Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 20

First and second term corruption
I think there needs to be more article information on first and second term corruption in the Guilded age corruption and reform" section. These would include "Collectors of Customs" and "Washington D.C. and Freedman's Affairs". "Black Friday: Gold Panic of 1869" has been covered in another section. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's already one of the longest sections! Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it as an overview and leave the longer discussion in that sub-article you created? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it would in detail. I am only talking one or two sentences. The "Collectors of Customs" is important because Grant appointed Chester A. Arthur. Apparently Grant viewed Arthur as a reformer before his presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you thinking of adding? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Grant cleared Howard, who was accused of poor administration of the Freedman's Savings Bank after the Panic of 1873 and also Grant was "Mayor" of Washington D.C. There is also Babcock's indictment in April 1876 to "injure and oppress Columbus Alexander" but he was aquitted of that. Babcock was in charge of the Secret Service. Grant replaced Murphy by Chester A. Arthur in 1871 to direct the New York Customs House. There is more. I have not yet made a sample edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sample edit

 * "An 1872 Congressional investigation revealed corruption in the New York Custom House. Grant responded by firing George K. Lete who had worked for Collector of New York Thomas Murphy, a Grant appointment. Grant earlier replaced Murphy by Chester A. Arthur in December 1871. In 1874 Grant transfered General O.O. Howard, commissioner of the Freedman's Saving Bank, to the Northwest after being cleared by a court of inquiry into the disfunct Freedmen's Bureau." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Source: McFeely 1974 pp. 141, 145 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Just throwing them in there as non sequiturs doesn't really help the reader much, I think. Isn't it better to direct them, as we do now, to Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals, where they can read about all of these scandals in detail? If we add enough detail to explain all of the scandals in Grant's administration, the section will take up half the article, and make it look like Grant's time in office was nothing but scandal. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the New York Customs House deserves mention. Grant fired a corrupt business associate George K. Lete and replaced Murphy. I thought this would add to neutrality. Grant doing something about corruption. Hoogenboom credits Murphy's replacement, Arthur, for reducing corruption at the New York Customs House. Maybe there is a way to reduce the information to one or two sentences. There was corruption in the Grant administration but he did something about it. That is Hoogenboom's view. It is a wonder there were any honest people during the Gilded Age. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Customs House was important. Let's see if we can get the description to be adequate without being too long, and get it in there. I think Lete is less important to mention than Murphy, who's a more notable and notorious figure. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is fine...Mentioning Arthur would be good since Hayes, Conkling, and Arthur had an imbroglio over the New York Customs House. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sample edit 02

 * "In November 1871 Grant's Collector of New York Thomas Murphy resigned office and was replaced by Grant appointment Chester A. Arthur. An 1872 Congressional investigation revealed there was corruption in the New York Custom House under Murphy." Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this:


 * In 1871, Thomas Murphy, the Collector of the Port of New York and a member of New York Senator Roscoe Conkling's political machine, was forced to resign. Murphy, a Grant appointee to the patronage-rich position, had become embroiled in a dispute with another faction of the Republican party over the jobs at his disposal, and was accused of corruption in office (the latter charge was confirmed in an 1872 congressional investigation). His unpopularity in the party and unsavory reputation led Grant to demand Murphy's resignation. He appointed Chester A. Arthur, a more popular Conkling man, to replace him.
 * I think it's long, but without the added context, it's just a bunch of names and dates. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been creeping back to its old overlength in the past year. Before we add this, I'd like to tighten up the language in that section to make room and avoid bloat. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If "tightening up" the language means keeping context, then that is fine. Hoogenboom says Arthur actually implemented civil service reform at the New York Customs House. Also Grant fired Lete after the Congressional investigation. I would want the paragraph to be more about Grant and Arthur then Murphy or Conkling. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant tightening elsewhere to make up for the material we would be adding. Nothing drastic, just phrasing things more concisely. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Arthur should be mentioned as someone who implemented Civil Service Reform...according to Hoogenboom...at the New York Customs House. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As Collector? I don't think he did. As I remember, he mostly carried out the same policies as everybody else. Arthur's only contribution to civil service reform was signing the Pendleton Act in 1883. He didn't actually steal anything, if that's what you mean. It was all honest patronage, by the standards of the times, but it was the old spoils system, not reform. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what McFeely (1974) p 145 says:
 * "A student of civil service reform [Hoogenboom, Civil Service Reform, pp 80, 90] contends that the "administration of the New York Custom-house improved steadily" after Arthur replaced Murphy. He also points out that the worst abuses had occured in the administration of Andrew Johnson when, according to Grant's Civil Service Commission, headed by reformer George William Curtis, "the evils of the 'spoils' system culminated" Cmguy777 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe Arthur instituted testing at the New York Customs House. Wouldn't that be Civil Service reform ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Arthur did not create a merit selection process in the Custom House. In fact, I'm not sure he had the power to do so. I don't recall reading about it in any of the Arthur biographies I used when I wrote his article here, but I'll take a look again this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For the lower tier positions I believe he had a testing system to improve the quality of people working. Here are two New York Times articles for background information: Mr. Murphey's Resignation The New York Times (November 21, 1871) and The General Order Business The New York Times (March 11, 1872) Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Arthur is described as "a perfectly honest man"..."a man of great ability, that his character is without reproach, and that he possesses energy, industry, and good business qualities"..."he is well known to be in favor of those reforms upon which the people have wisely set their hearts." Mr. Murphey's Resignation The New York Times (November 21, 1871) Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is refreshing how newspapers in that era did not even pretend to be objective! But neither article suggests that Arthur initiated civil service reforms at the Custom House. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hoogenboom says the administration of the New York Custom-house under Arthur "improved steadily". I would take that to mean Civil Service reform meaning more qualified people were being hired. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The biography doesn't mention Grant's third collector appointment, Chester A. Arthur, who was the one who actually implemented Boutwell's reform. Nor does it mention that Boutwell was the one who had implemented reforms that reduced public cartage. Not sure if this merits mention here but thought you should know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to one biographer Arthur lowered the amount of people to be replaced to 2 3/4 % a year as opposed to 28% by his predecessors and persons were promoted on recommendation by the head of bureaus. General Chester A. Arthur Biographical sketches of Gen'l James A. Garfield and Gen'l Chester A. Arthur page 92 David Jenkins Nevan (1880) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevin states Arthur made reforms in the Customs House on page 92. I suggest saying Arthur made reforms. I can't find any source that states he implemented testing, but I thought I had read somewhere he had...why not say "who made reforms in the Customs House" ? This coincides what Hoogenboom contends that Arthur "improved" the Customs House. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggested rewrite: "In November 1871, Thomas Murphy, the Collector of the Port of New York and a member of New York Senator Roscoe Conkling's political machine, was forced to resign by Grant who was accused of corruption in office (a charge confirmed in an 1872 congressional investigation). Murphy, a Grant appointee to the patronage-rich position, had become embroiled in a dispute with another faction of the Republican party over the jobs at his disposal. In December, Grant appointed Chester A. Arthur to replace Murphy who made reforms and reduced patronage at the Customs House." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're conflating personal honesty with civil service reform. Arthur didn't make false assessments to increase his salary under the moiety system, it is true, but not stealing is a pretty low bar for calling someone a reformer. Arthur was a dedicated spoilsman, which is why he got the job. Here's what I wrote in his article (you can check out the cites there for more information): "Among those who dealt with the Custom House, Arthur was one of the era's more popular collectors.[59] He got along with his subordinates and, since Murphy had already filled the staff with Conkling's adherents, he had few occasions to fire anyone.[60] He was also popular within the Republican party as he efficiently collected campaign assessments from the staff and placed party leaders' friends in jobs as positions became available.[47] Arthur had a better reputation than Murphy, but reformers still criticized the patronage structure and the moiety system as corrupt.[54]" The reason he fired few workers? They were almost all Conkling men already, thanks to Murphy. To be honest, none of this episode qualifies as reform, and we probably wouldn't even be talking about it except that it led to the rise of Arthur in NY state politics. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There seem to be mixed reviews on Arthur...Hoogenboom says he "improved" the Custom House. Nevan said he made reforms...What about all the rules he made and established at the Custom House in March 1872...Aren't those reforms ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to say administration improved under Arthur, there seems to be authority for that, but to say he instituted civil service reform (i.e., merit selection), as you say above? I don't think that actually happened. Arthur was better than his predecessor because he assessed the customs accurately, which is not so much a reform as it is the bare minimum expected of a government official. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going by Hoogenboom who said Arthur steadily improved the Custom House and Nevan who said Arthur made reforms. I think his March 9, 1872 general order of rules were the reforms Nevan was talking about. Also Arthur let heads of the Bureaus choose who would work at the Custom House. I am not sure if testing was done at the lower levels. For now that is fine saying the Custom House improved under Arthur who made reforms...or just use Hoogenbooms quote, "steadily improved". I would not say Civil Service reform unless Arthur had instituted testing. He favored Republicans but apparently wanted qualified Republicans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How about: "In November 1871, Thomas Murphy, the Collector of the Port of New York and a member of New York Senator Roscoe Conkling's political machine, was forced to resign. Murphy, a Grant appointee to the patronage-rich position, had become embroiled in a dispute with another faction of the Republican party over the jobs at his disposal and was accused of corruption in office (a charge confirmed in an 1872 congressional investigation). In December, Grant appointed Chester A. Arthur, another Conkling man, to replace Murphy, and administration of the Customs House steadily improved." --Coemgenus (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is acceptable...I still think "steadily improved" needs more definition...I thought Arthur may have instituted testing after Grant implemented Civil Service in 1872 following the report of the Civil Service Commission...but your edit Coemgenus as is looks good. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Coemgenus (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Grant's civil service rule #7
This rule may have affected Arthur. Apparently there was a "board of examiners" established for the New York Customs House. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "7. When a vacancy occurs in the office of collector, appraiser, surveyor, or other chief officer in any customs district not specified in the preceding regulation, applications in writing from any subordinate or subordinates in the customs service of the district, or from other person or persons residing within the said district, may be addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, inclosing proper certificates of character, responsibility, and capacity; and if any of the subordinates so applying shall be found suitable and qualified, the name or names, not exceeding three, of the best qualified shall be certified by the board of examiners to the Secretary, and from this list the nomination or appointment will be made; but if no such subordinate be found qualified, the said board shall certify to the Secretary the name or names, not exceeding three, of the best qualified among the other applicants, and from this list the nomination or appointment will be made. If, however, no applicants under this regulation shall be found suitable and qualified, the vacancy will be filled at discretion. Appointments to all other positions in the customs service in said districts may be, until otherwise ordered, excepted from the operation of the rules." Ulysses S. Grant: "Executive Order," April 16, 1872. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Arthur reformed the practice of storing goods in private warehouses. That is why Grant fired Leet and why Murphy was investigated. The New York Custom House Scandal Cmguy777 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's true about the warehouses, I think, but be careful about what you read in self-published books. They're not usually considered reliable sources here. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the self-published books source. Morgan's (1970) "The Gilded Age" would be a reliable source but I think the book is out of print. I don't have a copy of the book. I think it maybe found at local our university libraries. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Gilded age, 1970 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's where I got my copy. A bargain! --Coemgenus (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Great...If you have your copy Coemgenus can you use that as a source for the paragraph ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For what we agreed on above? I thought you had already written that based on sources. It should be sourceable to the ones we already use, I would think. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If I had the book I would add it as a source since Grant was a Gilded Age president...The one source was self published...Morgan as far as I know would add some useful insight into Grant's administration. Also Simon wrote an article on "Ulysses S. Grant and Civil Service Reform". That would be another good source addition. If necessary I would just use McFeely (1974) as the source for the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can source it tonight or tomorrow, and adjust the text if the sources contradict it. It disturbs me that we wrote something and then tried to source it, rather than reading the sources and summarizing them, but I'm as much to blame as anyone else. That's the reverse of how it should be, though, and its how POV writing creeps into articles. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus the first source for the initial paragraph was McFeely 1974 pp. 141, 145. That reference can be used for your paragraph. However, the Morgan (1970) source can add clarification to the McFeely source. I don't think it is POV. Grant's civil service order 7 affected the New York Custom House in the first year of Arthur's tenor as collector. I think the issue is that historians cover Hayes and Arthur in detail but not Grant and Arthur. This does not take away that Arthur was a "Gentleman Boss" and Conkling man. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was an NPOV violation on its face, I was just concerned about our methods, but I misunderstood. McFeely is a fine source, I have no problem with that. I don't have it, though, so I would need you to add the page citations. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you have the Morgan (1970) book Coemgenus does that give more information on Grant and Arthur or Arthur's tenor as collector during Grant's presidency ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Page 77 in the Morgan (1970) book is interesting. Arthur and Curtis were selected to be on a Committee of three to select a qualified custom house employee...Also Curtis was ill...Did this affect Civil Service reform ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also pages 84 and 87 in Morgan (1970) are interesting concerning Arthur as collector under Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We should probably avoid the nitty-gritty of Arthur's time in the Custom House. It's tangential to Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was trying to relate this to Grant since he issued Civil Service reform by executive order and order 7 directly pertains to the "customs district". Order 7 mentions a "board of examiners". Maybe this is a tangential subject...As far as your paragraph goes I believe the McFeely (1974) reference will suffice. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Grant ecology, scientific exploration, and Yellowstone
Should there be a section in the Ulysses S. Grant article giving Grant credit for creating Yellowstone, U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, the Weather Bureau, for signing a law limiting seal harvesting in Alaska, arctic exploration, and exploration into Yellowstone ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We've discussed Yellowstone on five previous occasions already, including a huge drawn-out talk page fight the last time. As a result, we actually did include Yellowstone. It's in the article right now! So Grant already gets "credit" for it (not that giving people credit for things is the point of an encyclopedia article). We also discussed the fur seals business at the same time, and agreed it belonged in the Presidency article. Unless there's been some shift in Grant scholarship I don't know about, I don't see why we would change that consensus and bloat this article further. The fisheries commission and weather bureau are trivia that no Grant biographer mentions once. Even including them in the Presidency article would be a stretch. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not call the fisheries commission and weather bureau trivial, people actually work there today and make a living. Are those people trivia ? Both of those entities started by Grant offer scientific information and research today on the web just like wikipedia does. Do historians give a hoot about science ? Did McFeely, Smith, or Brands take any science courses in their education? Presidential articles should be neutral and cover a wide range of topics. The federally funded Yellowstone expedition by Grant led to the legislation that created Yellowstone. The Polaris expedition ended in failure because the leader was killed by arsenic poisioning by a doctor who had German sympathies. A whole book was written on the expedition. I believe these are worthy of discussion in a seperate section. National Weather Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The seal hunting limitation I believe was the first animal preservation by a President. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Our job isn't to criticize the efforts of every Grant biographer, but to summarize their scholarship. The summary of their scholarship in the fisheries and the weather bureau is: none of them wrote a single word about it. There is absolutely no justification for including something in this article something that every Grant historian ignored in their much longer works on the man. As to the other topics, I asked you what in Grant scholarship has changed since the last five times we discussed this. The answer, as you know, is "nothing". Why must we re-argue the same issues year after year when nothing has changed? Do you not understand how tendentious it is? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree in assuming that because Grant scholars ignore subjects such as ecology and exploration that makes ecology and exploration trivia. Certainly the Lewis & Clark expedition and Jefferson gets alot of attention by scholars. I don't think asking if scholars have any scientific background or training is criticism of their respected works. Grant has been critisized for the extermination of the buffalo in the presidency article. Yellowstone has been mentioned in the Grant article as been stated. I am not argueing what scholars say concerning Grant. I want to give the reader a neutral point of view concerning Grant and 19th century hunting and fishing practices and exploration. I thought best this could be done in a section. I am for editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

John Y Simon article on Grant and civil service reform
John Y. Simom, a Grant scholar, wrote an article Ulysses S. Grant and Civil Service Reform found in Hayes Historical Journal 4 Spring 1984 9-27. I believe this article would add value to the Presidency section. Does any editor know how to get public access to this article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fringe; environmentalism; and POV
The following is in dispute:
 * Besides civil rights, issues of environmental protection have also attracted historiographical attention. Historian Joan Waugh, in her generally favorable book, says Grant appreciated the beauty of the West, and in 1872 signed the law establishing the country's first national park at Yellowstone. However, she argues:

"... he approved of projects that took great swaths of land and opened them to timber, cattle, land speculators, and millions of settlers ... the idea of preserving the region's environment and concerns about industrial pollution were of much less importance to Grant ..."


 * One of Grant's highlights was setting aside 3,472 square miles (8,991 km2); 2,221,766 acres or 899,116 hectares for public use that preserved wildlife, including the buffalo, and natural land formations, called Yellowstone Park. Grant also set up the Department of Fish & Game to preserve fish populations in addition to signing legislation to limit seal hunting in Alaska. It is POV to apply 21 Century environmental standards to 18th Century industrial standards and fringe to distort history. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The environmentalist movement we have today started in the 1950's and 1960's in the U.S. The first pollution act in the U.S. was passed in July 14, 1955 under another West Point General and President Eisenhower. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean when you say "The following is in dispute". Does that mean you are re-starting a dispute over it? I'd be glad to leave the section out entirely, but if it stays it should stay as the balanced paragraph that eleven editors spent a week carefully crafting. If there's been no new scholarship on the subject, I can't see what justification you have for upsetting that balance. Did you forget that you were a party to that agreement? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What agreement? This is wikipedia. Editors are volunteer not on a contract. I don't recall being part of the FA discussion. Waugh is not accurate and completely biased concerning environmentalism and Grant. Her 21st century enviromentalism should not be part of the of the article. No other 19th Century president is under this much scrutiny except Grant. The sentences should be taken out on Grant and environmentalism. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Brands barred from historical analysis
I have tried to insert a Brands quote and analysis of Grant and has been censured. Foner is not Brands nor does he speak for Brands. Foner is anti-Brands. You started the edit war Coemgenus by reverting my edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Foner review of Brands's book has been a part of the article since it pass its FA review. Book reviewers do not purport to "speak for" the authors of the works their review, obviously. Reviewers read a book and give their summary and analysis of it. We added the Foner review back then, I believe, because it places Brands's book in context and adds a respected scholar's thoughts on it. When you added another sentence from Brands's book, you were just duplicating the essence of the large blockquote we already have from Brands.
 * So, I did not "censure" you [sic]. I removed a repetitive, ungrammatical, misspelled sentence that added nothing to the article. I expected you to then discuss it here, per the WP:BRD formula. I'm glad that you eventually agreed to do so rather than engaging in further edit-warring. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not repetative because Foner and Brands are two different authors. Foner's critisism and misrepresentation of Brands, at best his own views on Brands, does not substutitute for Brands own words in any manner. To say that Brands and Foner are one in the same author is misleading to the reader and false or to insinuate that Foner in any way represents Brands opinion is sloppy history and conjecture. Brands view of Grant is more posititve then Foners but Foner is the only author allowed in the paragraph. Foner is not a Grant biographer, but a Grant critic. Foner's assesment is not even on Grant but rather Brands book. Brands does not say Grant gave up on Civil Rights as Foner contends. Wikipedia should not promote pet authors such as Foner over Brands. That is POV. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "To say that Brands and Foner are one in the same author is misleading to the reader and false or to insinuate that Foner in any way represents Brands opinion is sloppy history and conjecture." Who has said this? Brands represents Brands, and we cite his book dozens of times in the article, including in this very section. Foner represents Foner, and we cite him where appropriate.
 * "Foner's assesment is not even on Grant but rather Brands book." Yes, that's how book reviews work! We also include John Y. Simon's review of McFeely's book for the same reason: to show how the work was received by other scholars in the field. We quote Russell Weigley's review of Smith's 2001 book for the same reason. None of this is controversial, just basic historiography, and we all agreed to it many months ago. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never agreed to this. Its simply sloppy history. Assessments of authors goes in authors articles not the Grant article. That is sneaky way to criticize Grant and mislead the reader to think that this is actually Brands own interpretation of Grant rather then Foners who used Brands to critisize Grant. I added Brands view and that was instantly deleted and declared repetative. That is double speak. Why can't historians speak for themselves ? Brands assessment of Grant's civil rights act is being barred from the article. Foner is a McFeely clone. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Both sentences in the paragraph identify Foner as the source of the statements, so I don't see how you're confused about what it means. And Brands's assessment of Grant is not barred from the article but is in the previous paragraph. As to Foner being "a McFeely clone," I'm not sure which works of his you've read, but I don't agree with that flippant contention. They did both win the Pulitzer Prize, though, so maybe that's what you meant? I can't really understand your other complaints, but I don't think insulting renowned historians and accusing me of bad faith is going to solve the problem. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I am not accusing you Coemgenus of bad faith editing. It was my edit that was deleted from the article not yours. McFeely and Foner both believe Grant gave up on Reconstruction. Neither Brands nor Smith contend this. Foner is being sneaky in using Brands to critisize Grant and make it read as if he is writing for Brands, who in actuality says Grant's Civil Rights Act was the most ambitious law prior to the 1960s. Smith contends Grant stood alone in supporting Southern Reconstruction the last two years in office. Allowing other historians to evaluate other historians in the article in my opinion is sloppy history. I would have advised against using different authors to interpret other authors works in the article. Winning the Pulitzer Prize does not immune authors from criticism. I don't believe in ivory tower immunity of authors when winning the Pulitzer Prize sells more books. As far as I know Foner's review of Brands book did not win the Pulitzer. Maybe it should have... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm really trying to meet you half-way here, but I'm having a hard time seeing what you're so bothered about. Here's the Foner paragraph: "As Reconstruction scholar Eric Foner wrote, Brands gave 'a sympathetic account of Grant's forceful and temporarily successful effort as president to crush the Ku Klux Klan, which had inaugurated a reign of terror against the former slaves.' Foner adds that by 1875 Grant had given up rescuing the blacks, saying the public was tired of them, concluding that 'Grant's unwillingness to act reflected the broader Northern retreat from Reconstruction and its ideal of racial equality.'" How is Foner "being sneaky" here? And even if he is saying things you disagree with, how does that matter? Shouldn't the article show the full range of historical opinion about Grant? It's not as though Foner is some fringe figure--he's probably the greatest living scholar of Reconstruction. Why would we exclude him? I truly don't understand your objection, other than that you disagree with his conclusions about Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First I never deleted the Foner paragraph. That is a straw man. My Brand's quote was deleted. That is what is in contention. Brands is being barred from the article and censored. Foner should not supercede Brands in the article because Foner won a Pulitzer. Brands does not contend Grant gave up on Reconstruction. "the greatest living scholar on Reconstruction". That shows your bias Coemgenus toward Foner. Where is the meeting halfway part ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said you deleted anything! And I did say I'd meet you half-way, but I can't because I don't even understand what you're so angry about. Brands "being barred from the article and cens[o]red"? He's cited dozens of times and quoted in the very section we're speaking of! And do not accuse me of bias. Personal insults don't help anything. Why not just calm down and try to help me understand what's got you so angry? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Brands said Grant's Civil Rights Act of 1875 was the most ambitious law until the 1960's. I added this to the article. This was deleted by you Coemgenus from the article i.e. censored. Also disputed is Foner's accusation that Brands said Grant gave up on Reconstruction. This is not true. Brands never said this. I am not upset. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Censorship is when the government prevents you from speaking or writing. We're just two Wikipedia editors who disagree about a section of an article. No one is persecuting you.
 * 2. Foner didn't say that. Read the paragraph again. The first sentence is Foner describing Brands's book. The second sentence is Foner's own opinion, which differs from Brands's. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

edit break 01

 * I think were getting somewhere. We can drop the censorship discussion. As for Foner the article says, "Foner adds that by 1875 Grant had given up rescuing the blacks" Brands says no such thing and the insuation is that Brands is supporting this statement in the paragraph. In fact Brands said Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 calling that legislation the most ambitious since the 1960's. That is a far thing from "given up". The term "rescuing the blacks" is offensive. These blacks were U.S. Citizens under the 14th amendments and had voting rights under the 15th amendments. Grant wanted to prevent violent actions against blacks giving them the right to public accommodations. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the change you made is fine. I made a minor change and fixed the spelling. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Grant memorial dedication video link
The Grant memorical dedication link in Washington D.C. is not spam but according to the website public domain. The viewer has free access to the video and does not have to purchase to see the video...Some JASTOR articles the readers have to pay to see the sources...That is not considered SPAM. The readers also have to buy Grant biographer books or check them out at libraries if available. I am not against the deletion of the video...The link was meant to offer the viewer free viewing of the Grant memorial dedication on April 22, 1922. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, my edit, although I mistyped it did say sorry. I do think it technically falls into WP:SPAM, but I am not trying to be doctrinaire. The thing is, 1) it had a link name like "buy something" 2) it had propositions for selling things all over it; 3) it's only kind of relevant; 4) If its PD than we have Commons to upload it to, without selling anything; 5) If we allow that kind of link, it will just encourage more selling links, and not just in this article. So, those are my thoughts, and no I never thought you had any bad intent with it, whatsoever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I understand your point of view Alanscottwalker. The reader had full access to the video without any purchases. I understand there may have been advertisements for purchases on the website. I looked on the Library of Congress Cite to find the video but could not find any. There was not much on Archive.org either. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Pusey
I cleaned up the errors in the latest editions, which are fine, if unnecessary. I'm not sure the text from Pusey belongs in that section, though, since its an historical fact, not an historiological analysis. Maybe we could shift it to the civil rights/reconstruction section? Could probably find a better source, too, than a trade journal for lawyers: historians have written on the topic, after all. I moved it to a note for now while we discuss it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Grant created laws by signing legislation...Historians are not always attorneys and may not be qualified to give the best legal interpretation of Grant's laws...Congress can't make laws on its own but needs a presidential signature or veto...As far as I know many of Grant's laws are still on the books and enforeable. I believe attornies opinions are just as reliable as historians. Yes I am all for historians but a legal view point will give the reader better understanding of Grant's laws or the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want a different source here is one: Xi Yang (1997) The Trial of Democracy: Black Suffrage and Northern Republicans, 1860-1910, p. 212 Cmguy777 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Republicans
I think it is important to note that Liberal Republicans failed to support Grant's federal enforcement of civil rights in the South. It was not all about corruption in office, especially when Grant had created the Civil Service Commission. Grant had signed Sumner's Civil Rights bill into law in 1875, but Sumner refused to support Grant's anti Ku Klux Klan Act. Yang is addressing that Republicans gave up on Reconstruction in 1872, not 1876. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I think we should keep it brief--this is the Grant article, not the Liberal Republicans article, after all. But I don't think I took out anything you added, just condensed it a bit to keep from getting bogged down on what was, historically, a pretty minor party split. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the information for neutrality. Grant is often identified by corruption in his administration. The Liberal Republicans were the "reforming" heroes, but there was another motivation for their reform. Grant was acting like modern president using federal power to enforce laws. Yang brings up another factor I was unaware of. There was a Delano - Ackerman fued. Delano owned a newspaper that voiced negative publicity against Akerman because he would not give railroad magnates, including Colis P Huntington, more land for expansion of their railroad system. Delano was in cahoots with Huntington. Akerman was the primary factor in aggressive prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan. Grant caved in. Akerman was forced to retire. Grant does not state why he removed Akerman but it seems obvious Delano had everything to do with it. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Grant does not state why he removed Akerman but it seems obvious Delano had everything to do with it." This seems like your interpretation, not a historian's. And anyway, I think the paragraph is quite neutral as it stands, with the current addition. Any more along those lines will make it unbalanced in the other direction. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Slavery and Texas takeover
Brands says Texas, a Mexican state, was illegally taken over by American slave owners, had a rebellion and created the Republic of Texas. The 1845 "annexation" was done without Mexican consent so a war was started. Is the article implying that slavery was not a factor in the take over of Texas ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also there is neutrality. Grant's take over of Santo Domingo is viewed negatively, but the Texas annexation is not viewed as corrupt, illegal, and avoids the subject of slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article isn't saying anything about the causes of the Mexican War. It's not about the Mexican War. Yes, the expansion of slavery (among other things) fueled the desire for war with Mexico, but it had little to do with Grant. He was a low-ranking officer in 1846 and had no influence on policy. Trying to annex Santo Domingo, on the other hand, took place in his presidency. We link the war, and I'll be happy to link to the annexation of Texas article, so that if readers want to know more, they can find it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave the Brands 2012a and page numbers 15-17 that directly link slavery to the Texas takeover. Brands 2012a, Grant's biographer, is describing the causes of the Texas takeover and the Mexican-American war. Also the war was to prove the military power or the United States. (p 22) Brands 2012a thought this was important enough to be in the Grant bio. This adds neutrality of the article, since Grant and Babcock are presented as the antagonists or villans behind the Santo Domingo treaty. Neither Jackson (pp 16, 17), Tyler (p 17), nor Polk (p 19, 21-23) are presented in a positive manner by Brands. A link to the annexation of Texas would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The neutrality angle doesn't make a ton of sense here. What is being presented in a non-neutral way? Santo Domingo? Have any of the authors cited related that to Mexico? This seems like your own theory, not that of any reliable source. But, sure, a link to Texas annexation makes sense. I'll add it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus...I gave multiple links on how Brands links slavery to the Texas Annexation and Mexican-American War...These are being ignored...The neutrality of the article is broken when the article makes Grant and Babcock villans for giving African Americans statehood refuge in Santo Domingo, while completely ignoring that slavery played apart in the Annexation of Texas and that this annexation was done controversially leading to war. I don't believe McFeely even acknowledges the Civil War was caused by slavery and takes a neo confederate stand. Brands is the most modern viewpoint being 31 years after McFeely. His views are being banned from the article. The Democrats were extremely aggressive in getting Texas and California by war. All of this is being avoided in the article. If it is good enough for Brands then it is good enough to be in the article. The Brands references back up my statements. There is no neutrality "angle" as you call it. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on, let's unpack this: you think McFeely was a neo-Confederate? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I don't believe McFeely acknowledges slavery was a factor that caused the Civil War in his bio on Grant. The neo Confederates don't acknowledge slavery was the cause or a factor in starting the Civil War, rather state rights. Brands acknowledges slavery was a factor cause of the Civil War in his discussion of John Brown's rebellion pages 99-101 and discussing Lincoln, succession, and slavery on page 113. McFeely is highly critical of Grant similar to the Dunning School that viewed Reconstruction as corrupt. McFeely counters the positive works of Bruce Catton on Grant as a military general. These are side issues. Second, Brands connected slavery and Democractic aggression to the cause of Texas annexation and the Mexican-Amerian war. Is this view being censored from the article ? Grant is critisized for Santo Domingo but there is no criticism of the Texas annexation and the Mexican-American war. Third, I feel that my edits on this article always have to be approved. This is frustrating and against wikipedia policy since Brands is a reliable source on Grant. All I am trying to do is add neutrality to the article. Apparently Grant continues to be a controversial figure similar to Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No one denies that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. What does that have to do with adding a bunch of background material on the Mexican War? I thought this discussion was about how much of the background of the Mexican War belongs in the Grant article (my opinion: almost none). Now we have the assertion that McFeely is "similar to the Dunning School", which is bizarre when, I think, most everyone sees him as the exact opposite of that. But rather than take my word for it, why not involve some other editors. is well-versed in this area. I'd love to see what he thinks. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to add more on the Mexican-American War because Brands says slavery caused the Texas Annexation and Mexican-American War and was an establishment of U.S. military power. Brands says the Democratic party was aggressive in adding new territory to the U.S., in otherwords a land grab. This get's swept under the rug in the article whereas Grant's Santo Domingo annexation that would have given blacks a refuge and statehood from violence in the South get's villified in the article. That is POV and is not neutral, protect the Democratic Party but villify the Republican Party, Grant, and Babcock. I have read through McFeely and no where does he link succession to slavery. His direct quote: "When the nation was at a crisis over succession..." (p. 72) In other words the Civil War was a "states rights" issue not a slavery issue. McFeely rather then calling Grant a loyal Democrat he says "In May 1861 it looked as if Ulysses S. Grant was ready to march not to John Brown's drum, but to that of the men who hanged him." (p. 73) Inferring that Grant approved of John Brown's hanging. A sample of McFeely's villification of Grant. Last I checked Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox. Aside from this I just wanted to add neutrality to the article concerning Texas Annexation and the Mexican-American War. Rjensen's opinions are welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because something is mentioned in one of our sources doesn't mean we have to include it in the article. If that were the case, the article would be longer than any of the books! Slavery contributed to the Mexican War--it was one of the causes of tensions between Texians and the Mexican federal government, and it partly explains the reason the South was more in favor of the war than the North, but the proximate cause was Texas annexation and a border skirmish, and we already mention that. To get into the whole history of westward expansion when Grant, a second lieutenant, had nothing to do with it--that's way beyond the scope of this article.
 * The neutrality stuff is just you POV-pushing again. McFeely was not a Dunning School historian, and to say so is absurd--he was a leader among those who rejected that approach. Further, Mexico has nothing to do with Santo Domingo, and if historians disparage Grant's efforts there, there's nothing we can do about it. I know you love Grant, but your opinion (and mine) is irrelevant. We summarize the sources. You know all this, because we've discussed Wikipedia policies before. Is there some part f that guideline you don't understand? I'd be gad to explain it again, if you want. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * War with Mexico would have occurred regardless if slavery was allowed in Texas, simply because of the shear numbers who were coming west during that period. It seems doubtful that Mexico would of been okay with western expansion simply on the basis of slavery not being allowed.
 * Neutrality: The article already mentions Grant's unfavorable opinion of the Mex'Am War. It also fairly summarizes Grants annexation efforts. We also have a balanced selection of sources, including Brands, 2012, who lauds Grant for his efforts against the KKK, while we have Foner, 2014, who criticizes Grant on his reconstruction efforts. There's nothing in the Foreign affairs section that comes close to "villifying" Grant's Santo Domingo efforts towards annexation. It simply mentions S.O.S. Fish who "dismissed" the effort, yet remained loyal to Grant and continued helping him. It also mentions Grant's hopes for the island, a sanctuary for blacks, once annexed. The section also mentions that it was the Senate who didn't pass the treaty and annexation. I don't see where a POV is being pushed. Saying that McFeely takes a "neo confederate stand" and using terms like "Texas takeover" only suggests that we now have another POV to deal with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Coemgenus: "Just because something is mentioned in one of our sources doesn't mean we have to include it in the article." That would mean editors could censure pertinent information...I was not the one who brought up the Mexican-American war. This has nothing to do concerning "love" for Grant or my POV. The reader is left without any information why there was a Mexican American war. The POV of the article is if its Republican its bad if its Democratic its good. The Mexican-American War was a Democratic war that financially and geographically favored the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers: Historians believe Santo Domingo was a corrupt land grab. And yes there were some who would have gotten rich on the deal. That is fine to present that information in the article. Historians in general do not take the view of Grant wanting the island for an African American refuge, at best it was just a plausible idea, rather then a reality. Americans invaded Texas, then a Mexican state, illegally set up the Republic of Texas, brought in thier slaves, petitioned for annexation. The land grab was from Texas to California, 529,000 sq. miles, that secured a Southern Route for U.S. Railroads. Santo Domingo was 18,704 square miles. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to believe that historians have boiled it down to such an obtuse and pathetically simple idea. "Land grab" is just so typical of modern day distortionism and hyper speak. Apparently Grant thought it was best to grab it before someone else did. And yes, it was well suited as a sanctuary for blacks.
 * Texas: There were many thousands of Americans in the disputed area who didn't exactly want to be ruled by the Mexican government which I am assuming factored into matters. I also await for more informed opinion here. The section also acknowledges that Grant wanted the island for strategic reasons. Again, where is the pov we're supposed to be concerned about? As other editors have pointed out for you, the reasons for the Mexican war are above and beyond this biography, given Grant was only a quartermaster at that time. You seem to have a beef with Mexico's loss of Texas -- don't know if the Grant biography is the best place to hack this out. Best to stick to the facts and spare ourselves the pov and conjecture, which our biography already does. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * since i've neen asked i'll toss in my views. McFeeley was a classmate of mine Back in the 1960s!! & he's a neo-abolitionist. Grant's views on the Mex War are important enough to mention, but keep it brief. anti-slavery leaders in the 1840s did say that slavery was the cause for annexing Texas but most historians reject that (they say Manifest Destiny was more important for Polk).  pro-slavery whigs (like Henry Clay) strongly opposed Manifest Destiny and opposed annexing Texas--that was the big reason he lost the 1844 election. So Grant's views in 1844-46 resembled Clay's -- except historians are pretty sure Grant was non-political at the time. As for Mexico's "loss" of Texas --well no not many historians think they were doing a good job there (They routinely massacred political opponents.) Rjensen (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate all the views here. Gwillhickers. I am not pro-Mexican nor am pushing any pro Mexican agenda here and as to the morals of taking over Mexican territory any of my own opinions do not matter. Brands brought up the Mexican-American war in his biography of Grant. Please don't attack me. Brands links slavery to the take over of Mexico and implies that the Americans who came to Texas had done so illegally. Again I am not argueing the morals of the Texas or Southwest Territory takeover. I apprecitate Rjensen's views. I believe Brands was attempting to give some neutrality or comparison between Santo Domingo and the Texas annexation that started the Mexican-American war and was a Democratic War. But Grant gets so much criticism for wanting to legally annex Santo Domingo as a refuge for African Americans an Island Country over 18 million square miles. As far as I know there were no casualties in attempting to annex Santo Domingo and for the most part it was done peacefully. There was no hostile take over attempt by Grant nor was there a mass influx of Americans into the country leading to a hostile takeover. It was a diplomatic fiasco but there was no war. There seems to be some resistance into the Brands view of the Texas annexation being linked to slavery. As for McFeely, I have yet to read where he links the Civil War to slavery. The morality of Manifest Destiny argument is debatable since Brands linked slavery to the take over of Texas in my opinion. Brands does not mention Manifest Destiny. There is no need for an edit war here. I thought this subject should have some consideration. Editors here, including Coemgenus, seem to be against adding more information on the Texas Annexation and the Mexican-American war. Gold was not the only reason for the settlers coming into California. Land speculation was also evident. Yes. This is going beyond the scope of this discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Brands does emphasize Manifest Destiny and says it was the cause of the war with Mexico. He does NOT say that slavery caused the war. Brands p 22-23: James Polk understood the new psychology and balance of power, and his interpretation of Manifest Destiny caused him to look beyond Texas to California. Mexico's northwesternmost province was even more enticing than Texas . Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this discussion is all beyond the scope of the article. And I agree with Dr. Jensen that Grant's opinion on the war should stay in--that seems quite relevant to the article. I agree, as well, with Gwillhickers, where he says there's no slant to the article's coverage of Santo Domingo. It's a pretty neutral passage, as far as I can tell. As to connecting it with Texas's annexation a generation before, I think that's Cmguy's own theory, and not one any of our source authors discuss. I think there's a consensus to leave things as they are. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Own theory? I seem to be the only one citing references Brands and McFeely. The theory is Brands 2012a pp 15-17, 19, 21-23) Brands says slavery is linked to the Texas annexation and the Mexican-American War in addition to a Democratic land grab whose prize territory was Texas and California. Polk was a Democratic President. Andrew Jackson got Polk nominated because he was in favor of annexing Texas. John Quincy Adams viewed that Texas annexation as a slave holding conspiracy. None of this is mentioned in the article. Leaving out this information creates a neutrality issue in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the sentences again: I said that connecting the annexations of Santo Domingo and Texas was your theory. Do Brands or McFeely do that? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not connected Santo Domingo and the Texas annexation. The two are seperate annexations. I am talking about neutrality of the article and reducing editor bias that favors the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. I want to remove editor bias from the article. There is nothing said concerning slavery and land speculation in the Texas annexation nor the Mexican-American war sponsored by the Democratic Party. The corruption of the Democratic Tweed Ring in New York has been edited out. The corruption of land speculation in California after the Mexican succession has been edited out. But all of Grant's scandals are not edited out. I believe there is bias by ommision from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My suggestion: Grant had zero to do with decision to annex Texas and 100% to do with Santo Domingo annexation. He played a small part (Under 1/100 of 1%) in fighting the Mexican war but the experience was very important to how he learned to fight a war so we keep that. This is the Grant article & Wiki should play those percentages. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no neutrality issues, other than those perceived. We've walked though the two passages in question. i.e.Texas, Santa Domingo. Without reaching across the Pacific Ocean, where are we getting that the article is less than neutral at this juncture? There is no need to outline issues that concern Mexico's relation to American expansion in a Grant biography to the extent that we must discuss slavery, land usage, government rule, etc, etc. Those are lesser issues to a different subject. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with Rjensen and Gwillhickers. Grant was just a young solider when the Mexican War started. It's causes are interesting, but have nothing to do with Grant. I also detect no bias for or against the Republican Party (which did not exist during the Mexican War) or the Democratic Party. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that Grant was not involved in the Texas Annexation nor in the Washington or elected representative politics of war against Mexico. In that sense he was a pawn to the Democratic Party's aggressive will to go to war and I think that is what Brands (p 15-17) was bringing out in his bio on Grant. That is why I brought up this discussion. At least it should be mentioned that California was ceded to the United States in 1848 after the war ended, since Grant would land later in San Francisco, formerly part of Mexico. The Mexican Cession was the second largest land aquisition next to the Louisiana Purchase. It could be mentioned that Polk was a Democratic President. Politics is mentioned about Polk not wanting Taylor to get to popular. I suggest a few tweaks to the narration would give better context for the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also understand the Republican Party did not exist during the Texas Annexation and the Mexican-American War. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I added edits concerning California ceded to the United States in 1848 and that Polk was a Democratic Party President. As far as I am concerned this discussion is closed for now unless there are any more concerns. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an unnecessary detail that makes the article slightly worse. But I'm tired of talking about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion Coemgenus. Articles can only improve if editors are allowed to freely discuss and edit on the article without being personally attacked or bullied. Editors should be shown respect not hostile words. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed edits. Difficult to edit in hostile article environment and when you are ganged up on or bullied by other editors. Discussions are hostile and unproductive. No cooperation or encouragement in editing. No common goal for article improvement. Brands completely ignored and censored.Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Kennedy
Why does the new source added say "New York Times" when its actually from the Harpers website? Why add it at all when we have high-quality scholarship to work with? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is to say Kennedy is not a scholar? Kennedy was commenting on a Harper's Weekly 1872 cartoon for the New York Times...The web site is New York Times, not Harper's Weekly. Kennedy offers specific information. Actually John Y Simon wrote an article on Ulysses S. Grant and Civil Service Reform. This is hard to find. It is hard to find specifics on Grant and Civil Service reform. Kennedy tells us that Grant refused Cameron in Pennsylvania not to establish Civil Service Reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Source: https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1207.html Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kennedy gives the date when Grant ended his Civil Service Commission rules on March 27, 1876. Grant implemented sb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=70332 Ulysses S. Grant Executive Order April 16, 1872] Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Grant's Civil Service Commission rules were in effect 3 years, 11 months, and 11 days. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It says "Cartoon and explanation provided by HarpWeek." And it's clearly a lesson plan for children. I know it's easy to just Google things, but we owe it to the readers to use high-quality scholarship, not whatever the search engine drags in. I have most of the sources, if you need help. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I the Kennedy (2001) source to match the Harpweek website. I would not say Harpweek is a children's magazine having read the about section Background: Harper's Weekly The publisher is John Alder. I believe the website is reliable and neutral. As has been mentioned before John Y. Simon, a Grant scholar, wrote an article Ulysses S. Grant and Civil Service Reform...and that is a hard to find article but worth looking into. Kennedy helps fill in some gaps and actually gives information that Grant stopped Cameron who did not want Civil Service reform in that Pennsylvania custom house. Smith (2001) seems to be the most extensive biographer concerning Grant and Civil Service reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Harpweek is in partnership with the New York Times on the web. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Harper's Weekly is not a children's magazine, no, but that website is about lesson plans for children. The author publishes books aimed at young adults and works for a children's text book company. These are the sorts of inquiries we have to make before adding a new source we just stumbled across and calling it reliable. When we fail to do so, we weaken the article and hurt Wikipedia's credibility. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this demonstrates Grant's presidency is understudied, historians focusing on the scandals rather then his entire administration. Simon wrote an article specifically on Grant and Civil Service Reform. I can't find this article anywhere. I used Kennedy because I could not find the Simon article. Grant did take a stand against the Cameron machine in Pennsylvania according to Kennedy. I would prefer a scholarly source such as Simon or Smith. McFeely ignores Grant and Civil Service Reform for that matter so does Brands. The specific date when Grant actually ended his Civil Service Commission rules adds to the reliability of the article. I am not pushing Kennedy but felt that Kennedy offered some good insight into Grant and Civil Service reform. I did not sight any grade school text book published or written by Kennedy. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to decide what historians should have studied. Our job is to summarize existing Grant scholarship. If none of the biographers mention it, we shouldn't dig through every website on Earth until we find something that confirms our ideas. That's precisely backwards. We should look to the sources first, then summarize what they say, not come up with our opinions and justify them through any possible source. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not putting in my opinions in the article. These are the views of Kennedy who studied Grant and Civil Service reform. Kennedy is Grant scholarship because Kennedy's article focuses on Grant and Civil Service reform. I did not write the article for Harpweek, Kennedy did. I gave the website Harpweek as a source not a children's textbook. Adding the date Grant ended Civil Service Commission rules strengthens the articles reliability. Kennedy supplied this date March 27 1876. The article does summarize existing Grant scholarship. There is not much existing Grant scholarship on Grant's presidency to study. Simon is the only published historian who looked at Grant's life and presidency from a daily chronology rather then summary style. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you proposing to remove Kennedy as a source, reference, and information ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of its quality, and I don't think it adds anything that can't be sourced from the existing scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed Kennedy source, references, and one sentence per discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kennedy is a history professor with a PhD from Illinois-Urbana. He worked for 8 years on the Harpweek project and is certainly a RS. He has published numerous scholarly articles on the mid 19th century (eg in books like  The American renaissance in New England; Encyclopedia of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era) and gets cited by scholars. The Harpers site is for high school advanced placement teachers (not "for children"), which is pretty much our Wikipedia audience. His HarpWeek project was awarded the prestigious Lincoln E-Prize from the Civil War Institute at Gettysburg College. He's an RS so I am restoring his cites. Rjensen (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Decorum in the talk page and Brands source
I find that editing in the article and discussions in the talk page are increasingly difficult. I believe decorum is needed. I also believe the Brands 2012a bio on Grant is under utilized in the article. I would hope editors can work together with out tearing each other down. Respectfully. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By my count, the Brands book is cited 87 times. His article is cited a further three times. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In two sections Early life and Civilian struggles and politics Brands is not cited. In Early military career and personal life I added an edit citing Brands that discussed the causes of Mexican-American war and I thought this would add better context to the article. When I attempted expanding on the causes of the Mexican-American war as Brands did in his book the edits were reverted. In the discussion that followed I felt that Brands views were either ignored or dismissed. I felt the disussion was becoming unproductive and hostile. My compromise edits were personally critisized so I removed them. I was hoping editors could work together in incorporating more of Brands in the begining sections. Also the reader does not have any idea why the Mexican American war was started or its ramifications on the country concerning slavery. Rjensen mentioned Manifest Destiny caused the Mexican-American War. I would have been for mentioning Manifest Destiny plus the slavery issue. Grant mentions slavery as a cause, but that is only a primary source. That would have been a good place for a sentence on Manifest Destiny and slavery as the cause of the Mexican-American War. Over 500,000 square miles of land were added to the United States but this in not mentioned either as a result of the war. Grant winds up in California that had been ceded to the United States by Mexico but the reader has no idea concerning this. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the causes of the war/ California/etc are VERY well covered in other Wiki articles. All that is needed here are Grant's personal views (& that's because he did have war-making power himself decades later). Rjensen (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All I am really asking is that more clarification be given on the Mexican-American war and its ramifications leading up to the Civil War. Both Brands (p 15-17) and Smith (p 34-35) discuss the causes of the Mexican-American War. Grant mentions he was sent to Texas to "provoke a fight." McFeely (p 30) Yes the other articles cover the war, that is not in dispute. There is no mention of the Mexican Cession. I would say Grant's views plus clarification from Brands and Smith would give the reader better context. All the reader knows from the article is that there was a war and a treaty. I am not asking for major changes to the article, maybe a few more sentences for clarification, mentioning "American expansionisim", the Mexican Cession, and the dispute over slavery. California where Grant was stationed was not a slave state. The Oregon Territory, where Grant was stationed, banned slavery but also expelled blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Brands and Smith = standalone books, so their policy is to include ample background material on topics like the causes of the war. Wikipedia's policy is also to include lots of background material, but keep it in separate article. It takes one second for a reader to click to a corresponding article. Rjensen (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is true, but is an article link the same as article clarification? How about a one sentence proposal at the end of Grant view on the Mexican-American war ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

One sentence proposal

 * Historians believe the actual causes of the Mexican-American war included national expansionism and the spread of slavery into Texas. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Insert: I believe the sentence would benefit the article. The sentence would by cited by Brands and Smith. I don't believe article links are the same as article clarification. Brands and Smith are reliable references and Grant biographers. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with Rjensen here; let the other articles do that work. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "proposal" is accurate or useful. The actual cause of the war is irrelevant.... What USG thought about it is relevant to  his later career when he did war-making powers. Rjensen (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think it's an inaccurate summary that is less helpful than just including the link to a fuller, more nuanced article, as we already do. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of the Mexican Cession as part of the "peace agreement" mentioned in the article. This affects Grant because he was stationed in California that was ceded to United States by Mexico. The "peace agreement" was also a land deal. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any objection to adding an article link to the Mexican Cession ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only that I'm not sure what it has to do with Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Cm', before the war, Mexico invited American settlement so long as settlers were Catholic and didn't own slaves, as Mexico was having a difficult time keeping its own borders secure from Indian raids. It also felt settlers from America would help stabilize American-Mexican relations. In 1835 there were only about 8,000 Mexicans in all of Texas while there were more than 30,000 Americans with numbers growing rapidly by the month, and the greater bulk of them didn't own slaves. War was inevitable with or without slavery. Mexico's love affair with the remote Texas territory was short lived. It never really had 'possession' of Texas in the first place, and very few wanted to by ruled by the likes of the murderous Santa Anna, who, btw, was was previously overthrown by his own people in 1844 and exiled to Cuba, or by the Mexican government, including many of the Mexicans living in Texas. Agree with other editors here. Commentary about what started the Mexican war in relation to a Grant biography is sort of moot and has nothing to do with Grant himself. Also, the statement about what "most historians" think is an apparent POV push and is unsourced. As for Brands, it's not an issue of using any one source, it's a matter of pov and accuracy in the narrative, regardless of the RS used, and there is no POV being pushed in the section in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Insert: The reader does not understand that there were slaves in Texas at the time. Americans disregarded the Mexican law of bringing no slaves into Texas. I am not requesting this to be added to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * First I think it is a legitmate question as to what the Mexican Cession has to do with Grant. In that sense Grant was an active participant in the Mexican-American War putting his life endanger. Second Grant helped bring about a victory in defeating the Mexican Army. Third that result was a peace agreement and a land deal, Mexican Cession under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. From this discussion links have been approved or not objected too. Grant took an active role in bringing this about concerning U.S. victory over Mexico. The reader in my opinion is led to believe that there was an end to the hostilities but Mexico kept its territories. That is not true. In fact Mexico barely remained a seperate country because Eastern Democrats wanted to annex Mexico entirely. Grant was stationed in California at Fort Humbolt that was part of the Mexican Cesession. The POV is the absense of information or in this case a link. I don't believe anyone is pushing POV. Just a simple request for the addition of a link. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reader is being led to believe any such thing. And I don't see how a link would fit within the narrative. It's fairly tangential. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is my proposal to add the link: "...the Mexicans agreed to peace and land cession soon afterward." This way the reader will know it was not just an armistice. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we also mention the establishment of the Republic of Texas in 1936, and how Mexico refused to recognize it? For balance perhaps we should also mention that the area was mostly populated by common American settlers, not wealthy slave owners, and didn't want to be ruled by Mexico, who was barely in control of the territory in the first place. We should also mention and link to Santa Anna, esp since he had more to do with matters than did quartermaster Grant, who didn't like the war, but was following orders, which our article here already mentions elsewhere. The Presidency (1869–77) / Foreign affairs subsection is sort of an odd place to be concerned about how the Mex'Am war is received in relation to Grant and where links should go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How can one link, the Mexican Cession, be so controversial? Editors agreed that links provided "adequate" information. The Republic of Texas is 1836. Grant was stationed in the Mexican Cession, California, at Fort Humbolt. This was more then a war. It was a land deal. Grant mentioned slavery. The Mexicans "agreed" to peace is a bit optimistic. The Mexicans had no choice in the matter due to American military superiority. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "mexican cessation" was a legal technicality that did not affect Grant. The US army & navy conquered and ruled California, BEFORE the "cessation". Grant arrived for duty at a post in Calif in 1853 3 years after Calif became a state. So let's drop all that irrelevant stuff and focus on USG.  If you include irrelevant material readers will think it's somehow important to USG. Rjensen (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Mexican Cession gave Grant the "legal technicality" to be stationed in California. The article says "agreed to peace" without mentioning over 500,000 square miles of land was acquired by the United States. The term "agreed to peace" is somewhat misleading since Mexico was at the complete mercy of U.S. forces at the time of surrender. This was an aggresive land grab sponsored by the Democratic Party. None of this involves Grant but it gives the reader clarification on the Mexican-American War that Grant served in. Santo Domingo was not the first land grab Grant participated in. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this rewrite ? Instead of "agreed to peace" say "the war ended under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo." That gives the reader clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * People interested in the Mex War, Texas, Mexico, Oregon, California, Gold Rush, US Army, president Polk etc etc will find good coverage in Wikipedia. This article is about one junior officer who did not have a voice on making war or on the peace terms. Rjensen (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. There's nothing about Grant's role in the war that needs clarification. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree: -- Cm', looking at some of your language I see attempts to inject hyper-speak into the mix under the guise of adding a couple of links. "Aggressive land grab"? Almost every war has a losing side that "agrees to peace". This is nothing amazing or unusual.  "At the complete mercy of the U.S." -- "Mercy"? As in  the sort of mercy that was exhibited by Santa Anna throughout that war?  There were far more Americans in Texas than were Mexicans who rejected Mexican rule. Slavery had little to do with the concern for land, borders and national security. The "land grab" was the better alternative than to have an 'ally' like Santa Anna (and his assortment of friends)  with his nose stuck all the way into Texas ruling over American settlers. The Americans could have conquered the entire country of Mexico and made it its territory and had everything their way, but since Mexico was at the "complete mercy" of the U.S. that didn't happen. In any case, as was pointed out by all other editors here, there is no need to be putting links in places that don't need them, nor is there any reason to mention "...not the first land grab Grant participated in." Your effort here looks like another veiled pov push, which apparently is another reason why your suggestions for a couple of links, foot in the door, hasn't been received well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read that one historian believes Polk could have used diplomacy rather then war to get the Mexican Cession. I understand there is resistance to adding anymore links and I am not here to provoke an edit war. Maybe a few tweaks to the narration on how the Mexican-American War ended. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that Polk made no attempts whatsoever to resolve matters without going to war. Polk made several attempts at diplomacy, including an offer to purchase the disputed territory, mostly populated by Americans, which Mexico could not even begin to control. Let's not forget there were several things that led to the war. The Texas revolution/independence, which was ignored by Mexico, Santa Anna's well earned reputation of killing prisoners of war -- and of course the Alamo sort of set the tone right from the start. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not taking sides on the matter. The first war started when Cortés sacked Mexico City in 1519. Diplomacy either failed or was not implemented effectively. No matter. The U.S. sacked Mexico City just like Cortés. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)