scholars, which in terms of the Dominican Republic is as Rjensen has stated. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this conversation is getting off the subject. Even Grant admitted he made mistakes. No one is denying that. What President has not made mistakes. Grant had the integrity to admit mistakes were made. Alaska and Hawaii today have very high income levels in the top ten United States (List of U.S. states by income). Louisianna and the South were prosperous under the slavery system prior to the Civil War especially in the cotton industry. Historians somehow view that during the Grant period profit motivation is immoral, corrupt, and illegal and yet historians view Alaska, Louisiana Territory, and Hawaii purchases were done altruistically with the utmost integrity without any profit motivations. That goes against human nature. Is that a double standard among historians? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's a double standard or not: we summarize the scholarly consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I found this article interesting. For what this is worth Alaska (6.75) and Hawaii (7.18) have the highest percentage of millionaires per capita outside of the eastern United States. Louisiana (4.49) Source: Read Wilson (January 16, 2014) Which states have the most millionaires per capita? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with "scholarly consensus". Kelsey-Simpson (2005) labeled Santo Domingo as a reform effort that was thwarted by Sumner. All I want to do for now is add to the article that Sumner was opposed to Grant. Sumner also did not have a high opinion of Fish. I hope Grant can get to FA status. I do not want to debate anymore about motivations of territorial annexations. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed the narration to reflect the discussion and added Smith (2001) page 504 as reference. On to FA! Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to make edits that fit in with the Smith (2001) biography of Grant. These edits were removed. Sumner specifically stated he thought that Africans belonged on the equitorial belt. The current wording says "for the opposite reasons". Other Senators may have agreed with Sumner especially Schurz. This is Sumners specific wording taken from the Smith (2001) book: "To the African belongs the equitorial belt, and he should enjoy it undisturbed" page 504 Smith (2001) also specifically states Sumner feared that the independence of Haiti would be threatend and that Sumner did not want to admit an "alien culture" into the United States. I do not want any edit wars. I would just like to see that Santo Domingo paragraph accurately reflect the Smith (2001) biography on Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I reverted it because I thought the consensus on the talk page was to leave it alone, and also because the changes introduced grammatical and stylistic errors. If you want to add more about Sumner, why not put it in the presidency article (as Rjensen suggested) or the Sumner article (as I suggested)? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
That is fine Coemgenus. I thought Rjensen stated that Sumner should be known for opposing Grant. The article only states Sumner opposed the Santo Domingo statement. I am not sure the paragraph is historically correct. There no mention of the investigation or Grant not telling his Cabinet or the public about the treaty. I believe editors can edit both on the Grant article and the Sumner article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Santo Domingo paragraph issues

1. Grant kept the treaty secret from Fish and the public
2. Grant would not let his Cabinet discuss the treaty
3. There is no mention that Sumner may have been duplicitous towards Grant
4. Sumner did not want Carribean blacks to be US citizens.
5. There was a Congressional investigation over Hatch not mentioned in the paragraph Cmguy777 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Brands (2012) states the President Andrew Johnson and Secretary Steward initiated annexation talks with the Dominican leaders but Congress rejected the plan. Apparently this type of American expansionism had started during the 1840s. (page 452) The current article states Seward planned to purchase the Dominican Republic. Isn't that the same as annexation? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the space restraints, I wouldn't add any of this here. It's all interesting information, but it would be best if it were added to Annexation of Santo Domingo. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to neccessarily add to the paragraph rather have the paragraph become accurately correct. There were blacks who supported annexation including Frederick Douglas, Hiram Revels, John Raney, and the National Conventions of Colored men. (Source: Michael L. Krenn (1998) Race and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Ages of Territorial and Market Expansion pages 175-176) The people and leaders of the Dominican Republic supported annexation. My concern is historical accuracy and narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the paragraph is accurate now. As to the idea that the people of the DR approved of annexation, I don't think it's possible to know that, and I don't think any Grant biographer makes that assertion. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Brands (2012) pages 454-455 states that Perry, the Consul to the Dominican Republic, stated the people of Santo Domingo wanted annexation. According to Smith (2001) page 689 Note 46 Sumner came out against Santo Domingo when Grant refused to retain Sumner's friend James M. Ashley governor of Montana Territory. Another issue is that Sumner's postion and the other opposing Senators oincluding Carl Schurz were not neccessarily opposite of each other. Sumner did not want to incorporate non Anglo culture into the United States. Smith (2001) page 505. I would at least remove the clause that states "Other senators objected for the opposite reason". Sumner was the leader of the opposing opposition. His words were the ones that defeated the treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Senators opposed to the treaty may have held both views, I think Smith makes that point well enough. So maybe "other senators" is the wrong way of putting it. Perhaps "He and other senators objected for another reason..." would be better. That footnote you mention, though, is far weaker than you make it out to be. Smith says only that there is "peripheral evidence" that Ashley's non-retention may have affected the timing of Sumner's opposition, not that it was the cause of Sumner's opposition, and not that there's any direct evidence that it mattered at all. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your first part on narration. Smith states that Sumner started his opposition to the treaty when Grant refused to retain Ashley as governor. That to me a cause and effect. I think mentioning that some blacks supported the treaty would add to neutrality. Rjensen is correct. Not all Afican Americans groups supported the treaty as the Krenn (1988) pages 175-176 source states I gave above. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, to you it is cause and effect. Smith did not feel so strongly. As to the list of black Americans who supported annexation: it's certainly interesting, but it's a few steps removed from Grant's life. In an already long article, this is the sort of thing we can't really fit. Again, the Annexation of Santo Domingo article seems the best place. There's plenty of room to grow there. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The Ashley incident can go into the Annexation of Santo Domingo article. I would change the narration that removes the term "objected for the opposite reason". I think the article needs to state that African American view of annexation was mixed. That way there would be Grant's view, Sumner's and other Senators view, and African American view on annexation. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree about the narration change. Do you think the language I suggested yesterday will suffice? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think that will tighten up the language and context. I would mention the African American view since Frederick Douglas was involved. Rjensen is right that not all African Americans supported the initiative, however, some groups did. I would add that "African American support for the annexation treaty was limited." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Some black people supported it and some didn't. The same is true of white people. I don't see how it adds anything to the article to say so, especially since I haven't seen any evidence that Grant, Sumner, Schurz, or anyone else involved was influenced at all by their opinions. Do any of the biographers suggest otherwise? As far as I can tell, they don't. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • McFeely (1981), Grant: A Biography, pages 351-352 McFeely discusses that Grant believed the annexation would be useful to African American citizens of the United States. Sumner was against the plan because that would mean the Dominican Republic an African Republic in the Western hemisphere would resolve. Sumner was concerned that Frederick Douglas would counter that view the Santo Domingo was not in the African American best interest. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
To establish neutrality in the article the views of African Americans in my opinion need to be considered in the article whether or not their views had any influence on the above mentioned. Sumner accourding to Brands (2012) was the self appointed spokesperson for African Americans. Grant was an elected President who was concerned with the plight of blacks in the South. Santo Domingo took place during Reconstruction and could be considered a reform movement initiated by Grant to get the South to comply with Reconstruction laws and to end slavery in other countries. I understand their were other motivations or reasons for annexation corrupt or uncorrupt. This was the Gilded Age. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
neutrality does not apply here (it is about minority scholarly viewpoints). Most historians think Grant was totally wrong in the matter. The idea that millions of blacks would flock to S.D. was his strange fantasy. As for being elected, Sumner had been elected to the Senate and as chair of the Senate foreign relations committee (he was not self appointed). Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen: I think Cmguy is misunderstanding NPOV. Cherry-picking a few supporters to make it look like the issue was balanced is, itself, an NPOV violation when it contradicts the vast weight of historical scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No NPOV here. Even McFeely (1981) page 337 stated that Grant's Santo Domingo initiative was not unrealistic in light of the violence African Americans were suffering in the South "...the proposal to annex Santo Domingo is not evidence that Grant was applying unrealistic logic to the harsh situation that the freedmen faced." McFeely also stated that "migration is, after all, the classic American way of trying to solve a problem.". McFeely did state that Santo Domingo was a "segregated settlement" program. Sumner was elected Senator true. Smith (2001) page 504 stated that Sumner was running his own foriegn policy in the Senate concering the Alabama claims. Brands (2012) page 461 states that "Sumner had long been considered a defender in Congress of America's blacks; he now appointed himself guardian of the African race generally." Brands (2012) stated "Sumner should have supported Grant's attack on the Ku Klux Klan if concern for the rights of African Americans had been his unerring lodestar, as he constantly claimed it was." Michael L. Krenn (1998) Race and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Ages of Territorial and Market Expansion pages 175-176 is a reliable source. I am not sure why Krenn (1998) can not be used in the article. I am for editor concensus. Will the narration be changed as discussed above? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Coemgenus for changing the narration per discussion! Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen and Coemgenus for your discussions on Santo Domingo. Is the article ready for FA status? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Murray & Blessing, Whyte, and Ackerman all have citations to them but the full cites have been moved to the Bibliography page. Conversely, there are quite a few full citations at the bottom that have no footnotes directing to them, and could be moved. I've cleaned up some errors in formatting, but I'm not confident that I've gotten them all. The prose, also, is less than brilliant, to my eye. Which is all to say: the article still looks too sloppy to me, but if you want to nominate it, I would not stand in your way. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I stopped moving citiations sources since their may have been editors who believed I moved enough. I can can help check the citation source formating. Feel free Coemgenus and Rjensen to improve the prose in the article. I think the Presidential section prose is good. The Civil War section, particularly the battles could be cleaned up. His early life looks good but that narration could flow better. I think the prose including the lede section should be improved before nominationg FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect date

At present (May 5, 2014), there is an incorrect date in the article. I changed it, cited the change, and the edit was reverted. The section with problem is his early military career: "... In lieu of a court-martial, Buchanan gave Grant an ultimatum to sign a drafted resignation letter.[1] Grant resigned from the army on April 11, 1854;[2]"

I changed July 31, 1854 to April 11, 1854 because the source says April which gives him time to get home in August, and matches the "five months" usually given as his time in Humboldt County. My edit was instantly reverted. The date in the article is still incorrect. I have left a message on the reverter's talk page and here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The resignation was effective July 31. The sentence was worded vaguely, so I added the word "effective" to make it clear that Grant's army service ended that day, whenever the resignation was submitted. I also added a citation to Smith, for those interested in more information. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Eureka, California

Recently an editor has been removing Grant from the notable people of Eureka, California claiming he was not "from" there. The article today reads: Promoted to captain in the summer of 1853, Grant was one of only fifty on active duty, and assigned to command Company F, 4th Infantry, at Fort Humboldt, on the northwest California coast. Without explanation, he shortly afterwards resigned from the army on July 31, 1854. The commanding officer at Fort Humboldt, brevet Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, a strict disciplinarian, received reports that Grant became intoxicated off duty while seated at the pay officer's table. In lieu of a court-martial, Buchanan gave Grant an ultimatum to sign a drafted resignation letter. Grant resigned; the War Department stated on his record, "Nothing stands against his good name." Rumors, however, persisted in the regular army of Grant's intemperance.{{efn|According to biographer McFeely, historians overwhelmingly agree that his intemperance at the time was a fact, though there are no eyewitness reports extant. Years later, Grant said, "the vice of intemperance had not a little to do with my decision to resign." Grant's father, again believing his son's only potential for success would be in the military, tried to get the Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, to rescind the resignation, to no avail.

Thus I think he should be included on notables list of Eureka, California. It is listed in the article that he served at Fort Humboldt, and Fort Humboldt is entirely within the city limits of Eureka. Grant's interactions with the local people are well-documented in local history. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop and think about what you're saying. You are claiming that U.S. Grant is a notable person of Eureka, CA. That implies that he was either born there or had a notable or remarkable impact on the locality. From your quote of the article, Grant did nothing other than pass through the area (noting here that Eureka was not even incorporated at the time of his stay), as part of an army career that saw him pass through many other areas and cities of the United States. It should be clear that if each place that the man passed through made him a "notable person of" that place, then being "of" or "from" a place would lose all meaning. You are wrong in this matter, the administrator you consulted told you that you are wrong (Wikipedia:ANI#Anonymous_POV_edits), and you need to let it go.
Further, you personally edited this wiki page to include the word "Eureka" as a circular way of strengthening your claim. This is bad form and I would hope that the other editors of this page can see through what you are trying to do. ( (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC))
This dispute is about the Eureka page, not this one. Please discuss it there instead. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I did what the admin suggested and took it to the talk page. I attempted to make it clear where Fort Humboldt is located as it was not obvious and "northwest California" covers more territory than New England so it's not a bad thing to provide locational clarity. I'm not going to put Grant back as a notable person of Eureka despite it fitting the WikiCities guidelines since it apparently bothers the editors on this page so terribly. I have no desire to cause such difficulty for anyone. Grant's name was there before I started editing and if anyone puts him back on that it won't be me. I am still concerned about the multiple anonymous IP edits and the unnecessarily discourteous attitude, but that's on other people and their karma. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Narration progress

I have been making progress in the Ulysses S. Grant article. There is an abunance of passive sentences. I have generally cleared the article of passive sentences up to the Vicksburg section. The last section edited was Shiloh. The Civil War section has narration issues. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I completed through the Vicksburg section. Any help would be greatfully appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know what that partial sentence prior to footnote 265 is suppose to mean? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I fixed it so it had a verb now, but I'd really like to delete the whole sentence. It doesn't really fit the rest of the paragraph. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Done. I agree. It was also written in a vague or overbroard manner concerning an apparent assertion of certainty about the thinking of millions of people. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The term "these policies failed" in my opinion is vague. Southern resistance i.e. Solid South and Northern apathy was why Grant's policies failed. Grant did form the Justice Department to stop violations against African Americans. Grant did successfully prosecute the Ku Klux Klan up until 1873. The Justice Department today has a Civil Rights division I believe created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Should there be additional context to the term "these policies failed"? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's vague at all. And even Grant's most friendly biographers don't claim his civil rights or Indian policies succeeded for more than a couple of years. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was patterned off of Grant's Civil Rights Act of 1875 89 years ahead of his times. That Justice Department is still in effect today and I believe the Force Acts still remain in effect on the Congressional books. Where do his "friendly biographers" claim his policies specifically failed. Grant destroyed the Ku Klux Klan as Brands (2012) wrote a specific article on the subject. Grant set native Americans on the path toward citizenship, reducing Indian Wars, removing tribal treaties, and incorporating Indians as wards of the state. Grant put an Indian in charge of the Indian Bureau. Grant's Indian commission was part of reforming the Indian policy. I believe Grant was the first President to put African-Americans in prominent positions including Frederick Douglas. African-Americans were allowed at West Point and a change in command at West Point led to reduced hazing that allowed African-Americans to graduate under President Hayes. "His polices failed" seems to be open to interpretation. I believe the reader needs to decide if his policies failed. No one is stating his policies were perfect. I am not suggesting to add these examples into the article, that would be argumentative, but only to rephrase the wording somewhat that will allow the reader to make up their own minds if Grant's policies failed, keeping in mind there was Northern apathy and Southern resistance to Reconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have started narration improvement on the Presidency section. I have improved narration by reducing or eliminating passive voice, spelling corrections, complex expressions, clichés, and any bias language. Where needed I have added more information to improve context. I have kept the narration fixes that allow minimal change to the article. Any help would be appreciated. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "Growing scandals in Washington, some involving members of Grant's administration, took more of the public's attention than the plight of freedmen.""
The above sentence may have some issues. Further clarification is needed.
1. The sentence is unreferenced. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
2. The sentence does not tell what scandals involved members of Grant's administration. I take this is meant to be the Crédit Mobilier scandal that had nothing to do with the Grant administration. His two vice presidents were never indicted Colfax and Wilson. They were members of Congress at the time of the scandal during the Andrew Johnson Administration. There was the New York Custom House investigation. Is that what the sentence is refering too? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
3. The sentence concludes that the Grant "scandals" cause Northern apathy to Reconstruction. Northern apathy was caused by a desire for reconciliation with the South by northern businesses. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Brands (2012), The Man Who Saved The Union, Ulysses S. Grant In War and Peace, on pages 508 and 509 states that Tammany Hall (Democtratic Scandal) and the Crédit Mobilier (Republican Scandal) discouraged peoples views on politics and government. There is no direct link with Northern apathy against Republican Reconstruction due to the Tammany Hall scandal or the the Crédit Mobilier scandal. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Reconstruction and civil rights section in the Ulysses S. Grant article. I added information on the Brooks-Baxter War and the Colfax Massacre. Grant did send troops and three warships to New Orléans to stop violence in Louisiana. Pierrepont sent an emissary to Mississippi rather then directly intervene. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 signed into law was ambitious according to Brands (2012). Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the narration up to The Gold standard and the Gold Ring Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed the narration up to the Gilded Age corruption and reform section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have completed fixing the narration of the Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

FA preview discussion

I have finished fixing the narration of the Ulysses S. Grant article. Please feel free to make comments on the narration and or any other issues before the article is nominated for FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the Ulysses S. Grant article ready for FA nomination? Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't object, but I don't have time to be a co-nominator. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Where are all the other editors? Has the Ulysses S. Grant article Grant been abandonded? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Does any editor want to be a co-nominator? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone will nominate when time is right. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoontalk 19:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2014

change "Grant's tenor in the Pacific Northwest took" to "Grant's tenure in the Pacific Northwest took" (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

FA article candidate review

Thanks to all who contributed to the FA candidate review process! I am not sure quite what happened. For a Presidential article I felt I was doing all the editing and there seemed to be lack of interest in the article. I believe Grant deserves to be FA status. If this is to happen then other editors need to get involved. No hard feelings...again thanks ! Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On a more positive note I believe the article has much improved due to the FA candidate review !
you're doing a great job--I did not want to interfere. Rjensen (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll do some more tweaks on the article, and can give suggestions if desired for improvement. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a hard row (you have to be editor/diplomat/expert in hyper mode), and it's not going to be something everyone wants to do (or thinks important), but I still encourage you and thank you for your efforts, and if you still want it, keep plugging. Also, the subject you have chosen is truly a massive life. SNUGGUMS is now here to help, so good for both of you and Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Thanks Rjensen. I appreciate your edits. Feel free to "interefere" anytime. Any help is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks SNUGGUMS. That would great! Feel free to make improvements or give suggestions on how to improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Thanks and your welcome. I think the article has improved with the FA article review. There has been added detail that gives better understanding into Grant during his lifetime. There is a lot to the Grant article to cover. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I should have my suggestions up within a week (would've posted them in FAC but it closed before I had the chance). SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your valued edits ! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS: When you're finished, I'll give it a thorough copyedit, too. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-FAC copyedits

I'm about halfway through copyediting and trying to implement the changes suggested at FAC. I think, as suggested by the closing delegate there, that the article could benefit from an A-class review when I'm finished. In the meantime: I think the entire "Mexico and Canada" subsection ought to be removed. Grant's role in those events was comparatively minor. They're well-covered in the subarticle, and as currently arranged they break up the flow of the main story: Grant's role in the breach between Johnson and Congress of Reconstruction. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

good idea. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the copyediting Coemgenus ! This really helps the article ! Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I would add something on Indian wars while Grant served under President Andrew Johnson. Grant was responsible for the Western frontier as Commanding general. I would add this to the Mexico and Canada section, i.e., Mexico, Canada, Indian wars. The height of Indians Wars took place under Andrew Johnson Administration. This brings up an interesting question, was Grant involved in any Indian wars while he was commanding general under President Abraham Lincoln? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall reading anything about that in the major sources, but I'll look again in McFeely, Smith, and Hesseltine. You own Brands's book, don't you? I had it from the library before, but long since returned it. (I'm guessing, from your comments, that you don't agree the Mexico and Canada part should be deleted.) --Coemgenus (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully no. The importance is that Grant was overall commander of the Armed forces under President Johnson and Grant put Sheridan in charge of Mexico. Also Grant took personal responsibility in New York over the Fenian attempted take over of Canada. Grant was also in charge of Indian Wars and there were allot under Andrew Johnson. In my opinion briefly mentioning these issues is important. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Indian Wars Chapter 55 pages 410-415 Brands (2012a) Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Grant removes Indian frontier fort to keep Indian peace.
  • Mexico Chapter 51 pages 384-384 Brands (2012a) Grant convinces Johnson that military support was neccessary to defeat Maximillian rather then diplomacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Canada The Reconstruction Years page 29 Walter Coffey (2014) Grant suppressed Fenian raids into Canada. About 700 Fenians arrested. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest moving the Mexico and Canada section up so the Johnson segments can be adjacent to one another. I suggest adding information that Grant was in charge of the Indian Wars so the section would be titled Mexico, Canada, Indian Wars. I also suggest that section could be streamlined as much as possible. Only relevant information on Grant can be given. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I still think the article would be improved by deleting the section. The Mexico and Canada incidents are minor, and Grant's ideas on Indian policy are well-covered under the Presidency section. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree these were minor incidents. I can streamline the section and focus on Grant. The section shows that Grant was an active general. Without the section, in my opinion, Grant somewhat looks like the lackey to President Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I made changes to the section. I reduced content in the Mexico and Canada pargraphs. I added a paragraph on Red Cloud's War, cited in Brands {2012a), where Grant abandons Powder River forts in order for Red Cloud to sign the Fort Laramie Treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Grant a peacetime General when there were hundreds of Indians wars being fought in the West ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It's remarkable how a proposal to eliminate a section ends with it being made longer. I don't mean to be rude, but I'd put it this way: this article doesn't need to get longer, it needs to get better. I'm not going to delete what you wrote about Red Cloud or start an edit-war over it, but I do suggest we all consider whether more is necessary. I would not nominate this article for FA in its current condition, because I would not feel comfortable defending it. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for an edit war. I believe the Red Cloud's War worthy of being in the main Ulysses S. Grant article. The Indian wars were continual and I believe that merits the paragraph stay in the article. This is covered Brands (2012a). I am all for defending that Ulysses S. Grant get to FA status. I can removed the Mexico and Canada information and retitle the section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Information on Mexico and Canada has been removed. I kept information on Red Cloud's War for reason stated above. Are there any objections to keeping Red Cloud's War section in the main Ulysses S. Grant article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the Red Cloud's War section...Of course I want the article to get better...I did much of the editing corrections on the first FA nomination attempt... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian wars as commanding general

There needs to be some mention of Grant and Indian Wars as commanding general. There were over 100 Indian Wars during the Johnson Administration and Grant was incharge of the U.S. military. The height of Indian Wars took place in 1869 when Grant assumed the Presidency after Johnson in March. Reconstruction (after 1867) and Indian Wars were Grant's responsibility as Commanding General. Indian wars are not mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible Intro sentence

After the Civil War ended Reconstruction of the remaining former Confederate states was on the forefront of American politics. As military commander Grant was in charge of military operations through out the nation and territories. In addition to commanding the use of federal military armies involved in Reconstruction, Grant was in charge of Indian wars at time when increased westward expansion of settlers and building of railroads often led to conflicts. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Favor : I think this addition would be good and serve as a break from the Civil War section and mention that Grant was involved in Indian wars as Commanding General. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Modification :

Immediately after the Civil War the U.S. military was the primary enforcer of Congressional Reconstruction in the former Confederate states. As military commander Grant was in charge of military operations through out the nation and territories. In addition to commanding the use of federal military armies involved in Reconstruction, Grant was in charge of Indian wars caused by increased westward expansion of settlers and building of railroads. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
leave off the causation of the Indian wars-- it's not needed and is misleading. most did not involve Railroads. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK. Thanks Rjensen. Sounds good. I believe the reader should know that Grant was incharge of Indian Wars as Commanding General in addition to Reconstruction. I thought that Indians attacked the railroad workers in the 1865 Plains War. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Brands (2012a) states on page 411 that the Indians believed the railroads represented permanent white settlement. The Sioux and Cheyenne conducted raids on the Union Pacific crews in Wyoming. This might have taken place in 1864. Grant inherited this war when he became General In Chief. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the Indian wars had no relation to RR. The Sioux & Cheyenne attacked all whites they could reach and indeed the RR were a seemed to be a tempting target, but Grant sent Army units to protect them and the Indians turned to attacks on other tribes & white farmers/ranchers. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant's presidential reputation and ranking

Is the article assessing Grant's presidential reputation accurately? Assuming that editors agree there was corruption in his Administration, how much emphasis should this corruption be placed in the article? As far as I have read neither McFeely (1981), Smith (2001), nor Brands (2012a) have compared his Presidency to other presidents in terms of ranking. John Y. Simon (2002) states "If Grant had left the White House after his first term, he might rank among the ablest presidents..." page 253. Brands (2012a) states that historians "emphasized the scandals, neglecting Grant's role in defeating the Black Friday gold corner and in bringing the whiskey culprits to justice..." page 636. Writing for the Rutherford Institute Thomas S. Neuberger (March 29, 2013) stated, "To his everlasting honor, President Grant stood for the absolute protection of the freed Black race in the face of Southern Democratic political, social and cultural tyranny...¶...Thus a careful reading of history should place Ulysses S. Grant in the top twenty percent of American Presidents, a fact that has been withheld from the average citizen who only has heard about a heavy drinking soldier and a scandal or two in his second term in office, scandals which in the 20th Century seemed to be commonplace in a second presidential term." Source: The President Who Destroyed the Klan: Ulysses S. Grant, An Unappreciated and Undervalued Leader Is the article underappreciating Grant? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We give the link in the lead, Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States, it's not comparatively good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The historical accuracy of those rankings have been disputed. Civil Rights and slavery are interestingly left out of those assessments of Presidents. Why? That could create demerits for Washington and Jefferson. Historians have been neglectful, sometimes hostile with Grant, in terms of accuracy and research. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's really not for us to question the sources, only to summarize them. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
one quote (above) makes the point: "Brands (2012a) states that historians "emphasized the scandals." The surveys of scholars & experts since 1990 all have Grant well below average (the one exception putting him as high as #19 is by a handful of British journalists who cover the 21st century US). Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I would agree, but Brands (2012a) emphasizes the "neglect" of historians to Grant's thwarting the Gold Ring and prosecuting the Whiskey Ring. If Brands (2012a) is to be quoted fully the article needs to state historians have neglected Grant. Neuberger (March 29, 2013) puts Grant in the top 20 percent. The surveys ignore or neglect Grant's Civil Rights agenda crushing the Klan. Neuberger is a Civil Rights attorney and author. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Historians have not neglected anything. As for civil rights: the bottom line is that despite Grant's wishes, blacks were politically WORSE off when he left office compared to when he entered office, and likewise the GOP. 03:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Brands (2012a) states that historians have neglected Grant. Defeating the Klan was no "wish" or "fantasy". Are you stating that the Klan was not destroyed in 1871 by vigorous prosecution of the Justice Department and that Brands (2012a) is misleading readers? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Every historian knows Grant destroyed the KKK. But under Grant the blacks lost their power in every southern state, which is even more important. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Rjensen Blacks lost power not because of Grant rather racist Southern Democrats took control of state governments and the will of the Northern people lost all interest in Civil Rights. Grant was not a dictator. He could not control state elections forever. Grant was the last and only President in the 19th Century to sign into law a Civil Rights Act in 1875. Took another West Point Grad named Ike in 1957 to be the first 20th Century President to sign as Civil Rights Act. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Additionally when the Democrats took power in 1875 in the House they cut off all funding to the military that would suppress racist violence in the South. Chief Justice Remick undid the Force Acts independent of Grant. Grant noted on his world tour the hypocracy of suppressing Union riots while ignoring Civil Rights in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
During the war Grant never fired a shot. Instead he directed tactics and strategy. Ditto for the GOP when he was president, and he repeatedly split the GOP (see 1872 election; and esp Brooks–Baxter War. he got credit when his soldiers won & blame for when they lost battles during the war. Ditto in politics--he led the party to heavy losses in every southern state. Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Cmguy, we've already had this discussion. (Also here.) You don't like that almost all historians (all but Brands, really,) have rated Grant as a poor president. I happen to find him underrated, myself, though not to the same extent you do. Fact is, though, we editors are not here to write about our own views. Our job is to summarize the state of scholarly opinion. Our own opinions are irrelevant. Brands is an outlier, and his opinion is noted and given adequate weight. The balance of scholarly opinion is, as Alanscottwalker and Rjensen have noted, that Grant was a below-average president. Nothing you or I write will change the fact that historians have so rated him. Having to re-litigate these issues is tiresome, and detracts from the article's improvement. Let's move on. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Please really re-read and soak in that policy Coemgenus links to, especially WP:NOR, when the weight of the sources say he was poor, we cannot put in our articles 'but, a Wikipedian or two think it's not so' Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen: When Lincoln was elected President in 1860, the Southern states rebelled, and the Civil War that caused over 100,000 Union soldier deaths took place. Yet Lincoln is deservedly hailed as a great leader, certainly not a failure as Grant is projected. Neither should Lincoln be blamed for Southern succession. Grant as Commanding General was instrumental in putting down this rebellion. Grant's Presidency was during Reconstruction a time when white conservatives refused to accept African American citizenship. Grant destroyed the Ku Klux Klan, sponsored the 15th Amendment, and successufully got Congress to recognize the four remaining Reconstructed states. There was a fair election in 1872, Republicans are won the South. Adelbert Ames, a Republican, won the governership in Mississippi in 1874. William Pitt Kellogg, a Republican was Governor of Louisiana from 1874 to 1877. The depression after the Panic of 1873 caused the people to turn against the Republican Party and the Republcians, Grant excluded, abandonded Civil Rights. Grant would have had to establish a military dictatorship and that would have been extremely costly. Hayes, whom Grant helped get elected through the Electoral Commission, did not do anything to regain Republican domination in the South, and he is considered a good President. Grant may have politically lost the South after 1877, but he successfully kept the nation together. Why is Grant blamed for Conservative refusal to accept African American citizenship? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

My own opinions? I gave three quotes from three sources and referenced these quotes. With the exception of Brands (2012a) Why aren't editors addressing these quotes, particularly Neuberger? Here are the quotes again.
  • John Y. Simon (2002) page 253: "If Grant had left the White House after his first term, he might rank among the ablest presidents..."
    Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Brands (2012a) page 636 "They [historians] emphasized the scandals, neglecting Grant's role in defeating the Black Friday gold corner and in bringing the whiskey culprits to justice..."
    Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thomas S. Neuberger (March 29, 2013),The President Who Destroyed the Klan: Ulysses S. Grant, An Unappreciated and Undervalued Leader, "To his everlasting honor, President Grant stood for the absolute protection of the freed Black race in the face of Southern Democratic political, social and cultural tyranny...¶...Thus a careful reading of history should place Ulysses S. Grant in the top twenty percent of American Presidents, a fact that has been withheld from the average citizen who only has heard about a heavy drinking soldier and a scandal or two in his second term in office, scandals which in the 20th Century seemed to be commonplace in a second presidential term."
    Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Because Nueberger or the others do not change the sourced general judgement. They have bent the arc some but we already say that in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I am swimming upstream again. Is there any support to adding the Neuberger information in the Historical reputation section?" Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In the 2009 CSPAN Presidential Rankings the closest discussion on Civil Rights and Slavery is in the Pursued Equal Justice For All category. Lincoln is Ranked 1. and Grant is ranked 9. Grant is ranked in the top ten in that category. Here is the Historian Survey Results link: Category Pursued Equal Justice for All This should be noted in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Grant's lowest rankings in the 2009 CSPAN Presidential Rankings has to due with Economic Management and Administrative Skills. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The Neuberger thing is just a review of Brands's book, and it's published on an interest group's website, not in a journal. That's not really new scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Fixed I added information and references on the CSPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey. I think this will be enough to help understanding of Grant's presidential reputation. For now I consider this matter closed unless further discussion is warranted. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, what do you mean "fixed"? No one agreed to add that CSPAN study. It's not accurate to cherry-pick the best surveys and highlight them in the article. We link to Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States for just this reason. The section on Grant's reputation has to show it all -- the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's unethical to give undue weight to one survey. Without consensus to add it, I will revert this change. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Why was the CSPAN survey removed? An aggregate rating is not sourced. You can't put an unsourced Wikipedia aggregate as a reference in the article. I had fixed the issue and now we seem to me starting over again. Certainly a 9 out of 42 rating in "Pursued Equal Justice For All" is not for below average. Saying Grant is far below average is misleading the reader. Rjensen should speak for his own edits in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
If you don't understand, perhaps it's because you missed my edit summary. I'll reproduce it here: "(restore Rjensen's language -- "far" is accurate. Grant's aggregate rank is 37/43)". I hope that's more clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an unsourced ranking and does not represent modern research. CSPAN is a sourced reliable reference. I was not cherry picking. I noted Grant's lowest rankings in addition to his highest ranking. That is accurate. There was no reason to pull a reliable source such CSPAN. Aggregating sources from 1948 to 2011 is not reliable and skues Grant in the negative rankings. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see what the other editors think and work on a consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The CSPAN ranking survey is the most reliable since Pursued Equal Justice For All is a category for 42 Presidents ranked. Certainly a 9 out of 42 ranking is not "far below average", but rather "far above average". Also the CSPAN ranking brings out Grant's faults as President his administrative skills and his economic management of the Panic of 1873. If there is a need for compromise maybe putting this information in a note in the article would be useful. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Emphasis on one survey, C-Span is WP:Undue. As for modern, all the surveys are "modern". As for "far", I am neutral. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, we could leave out the word "far." The bigger deal is undue reliance on one survey. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
CSPAN is the only survey that actually addresses Pursued Equal Justice For All a subject related to Civil Rights and Slavery. Grant was President during the Reconstruction and I believe the CSPAN article is the most reliable survey concerning Grant. I am for adding other surveys to the article. Using a Wikipedia article as reference link is unreliable. An aggregate average in my opinion of different presidential rankings is WP:Undue and unreliable. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am for the removal of the word "far". Cmguy777 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
How can using all of the surveys be undue weight, but using just one be legitimate? That doesn't make any sense. What is being given undue weight when we're citing an average of all of them? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Using an aggregate average skues Grant to the negative. That is undue weight and also unreliable. These are different rankings of Grant with different categories. Then to combine them all into one "phantom" survey is misleading to the reader. The CSPAN addresses Pursued Equal Justice For All and is appropriate since Grant was president during Reconstruction Era, a time when the 15 Amendment passed, and Amendment that Grant fully supported. This was a time of the Ku Klux Klan that Grant prosecuted and destroyed. Grant also created the Justice Department that gave the Attorney General broader federal prosecutorial power. The CSPAN artircle does not favor Grant, but rather focuses Grant's greatest faults or limitations, his adminstrative skills and economic management after the Panic of 1873. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hundreds of political scientists & historians have participated in the rankings--Grant is far below average in all but one (that one was made by non-historians who were british reporters). That's bad and Brands admits it. (He does not say where he ranks Grant) The problems a) corruption issue b) economic issue c) party issue (GOP was worse off after his 8 years) and d) Reconstruction (blacks were worse off after his 8 years and South was alienated at him using the army like a dictator would). Giving him a high score for trying to help blacks is nice--but he lost that war (blacks became worse off during his 8 years). Rjensen (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
H.W. Brands was part of the CSPAN survey and so was Brooks Simpson. Grant did help blacks, not try, ie he took on the Ku Klux Klan and defeated them. That is a double standard on Grant to state he ended Reconstruction and was a military dictator without putting any blame on militant conservative whites who fought against African American citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link for the participants in the CSPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey: Survey Participants Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed solution

1. Remove "far". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
2. Keep Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States link. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
3. Add Historian Survey Results Ulysses S. Grant source reference after the Brand 2012a source reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I assume this only is with respect to the lead sentence; if that is so, I am neutral between the present lead sentence and these changes but only if "much" is also dropped from the sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC) To clarify, if this is going to a vote, oppose 1, unless "much" is also struck. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The C-SPAN survey is already cited in the historical rankings article. I don't care about the word "far," although it's certainly accurate. So: 1-yes, 2-yes, 3-no. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
1. Yes 2. Yes. 3. Yes Adding the CSPAN source reference link completely backs up what is being stated in the article. Brands and Simpson are respected and reliable historians. Grant got 9 out of 42 in the Pursued Equal Justice for All category. I believe that is signifigant to warrant CSPAN as a source reference. I am not pushing the 9 out of 42. The CSPAN source reference also lists Grant's liabilities as an effective administrator and in his economic management of the country. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
please avoid personal views about what historians OUGHT to think but don't. Simon does not say Grant was a great president (he likes the first term but agrees the 2nd term was a disaster). Our job here is to look for the consensus of scholars which as multiple surveys shows is far below average 1. no I think "far" is exactly right and removing it is because of POV. 2. yes. 3. No -- it's being privileged for POV reasons. Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Simon (2002) page 254: President Grant was charged with the faults of his countrymen; the willingness of the North to abandon the principles of Reconstruction, the unwillingness of the government to assume responsibility for the economic welfare of its citizens, and the acquiescence of Americans in racism and corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
By editor concensus 2:1 I will remove "far" from the article. Is there any objection to removing "more" from the article? In my opinion, Editors should use reliable sources such as CSPAN or any other reliable survey of presidential rankings. We can't use Wikipedia articles as a source reference. Combining the aggregate averages has not been sourced. Why should a 2011 survey be grouped with a completely different survey done in 1948? Research on Grant has changed over the years and this should be reflected in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You're the only one who has anything against the aggregate rating. Let's move on, already. Your POV-pushing is becoming disruptive to the article's progress. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I am against using a Wikipedia article as a source reference for the article especially for an unsourced aggregate average ranking. For neutrality purposes I think that "much" needs to be removed from the lede since "far" was taken out. I am not POV pushing. I am all for emphasizing Grant's limitations as an administrator, at times he was terrible, and accept historical criticism of his economic management after the Panic of 1873. Grant relied excessively on Fish during his second Administration, particularly in vetoing the inflation bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I consider this matter closed unless further discussion is warranted. Thanks for editors who participated in the discussion. I am all for the article progression. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Next steps

The last round of clean-up and revision has done a world of good, to my mind. At the failed FA review, the delegate suggested an A-class review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military. I think it's not a bad idea. Do you folks think we should go that route, or just go back to FAC? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(Off-point but there is still a cite needed tag.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Got it! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
More :( There is an uncited (although untagged) sentence about the deal to end reconstruction, I clicked on the article link and the only source redily available was [1] which does not really say that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentence at the end? I thought it was just a summary of what came before in that paragraph and didn't need a cite. But if you think so, I'll look at some more sources when I get home tonight. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Shrug. Who knows, who may be the next picky reviewer. Also, if it's supported by the earlier cite then just move the cite down, right? There is at least one other uncited end sentence like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus and Alanscottwalker for all you edits on the article. Looks great ! If the article passes the A-class review, then in my opinion that would give more clout to get Grant to FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sale of assets questions

 Done This has been taken care of with a bit more from Brands and Perry (you can see what Perry lists as assets in one my edit summaries to the article, if you are really curious). Thanks for the work and the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


Our article talks about the sale of memorabilia, at the time of bankruptcy, but I am under the impression that all assets were sold, this would include, for example, whatever homes/stocks/etc he still owned? Can anyone look at their sources and confirm/expand? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant owed Vanderbilt $150,000 due to the Grant & Ward bankruptsy and I believe gave Vanderbilt memorabilia from his world tour and civil war. Vanderbilt later returned the memorabilia in full to Julia forgiving Grant's $150,000 debt. Grant may have had investments in a Mexican railroad and a Nevada silver mine. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I know he sold memorabilia, and that is of course a very poignant thing for him to have to do, but I was asking about his other property. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC) This says he sold "his home" [2] (probabely sale and lease back in NYC) but we know he had homes in NYC and Galena, (did he still own the one in Philly), I don't think he owned the one in Long Branch, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The one in Philly was gone by then, and Long Branch was a vacation rental. I'll look into the other homes some more this weekend, but my recollection was that the memorabilia covered (or was considered by Vanderbilt to cover) the total amount. I won't hang my hat on that until I consult the sources again, though. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A lot of Grant's assets and his retirement were already depleted due to his world tour. I think whatever money he had left was sunk into Grant & Ward, his supposed retirement. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Grant still owned the Galena home and his last visit there was in 1880. He must have willed the home to his children whom later donated the home to the City of Galena in 1904. Source: Ulysses S. Grant Home Cmguy777 (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
But the sale of assets was after 1880, and if Julia somehow got the home back later than it would not be Grant that willed it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this matters but Grant was given two stallions by the Sultan of Turkey on his world tour, one a pure bred Arabian. The horses apparently were used to sire horses to pull carriages. However, that venture went bust when automobiles took over horse drawn carriages. Those were worth some money. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Source: Ben Hur (May/Jun '47) Western Horseman General Ulysses S. Grant's Arabians

To reiterate the concern, the sale of memorabilia is very well noted repeatedly by everyone for obvious poignant reasons (and we should therefore note it too), but our article should not say that was all, if it was not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I found out a bit more on the horses. Grant gave Leopard the Arbian stallion to J.B. Houston of New York in 1883. Was this a payment for debt? I don't know. Grant gave the other stallion, Linden Tree, to his son Ulysses S. Grant Jr. in 1883. Prior in 1880, Randolph Huntington bred Grant's stallions in 1880, with or without Grant's permission or knowledge. The horses that were bred by Huntington in theory would be Grant's or his heirs. Unknown if Grant registered the horses in Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

he had kids — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Ulysses S. Grant's Lifelong Struggle With Alcohol". America's Civil War Magazine. June 12, 2006. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  2. ^ Josiah Bunting (8 September 2004). Ulysses S. Grant: The American Presidents Series: The 18th President, 1869-1877. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 31–. ISBN 978-0-8050-6949-5.