Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 12

Civil Service Commission mentioned in lede?
Should Civil Service Commission be mentioned in the lede as something historians admire concerning Grant ? McFeely (1974) page 134 states that Hoogenboom credits Grant for the Civil Service Commission. Smith (2001) on page 587-590 credits Grant for initiating civil service reform and the Civil Service Commission. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Another source: Coolidge (1922) Ulysses S. Grant page 400


 * Grant did take small steps toward civil service reform, but it's not what he's known for, not even in the top ten things he's known for. And it's not like we haven't spent some time on the lede already. It's probably the best compromise language we're going to get. Why re-open this discussion for the umpteenth time? Can't we let it go for a couple more weeks? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What sources state Grant took "small steps" towards Civil Service reform ? Curtis was very thorough in his rules and these rules and regulations were incorporated into the 1883 legislation. He was the first President to establish Civil Service reform and created the Civil Service commission in 1871 about 12 years ahead of Congressional Civil Service reform in 1883. I am not trying to reopen any issues. This is a discussion. My question was are there enough historians who admire Grant's Civil Service reform to mention the Civil Service Commission in the lede section? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I do not see the reason to revisit changing the lead reagarding civil service. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's how I see it: Is the lede already very long? Yes. Is the addition you propose so crucial that to leave it out would risk us having an incomplete description of Grant? No. It's fine as it is, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is fine...my query concerned whether there was enough historial consensus on recognizing Grant's contribution to Civil Service reform...apparently some historians admire Grant for the Civil Service Commission while others are indifferent... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical reputation section ?
How about this in the Historical reputation section:
 * "Certain historians credit Grant for his creation and implementation of the Civil Service Commission rules and regulations." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * More briefly:
 * "Certain historians credit Grant for implementing the first Civil Service Commission." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the lede, the historical reputation section is the subject of many compromises that you now, inexplicably, seek to undo. What has changed since last time we worked on this? Is there new scholarship that changes the consensus on Grant? I'm not aware of any. And I don't even think that statement you want to add is true. "Credit"? No. They acknowledge that there were the first stirrings of civil service reform during Grant's presidency, but I don't recall any of them crediting him with driving it. Quite the opposite, really. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have given three references above, isn't that enough ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Think not, because Grantism and Stalwartism would then need further discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, |8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are the three sources:
 * McFeely (1974) page 134
 * Smith (2001) pages 587-590
 * Coolidge (1922) page 400 Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Grantism and Stalwartism are seperate subjects that due not directly concern the Civil Service Commission ... Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure they do. Civil Service is a supposed antidote for patronage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes: the Stalwarts' excesses were what finally led the Congress to embrace civil service reform (well, that and Garfield's assassination). You still haven't answered my question: what has changed since the last time we discussed this? Why is this change warranted?--Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read this article : No Surrender U. S. G. "I am Determined to enforce those regulations." This may change your view on Grant and Civil Service Reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote: "In the glow of Republican victory, Senator Simon Cameron and Governor John Hartranft, both of Pennsylvania, pressured the president to suspend the civil service rules for the Philadelphia post office, an important source of patronage for the Republican Party in that state. Grant steadfastly refused, reaffirming his commitment to civil service reform." Kennedy (2001) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you go by that source, your sentence becomes: "Although it failed under his administration, certain historians credit Grant for implementing the first Civil Service Commission." Not worth it, imo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's a stretch. Best left out. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have supplied reliable sources but other editors have not supplied one source only editor opinion...Kennedy (2001) stated Grant reaffirmed his commitment to Civil Service reform, not that his Civil Service reform was a failure...Many of the regulations by Curtis were adopted into the 1883 Peddleton Act...Grant also ended what was known as political assessments according to Kennedy (2001) Cmguy777 (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been trying to paint Grant as a reformer since at least 2009. It's still not true. Even this source you're pushing now doesn't say that. Did you read it all the way to the end? "Without Curtis at its helm, the Civil Service Commission continued to struggle, and its funding was discontinued in December 1875 with the acquiescence of the Grant administration. On March 27, 1876 (a presidential election year), the reform rules were suspended indefinitely."  Do you get that? They kept the rules in place for a couple years, but as soon as a presidential election came up and they needed the patronage machine to get results, reform was out the window. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the Civil Service Commission, not to paint Grant as the reformer, rather to add neutrality to the article. At times Grant was a reformer and at times he was not. In December 1872 Grant stood firm on the Regulations established by the Curtis Commission even going against Senator Simon Cameron and Governor John Hartranft.  Grant took a stand on reform. Did Grant take a stand on reform in 1876 ? No. Why? Because Congress had refused to fund the Civil Service Commission or make its regulations into federal law. How were these rules suspended in 1876 ? That would have to be done by executive order. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying Grant suspended the rules? I hadn't thought about it, but I guess he did. I'm not sure that the article needs balance, or how this would make it more balanced. I think it paints an accurate picture as it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Kennedy (2001) stated the rules were suspended, but there is no executive order of Grant suspending the rules...I am not sure what Kennedy means that the rules were suspended since only Grant by executive order could suspend the rules. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They didn't really keep great track of executive orders until the early twentieth century, so who knows? It's not clear. All the more reason to leave this out of the historical reputation section. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe Kennedy (2001) is not the best source...not sure where he gets the information that the rules were suspended...yes...it is not clear... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant's return trip from California
The article does not answer how Grant got back from California to New York and I don't think this is obvious to the reader...I put in an edit that answers this left out information...did Grant hop an a plane and fly back coach to New York...I gave a reliable source...All of a sudden Grant is back in Missouri trying out farming without explanation...not sure how my grammar was inaccurate either... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand how frustrating this must be for you. What you added was true and would be helpful in a detailed narrative. For an encyclopedia article, though, specially this one that is already a bit too long, such detail is unwarranted.
 * There was nothing wrong with your grammar, but the sentence structure was awkward, with arguably a missing comma or two:
 * "Having returned to New York by ocean voyage Grant was penniless; his father Jesse sent him money for Grant's return to his wife and family."
 * A simple improvement would be, "Having returned to New York by ocean voyage, Grant was penniless; his father sent him money to return to his wife and family."
 * A better structure would have been, "In lieu of a court-martial, Buchanan gave Grant an ultimatum to resign; he did so, effective July 31, 1854. Arriving penniless in New York after an ocean voyage from California, he accepted money from his father to complete the return trip to St. Louis." I offer this not as a suggestion for another try at inserting the info, but as instruction in smoother writing. Yopienso (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the smoother righting Yopensio, but I believe your edit belongs in the article...how did Grant get back to New York...One sentence could answer that question if allowed in the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just quickly skimming the article, I don't see that mode of travel is given for any movement, including the world tour. I may have missed something, but it's safe to say that generally, we don't include such detail. Just imagine how the size would balloon if we added a line about each of Grant's movements! Yopienso (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Yopienso, that was my reasoning. The sentence was unnecessary and awkwardly phrased (ungrammatical may have been a poor choice of word on my part). Unlike the trip west through Panama, there was nothing significant about Grant's journey home. It's too much detail for an over-long article, something I believe we've discussed a time or two. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. The mode of travel is important. There is vast detail of Grant's travel by ocean voyage from New York to California but nothing on his return trip. My sentence was the link to his civilian struggles. He arrived back in New York virtually penniless and had to beg for a place to stay. I believe his friend Buckner gave him a place to stay at a hotel. In other words Grant was in immediate poverty the day he left the military. I believe that is signfigant information for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not add it to the Early Life subarticle? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can probably in more detail to the subarticle...Why not add just a connective sentence on how Grant got back to New York in the main article? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not worth it, we already say he lost his only vocation and detail struggle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Cmguy777, is this the "vast detail of Grant's travel by ocean voyage from New York to California"? ''An outbreak of cholera while traveling overland through Panama caused 150 fatalities among the entourage. Grant arranged makeshift transportation and hospital facilities to care for the sick.'' #1--The point of the passage is not the mode of travel, but Grant's helpfulness in crisis. #2--It's still probably too much detail, and appears to be tacked on out of place in the paragraph. Yopienso (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the westward voyage is worth including because of Grant's role in taking charge when everyone got cholera, but if the consensus is to delete it, that's OK with me. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was partly making the point that those two sentences don't give "vast detail" about Grant's travel, but a small detail about his resourcefulness and service. If both of you want to keep it, may I suggest this rewrite:
 * In 1852, Grant's next assignment sent him west to Fort Vancouver in the Oregon Territory. Julia, who was eight months pregnant with Ulysses Jr., did not accompany him. While traveling overland through Panama, an outbreak of cholera among his fellow travelers caused 150 fatalities; Grant arranged makeshift transportation and hospital facilities to care for the sick. He debarked in San Francisco during the height of the California Gold Rush. Yopienso (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's nice prose. If the other editors are amenable, I'd be glad to see that replace the current text. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That is good prose I am not opposed to the change...I think Grant did not allow Julia to travel overseas because he knew the voyage could be daunting, and it was. There were two ways to get to California, ocean routes and overland journey...The reader does not know how Grant got home...Also, when Grant was President he tried to get an inter oceanic canal...I believe his trip by ocean influenced his support for a Nicaraguan canal rather then a Panama canal. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would rather delete the tidbit altogether, but will make the suggested change since you both agree. I think it improves the article. Note that my only objection to the detail is that it seems expendable as editors work to reduce the article's length. Yopienso (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Too long
Can we agree to stop re-adding all the extraneous details we've spent the last year cutting out? This is already the longest GA/FA article on a president, and its length is the major issue preventing its FA promotion. Why make the problem worse? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern...I thought that his education was important and his work for his father while growing up and his detesting of the tannery...My edits have tried to be limited to one to two sentences or phrases...I tried to make the personal life more personal by describing Grant's loneliness on the Pacific Coast prior to his resignation...Why is the FA review process taking so long ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't say for sure. All of these changes and additions surely aren't helping. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think adding his education background and work on the farm was a good addition...I guess we have to wait of the FA then... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that his father paid to send him to a private boarding school is illustrative of the heavy pressure the family put on him. Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Section name change was a mistake
Changing the section name from Military career and family to Military career and personal life was a mistake because the two short sentences only mention marriage to his wife and names of children. ie.Family. It says nothing of Grant's personal life. Yes somewhere in the section it mentions rumors about Grant's drinking. This doesn't really warrant a section name change. The couple of contributing editors need to let others chime in and have a say before assuming total editorship over this article and making hasty changes. I said I would not make edits and would only offer advice, but it's becoming more difficult when changes like this occur and advice about other improvements continues to be roundly ignored. Evidently it's about time we called in other editors so they can offer their opinions. So far, the opinions of two or three seem to be calling all the shots here. --
 * No one is stopping anyone from having a say. Please do not start canvassing. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is allowed in several cases, but okay, I really don't want to go there and prolong matters. Really want to see this article hit the front page by April 9, or April 27, Grant's birthday. You've done great work but you need to loosen your grip just a bit. None of the proposals made are a threat to page length or FA and add to comprehensiveness while some changes recently made are not exactly appropriate, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Coemgenus has been very patient with you, Gwillhickers, and open to constructive input from all editors. Please lie low until FA status is achieved, and be careful afterwards not to jeopardize the status.
 * Coemgenus was so polite with you I'm not sure you understood "I'm struggling to find your limiting principle here" meant, "Whoa! You can't put every little detail that strikes you into the article!" Yet you are selective about those details--you want to make the Mexican-American War part bigger although RJensen has pointed out it was important to Grant but Grant wasn't important to it. You want to praise Grant for a brave--or fool-hardy--horse ride that was ultimately fruitless. Yet you downplay his drinking, for which he has been widely criticized. Another personal detail included in the renamed section is, "Grant tried and failed at several business ventures." Would you care to expand on that? (Please don't! Not that I think you would.) Yopienso (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making an issue of patience, and don't feel my passive advisory activity warrants it, thanks. Also, I wasn't downplaying Grant's drinking, but only pointing out that one item like this doesn't require a section name change. And if Grant's ride was inconsequential, or "fool-hardy", then why is it even mentioned at all?? I think you're downplaying that event, grossly, in terms of Grant's OBVIOUS bravery. So you expect me to "lie low", which i have been, not making any edits (save a caption and link tweak made some time ago) while a couple of editors continue to call nearly all of the shots while all advice involving missing details, definitive details, and other improvements are almost entirely ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Bowing out. Please consider some of the proposals. They are not a threat to FA or page length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Gwillhickers...the section states that Grant got married and lists the children he had...That is personal life in my opinion...Grant tried to look for ways to make money outside of the U.S. military...and he was drunk off duty...All these are personal life information. Cmguy777 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose either name is suitable, given the fact that there is barely any content for personal life or family. In any case I will chime in on the FAC page in the near future to comment on whether the article is still missing definitive content/details. i.e.Grant spent four years attending a seminary and then a boarding school in Maysville, Kentucky, which helped to prepare him for West Point. Four years of Grant's life. That's sort of a big gap that hasn't even been mentioned in this biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What sources state Grant went to a seminary and then a boarding school ? I would not oppose that information in the article if there are reliable sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly in the sources -- a sentence in Longacre, two in McFeely, one in Smith. The current text reads "Young Grant regularly attended school." I could see adding a few words, maybe. "Young Grant regularly attended school, including several years in nearby boarding schools. " Is that a fair compromise? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is anything that explains the level of schooling he got (which strikes me as a bit unusual for that time and place) that would be good. In thinking about his schooling, I am struck by his later desire to be a teacher, and that one of his prominent legacies is the book he wrote. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Virginius Incident photo
Any objections to putting the Virginius Incident photo and caption into the Foriegn Affairs section? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would object, because it's a low-quality jpg that would not have passed the image review in the A-class review, nor the one in the FA review. If you're willing to wait until we pass or fail at FA, I'll be happy to show you how to upload higher quality versions (and how to load them at Commons, where they belong), and would be glad to consider adding this one to the article. Can't we just wait on this? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a this photo would be good for the article...Is there any estimate the completion of FA review ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This might be the first time in world history a propelled torpedo ship was lauched to potentially defend the United States, ten year ahead of the British Navy. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this about the USS Alarm? We discussed it earlier, here. Or is this a different ship? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There were two propelled torpedo warships made...the USS Alarm (1873) and theUSS Intrepid (1874)... I believe Grant intended them more for coastal defense rather then used as an offensive ship...however...America did have the first two torpedo warships in the world to defend the United States...Grant knew that the European naval powers were superior...He kept Robeson on the cabinet because he believed he was doing the best he could with what Congress allowed... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Images issues linger
I have been wanting to double yoke images in sections that have two images for awhile now, but, one supposes that is another thing to wait, and wait, and. . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as we get the source review done, I think there will be nothing left to do on the FA. Just have to wait until someone does it. It is frustrating, but it's hard to get reviewers to work on an article this long and with this many sources. I'm grateful that as many have done so already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's still a few major gaps in the narrative. I added brief mention of Grant's ancestry, consistent with most if not all presidential biographies. FA's are supposed cover the entire subject well, not just some or most of the major topics. i.e.There's no mention of how Grant got his name (drawn by a lot at a family gathering). No mention of Grant's crippling injury, no mention of the years spent in Kentucky at private schools, and only cursory mention of Grant's boyhood experience with horses. i.e.Beginning at age eight he rode teams of horses hauling wood and did acrobatic stunts on horseback -- at age ten he was a teamster and road passenger coaches to and from town. Btw, Grant was rated the number 1 horseman in his class at West Point -- not mentioned. If all one is concerned about is coverage of Grant's involvement in the Civil War and terms as president the article is great -- but if you want to look into Grant the person, his family, etc, the biography could use some improvement there.  Still more than three weeks to go before April 9. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Farming
There seems to be some confusion on Grant's farming in the Civilian struggles section...Did Grant have his own farm and also farmed on his father-in-laws farm ? How many farms failed ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Moratorium on expansion
Most of the editors participating here would like to see this article featured next month. With that as a goal, I suggest holding off an any expansion, regardless of how interesting it may be to any individual, or indeed, how pertinent it may be to the article. It is primarily the length of the article that is keeping it from FA. Please see the latest comment from a reviewer:
 * I am with Karanacs, I'm afraid. It is just too long. I think one of the causes has been the breaking of particular aspects of his military and presidential tenures up into subject-based sections (Gold standard; judicial appointments; etc), which lends itself to a manner of writing that focuses on subject matter detail (which is often dealt with in split articles) rather than the biographical overview. Further, on a more micro level, even if that structure were retained there are numerous examples where two sentences could be slashed down to one, two paragraphs to one, etc. In Brianboulton's words, which I can only echo: "The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression" The prose is very good, but it's not as selective, summary-oriented or succinct as it needs to be. These length issues can certainly be fixed; that's why I haven't said "oppose". Though I reckon a completely independent editor might be the best person to do it - it is tough for those who have spent such significant effort writing the article to then cull it. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Main point: selection, summary, and succinct expression

Also, please note that involved editors here should not be chiming in there with their opinions. YoPienso (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I've been trimming some of the less crucial details, while trying to avoid cutting anything that's important to the article. I definitely agree that the article's length is the only issue likely to cause it to fail at FAC. I hope we can work together to avoid that fate. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cut the judicial section because 1) people complain 2) readers will not really miss it here as opposed to the the many other articles on Grant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually like that section, but in the interest of responding to the many, many concerns about length, I'll agree to cut it. I recall Cmguy777 once also cut that entire section, so I suspect you'll find consensus for that move. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no dislike for the section and it is quite informative -- it's not vital - he was no FDR when it came to court issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I oppose a Moratorium on expansion per say on the article. I am not in favor a single writer rewrite either. Editors have put in good effort to make the article better. I suggest that there be a 50,000 15,000-20,000 word cap on the article. I am for keeping the current sections because this helps the readers understand the issues and controversies during Grant's presidency. The article could be fine tuned and some additional information on Grant such as his personal life is warranted...As for the Judicial section I prefer discussion rather then abrubtly removing a section from the article...I would prefer replacing the Judicial section in the Presidency artcile by the Judicial section in the main article...I believe I initially opposed the Judicial section since Court decisions are supposedly made independent of the President...although the Court decisions are interesting... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 50,000 words is a novel! That would be nearly four times the current length which, after the recent cuts, 13,458 words. It's already too long, I doubt that making it Wikipedia's longest article would improve it. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the correction Coemgenus...I had thought you stated the article was over 40,000 words...I would put a 15,000-20,000 word cap on the article...that leaves room for additions.... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They will never buy it apparently (again, you wanted FA but it seems you did not know what you were asking for). As for the section it is not gone entirely, it is in the history, so it can be moved anywhere (do you need help with that?). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I know this is off subject but I thought Grant had expanded the Court...this is what FDR had tried to do in order to get his New Deal laws to be made Constitutional...maybe FDR borrowed court expansion from Grant... Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Moving it to the presidency article is a fine idea. Grant didn't expand the court. When Johnson was president, congress changed the law to reduce the court by one seat every time a justice died or retired, so Johnson could never appoint anyone. When Grant became president, they changed it back. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree the article may be too long, I don't think this moratorium is helpful, and instead we should identify sections that should be shortened or covered in other articles. p  b  p  20:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Comegenus...I would call that an expansion since the Court added another Justice...even if going back to the original persons on the Courth... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rather doubtful if it matters whether there is a moratorium on expansion - the "demand" is that it be cut down - well it has been, ask them when they will stop making such a demand. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

World Tour
I added information on Grant's discussion with Bismarck to clarify what kind of military matters were discussed...Grant's view are mentioned on the Mexican-American War but are (were) not mentioned concerning the Civil War. Some discussion of Grant's view on the Civil War should be in the article since he was the Commanding General. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good observation. IMHO it's time to start closing the last few gaps so we can begin condensing any content that is redundant or not very significant to Grant's life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement out of place?
In the Early life section a statement reads: -- As a general he rode the strongest and most challenging horse available, and was sometimes injured in riding.[9] -- Grant as general is not part of his early life. Recommend moving the statement/source to a more appropriate section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No I think the two-sentence statement [ In his youth, Grant developed an unusual ability to work with and control horses. As a general he rode the strongest and most challenging horse available, and was sometimes injured in riding] belongs in our coverage of his horsemanship, which he developed as a young man and kept all his life even as a general when it cost them several accidents. Breaking it into two widely separated statements is a disservice to readers.  Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jensen, if we move it down, it will look even more out of place there. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as there is a reliable reference I am for keeping in the Early life section for above reasons mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, the two statements, together, work well enough. While we're at it, horsemanship was one of Grant's trademarks, just as much as letter writing was one of Jefferson's. As such we might want to give the readers more than just a generic statement, typical of B-class articles. Recommend adding this (in bold) to the two existing statements. Btw, when Grant was a general the name of his horse, a gift, was Cincinnati. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In his youth, Grant developed an unusual ability to work with and control horses. At eight he could handle a team of horses hauling wood and at eleven he could handle a horse and plow. Well known for his ability, nearby farmers would bring hard to manage horses to town for Ulysses to train where crowds would often gather and watch.[ 1 ] As a general he rode the strongest and most challenging horse available, named 'Cincinnati' [ 2 ] and was sometimes injured in riding.[9]

Grant's horsemanship is certainly interesting, but I wouldn't add any more about it in the main article. It could certainly be a useful detail in the Early life subarticle, though, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more than slightly interesting... His reputation in the Army was for handling the horses and mules as the logistics officer in Mexico. His achievements in the Vicksburg campaign were closely involved with his handling of logistics: it was an extremely daring move to cut himself off from the supply line, and Grant was one of the few senior officers who fully understood what he was doing. He became notable at a young age, and in an era when horsemanship was a highly visible and valued skill, it marked Grant for a good deal of attention. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a little disappointing to see these sorts of things so easily dismissed as "interesting", but belong in a sub-article, as if Grant's experience with horses overall was some tangential thing that didn't factor into his character and entire military career. This biography simply needs to cover a couple of topics: 'Horsemanship' and 'private schools in Kentucky, Grant's first journey away from home, while a couple of major details still need to be added. i.e.Grant's hip injury that crippled him for the rest of his life (how did something as notable as this 'not' manage to get into the article years ago?) and probably the most defining moment in Grant's early military career, where he volunteered to deliver a dispatch taking him through enemy fire. This is a very definitive and insightful fact about Grant the young soldier. While these glaring gaps are being closed work on condensing some of the text throughout the biography, per the concern of the latest reviewer, can also occur. This could and should be happening very easily. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * New -- Though the article is missing a coupe of things which I think are important, overall it is a great article, and I have no trouble waving these items at this point. I've changed my vote at FAC from, Conditional support to Support. Very good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Judicial appointments
-- ASW, removing the entire Judicial appointment section was indeed a bold move, and perhaps a good one, considering, but we still might want to at least name the men Grant appointed, (Hoar, Strong, et al) just so this rather important topic is not overlooked completely. i.e.The term Judicial appointments is not even mentioned in the article anymore. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, most of the official functions of the presidency (such as judicial appointments) belong in the separate article on the grant presidency. Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The dedicated article for Grant's Presidency should cover such appointments, and in a fair amount of detail. Grant's presidency is one of the cornerstone topics to this biography however. It would really be appropriate to at least mention Judicial appointments by name/link, like all presidential articles, and so there is some sort of overlap with such important topics. What else are we going to add to the list of missing topics and major details? Because the Civil War is nicely covered this will evidently be what carries this article over the FAC finish line. Page length is down but look what had to be done. (!) Most supporting reviewers have not made page length an issue, and none said they would disapprove on that note alone, so I can only hope a little more forethought go into the future editing of the article and ultimately at least the mention a few of the greater details. Best of luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker already re-added some of it in a note: --Coemgenus (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Judicial decisions are made independent of the President. Grant's choice of Morrison Waite turned out to be detrimental to civil rights for African Americans undermining Reconstruction laws. Waite was not Grant's first choice either. Conkling and Fish did not want to serve as Chief Justice. Public service seemed to be at an all time low during the Gilded Age. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The footnote only mentions Waite and Hart and they are only referred to as 'nominees', not identified as Judicial appointments or actual judges, while the footnote doesn't mention Stanton, Strong, Bradley, Hunt ... There is nothing in the body of text referring to Judicial appointments. The term Federal judge doesn't even occur. Nearly all presidential articles cover judicial appointments with a subsection. All FA presidential articles cover the topic very well. I can understand the deletion of the bulk of the content, but to erase the topic entirely sorta flies in the face of FA coverage requirements, not to mention good writing and editorship. Page length has not been stressed in proportion to the amount of duress that's been ascribed to it. Strongly recommend at least a narrative mention of the topic, with names and links. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but am not sure what your point was. The entire omission of coverage of judicial appointments is of issue here. You expressed reservations of deleting content just recently. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Very few of the other presidential biographies have a companion article on the presidency. That in my opinion is where all the discussion of judicial appointments belongs. There are no FA rules regarding judicial appointments. Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are FA rules regarding coverage. Saying nothing about an important topic tends to challenge the idea -- and tells the readers to 'go fish'. Presidential appointments are among the main topics in the biography. Not mentioning these appointments at all is an extreme measure. The article should make brief mention of judicial appointments. Most sub articles have a healthy amount of overlap, which is practical. Did not this section help the article pass GA and A-class reviews? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I used nominee because that is their formal connection to Grant, he nominates (Grant is the sole focus of this article) - that they made it to the court is also made apparent by rendering decisions/dissents for the court. On the the other two that made it to the court, Bradley and Strong (who is Hart?), I am indifferent to linking them in this article.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who wrote that section and pushed for its inclusion, and even I'm on board with moving it to the Presidency subarticle. We all must compromise, and I don't want to fight my fellow editors' consensus on this one or waste their time with endless arguments. Let's stick with what we have now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the Supreme Court appointments should be listed, in either a bulleted list or a table, with the years of appointment. Any other detail should be siphoned off to a daughter article.  p  b  p  13:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK - I tried one out.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ASW, the table of Judicial appointees looks nice and seems like an adequate compromise. If the article lends itself to the presidency as much as it does, the least we can do is mention some of the main topics associated with it. Again, let's not base our editing decisions solely on page length concerns, as most supporting reviewers have made no issue with the idea, and no one has said they will 'not' pass this FAC on that premise alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alan, that looks good to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Grant's judicial appointments are important, but their rulings really have nothing to do with Grant as President...as far as I know Presidents can not constitutionally influence judicial decisions...Waite is a primary example of how once nominated and confirmed judicial appointments are independent of the Presidency and for that matter Congress...Waite's decisions countered Grant's reconstruction policies...that should be kept in the article... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Covering any President's appointments often gives added insights into the machinations of that presidency and Waite is an excellent example. I wouldn't object to a brief statement of Waite if concerns a notable event, and it seems this is. You might also want to precede the statement with a general opening: "Of the several appointments made by Grant, only Waite's decisions ... etc". We should keep ASW's table, but obviously we should give something to the readers besides a chart and a pat on the back, and run par (+ -) with nearly all other president's articles here. Frankly, we shouldn't have just cut off one main branch, but rather trim lesser branches throughout the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the table, it is now sitting in the Election of 1876, section. When the appointments were in their own subsection it preceded this subsection, both of which come under the main section of Presidency 1869–77. I would restore the subsection, keep it where it was, and place ASW's table and Cm's words into it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yellowstone National Park
I was wondering if the creation and running of Yellowstone National Park, America's first national park, should be mentioned in a sentence in the Presidency section...This would be a highlight of Grant's presidency...no scandals involved...and would add to the neutrality of the article...Grant signed the legislation that created the park and his Interior Department under Secretary Delano organized the federal expedition whose findings helped Congress make that legislation that created the park. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.  Adjust as needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alanscottwalker ! I am glad we are in agreement...I might move the sentence into the Presidency introduction second paragraph...was the creation of Yellowstone National Park a reform? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c)::::Well, for anyone who has read the history of Yellowstone surely it re - formed the way public lands are treated far into the future (which is why it is worth mentioning, if it is worth mentioning).  The big issue was could the public protect unique nature, instead of setting it aside for railroads and mining, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding it is fine with me, but the current location has it just dropped in completely out of context. Alan's original placement makes more sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that we've discussed Yellowstone on three previous occasions. In the future, it might be good to search the talk page archives first, to avoid having the same arguments over and over again. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. I have no objection to it being removed. At any rate it does not fit in the first section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me to add it, but, yeah, the section you originally put it in makes more sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The current edit is acceptable as long as there is mention of protection from private land encroachment...that makes Yellowstone a reform...thanks to all the editors who participated in the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yellowstone is very important (I live nearby!) -- but you need a RS to say that Grant himself played a major role, rather than just signing a bill. according to the index to his papers in 1872 he never mentioned it in any of his letters. biographers McFeeley Brands & Smith do not mention it at all, and neither should we. Put in Presidency article.  Rjensen (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen (talk) 07:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian wars
Indian wars were 15 in 1875 starting at 101 in 1869. There were 44 Indian wars by 1877. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying there were 101 Indian wars going on in 1869? That seems high. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There were 101 battles going on in 1869...By 1875 there were 15 battles...however...in 1876 battles escalated and by 1877 there would be 44 battles, a signifigant set back for Grant's peace policy...Overall Indian wars went down...I believe battles decreased under the Hayes Administration after the Great Souix War ended. The battles were between Indians and U.S. Army and/or settlers... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you by any chance quoting from an older revision of this article? Or maybe from this copycat? It's cited to Michno.
 * I don't know if Michno in fact says that, or why Coemgenus dropped the assertion from the article on Sept. 14, 2013. YoPienso (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been a while, but I think I dropped it because there was nothing connected to the cite except the name "Michno", without any attachment to any book or journal article. This was a problem we came across often in the old version of the article. It was a mess. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I found it in the Google book, p. 354. President Grant is mentioned only twice in the book, so far as I can tell from snippets. (Not a great way to research!) The other is on p. 248, which isn't visible. YoPienso (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)