Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 42

"Poverty"?
Cmguy777 : Re: You last edit: Poverty is generally described as a state of frequent hunger, poor housing and poor clothing. None of these conditions fell upon Grant and his wife, and McFeely didn't use that misleading term. Grant and his wife lived with Julia's parents, and then on a farm owned by Grant's brother – hardly a state of poverty. Hardscrabble, though not an attractive house, was a sound house. There was no poverty. This was indeed a difficult time for Grant, having to depend on help from family, and of course Grant would wonder what direction his life was headed for, no doubt leaving "scares", or not so fond memories. Saying Grant live in "poverty" is a gross distortion, an overstatement to say the least. Since you chose to challenge this idea, in light of the facts, we'll need more than one source that says Grant lived in actual poverty to entertain that unsupported notion, and a source that qualifies and substantiates that idea. The idea of "poverty" is not unsupported because, again, Grant did not want for food, decent clothing and a decent roof over his head. Editor intelligence is needed here before we use a term loosely used by once source. I didn't revert. After checking other notable sources, and if you then agree, please remove "poverty" from the statement in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I cited my source: John Y. Simon. It's not my opinion. Page 242. Simon believed Grant's poverty left scars on his life. Extremely loyal to those who helped him financially. He had to pawn his gold watch for Christmas. Meaning he had no money. That was a Dicken's moment. He had to work for his father in 1860. Everything he did seemed to go no where fast. His neighbors helped him build Hardscrabble. Why sugar coat the situation ? He was wearing his old army jacket. Why ? No money. He always talked about the past ? Why. He had no future. It is what makes Grant turnaround so much amazing. In 1861, he was part of Union Generals who were to defeat the South. Just looking at Hardscrabble is enough evidence he lived in poverty. It was no Monticello or Mount Vernon. There are different levels of poverty. Grant was not distitute and homeless, but he was poor and lived in poverty. Not sure why this is so controversial. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chernow 2017 describes Grant's "growing poverty" on page 106. The index in Chernow 2017 page 1046 says: "and growing poverty, 106". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One woman who visted Julia said "...they must be very poor." Also Julia, "I have no shoes fit to wear on the streets." Chernow 2017 page 106. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Both Chernow (2017) pp 106, 1046 and Simon (2002) p 242 link "poverty" to Grant and his family. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're argument is compelling, however, a wife's complaint about no "shoes fit to wear", to go shopping, (!) and a neighbor's comment about being "very poor", (perhaps she was a spoiled snob with 20 pairs of shoes to wear), really doesn't substantiate the idea of actual poverty. Chernow does not mention "growing poverty" on page 106. Julia had a slave to look after children -- hardly a state of poverty. Again, they didn't want for food, decent shelter and decent clothing, in spite of no "shoes fit to wear", but I suppose this is getting argumentative. 'If' the several sources mention "poverty" so should we, but I'm not seeing that. In any case, we should add some context to the idea, that Grant and wife weren't going hungry, and wanting for decent housing. Simply saying they were living in poverty seems a bit inconclusive, in light of the fact that they were living with family, and soon in their own home at hardscrabble, and needs to be qualified a tad further. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is another reference: McFeely (1981) pp 60-61. McFeely p 61 said: "The "poverty, poverty" which had haunted Grant in the West came east with him." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is more interesting than I would have thought. I read through the section of Perret about that era of Grant's life. As far as I can see, Perret does not try to sum up how Grant and his family lived using a word such as "poverty", but sticks with more specific details, e.g. what work Grant did, his health, descriptions of Hardscrabble, the reactions of his father and father-in-law, etc.  So if all we had to refer to was Perret, we couldn't use such a summary word.
 * I can't complain about sources (Simon, Chernow, McFeely). I am a little uncomfortable, however, with straying from the path of "Just the facts".  Poverty is not a simple statement of fact, it's a complex combination of things that requires judgment.  I think we can get away with it, but I would lean toward letting the reader draw his own conclusion.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Three sources:
 * Chernow (2017) pp 95, 106
 * Simon (2002) p 242
 * McFeely (1981) pp 60-61 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just going by what the sources say. Grant and his family struggled with poverty. Grant could have sold a slave for $1,000. In one sense, Grant sacrificed money over morality. Self imposed poverty. All the descriptions during this time period, especially "...they must be very poor," are testiment to Grant's poverty. The Dents were not that rich. What source says Grant was rich, or even, just getting by ? I have supplied my sources. I don't like doing the research for other editors. Wikipedia says editors are suppose to supply reliable sources, whether we agree with them or not. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

McFeely pp.60-61 doesn't mention "poverty" but only delineates trying times, that the "economic situation was desperate". We go by what the sources say, but as editors, we attempt to reach an average, as we've done before, and speak with Wikipedia's voice, per multiple sources, and editor discretion, which is what makes Wikipedia unique. We are not giving a singular account, but one of many sources, new and old. A couple of passing comments about shoes, to go shopping with, and "must be very poor" doesn't amount to actual poverty. All that is recommended here is that we qualify the idea of "poverty", so we at least, don't slight those who have actually lived in real poverty. What source(s) actually substantiates the idea of "poverty" other to mention financial troubles? None that I've seen. Am open to suggestions to get the narrative realistic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When Grant was General at Shiloh, he was making $654 a month. So his estimated yearly salary was $654 X 12 = $7,848 a year, or $197,000.00 in 2017. McFeely (1981) does say poverty twice in quotes:The "poverty, poverty" which had haunted Grant in the West came east with him. p 61. What sources say Grant was not in poverty, he broke-even, or was wealthy ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cmguy has cited half a dozen sources on the point, which is pretty uncontroversial. Grant was concerned about going broke again for his whole life and it led to some of his more questionable decisions. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant's poverty level may have fluctuated, for example, when he sold Hardscrabble, or sold firewood, or sold a gold watch, he made some money, but he never had a steady income, residence, or job, in Missouri. That was why he moved north to work for his father. I believe while he worked for his father it was to pay off debts he had in the South. It was not until the Civil War, that Grant made a steady monthly income, i.e. 645 a month during Shiloh, independent from the Dents or Jesse Grant. And Coemgenus is correct, he never wanted to go back to the Hardscrabble days. Was Grant better off in Ohio, probably, as a clerk, but it was completely dependent on Jesse's stipulations for his return. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When I realized that "poverty" already appears in four other places in the article, including a section title, I decided that, indeed, maybe I shouldn't fight too hard over this one.
 * On the other hand, the FA version of the article doesn't mention "poverty", and the section title was "civilian struggles". Interesting.  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Three sources have been cited on Grant's poverty in the article and this talk page. Grant selling his gold watch to pay for Christmas and his forced move to the north under strict stipulations of his father Jesse, extremely humiliating, support that Grant and his family were in poverty and left scars. He could not support his family in the South and he had debts. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That several sources mention poverty is not at all in dispute, which was made clear before this last round of chimes. However, none of them really qualify the idea of poverty other than to say Grant was going through a period of financial difficulty. Oh yes, Julia didn't have a nice pair of shoes to go shopping with. As I've already said, also, we can mention poverty, as we do, but should qualify the idea, as we have. Grant was not making much money, but for all practical purposes, he was not living in actual poverty. Grant was never without work, didn't want for basic food and clothing and always had a sound roof over his head. That's all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, perhaps, as Bruce mentions, the section title should mention Civilian struggles, rather than Poverty. Not all the sources use the term poverty. Poverty can be mentioned in the text, in context, but a section title with Poverty in its heading is misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chernow (2017) pp 95, 106 does not use poverty in the text here. Rather he uses terms like "financial difficulty", and "depressed state of their finances". On page 95 he describes how Ulysses and Julia were the most happy they've been since Grant was in the Mexican war, because they were all together in their own home. Cm' this is the second time you've cited a source to use the term poverty where it wasn't so. Who, besides Simon, 2002, which is only a general reference on U.S. presidents, and not viewable, is using the term poverty to describe Grant's living condition? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Smith, 2001, p.91 notes Grant going into town with a wagon load of wood to sell, whereupon a friend he hadn't seen since the Mexican War asks Grant, "what are you doing?", and where Grant replies, "I am solving the problem of poverty". Solving the problem, as opposed to living in poverty. Grant always managed to keep from slipping into actual poverty. The idea of Civilian struggles best describes Grant's condition during this period. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * For the lead, where we have to be very brief. I guess, I would suggest we look to encyclopedia articles. I don't think he and his family were starving, which I guess just bare "poverty"  suggests for me (or more picturesquely perhaps, the dweller of London slums in an 1850s Dickens novel). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points. Poverty to most people, means hunger, rags, poor housing or none at all. Indeed, the two articles you cite don't mention poverty, but rather use terms like "Hard times". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Questionable statement
Re this statement currently in the "Poverty and politics" section : Grant and his family's poverty, left emotional scars, developing a strong loyalty to those who helped him, while he strongly desired security and economic stability.

— Once again, Chernow and McFeely don't mention poverty. Also, the final clause to the above statement, "strongly desired security", is sort of wishy-washy and is a given. This should instead read, Grant worked earnestly to achieve economic stability. Also, which source is mentioning "emotional scares"? I'm not seeing it in Chernow or McFeely. The statement needs work and begs a tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just found another source. Brands 2012 pages 94-96. McFeely mentions poverty twice in quotes. That is simply not true. Chernow mentions Julias poverty. Even Julia in her biography mentions poverty. The Grant's were never short of food, but everything else. Please don't give misinformation on Chernow and McFeely. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Insert : Where does McFeely mention poverty, and in what context? Not on pp. 60-61, as you've indicated. Quotes and page numbers would be nice -- why didn't you cite them? And please stop with your chronic accusations. There's no POV pushing, esp over an issue about poverty. I've been going by the sources and you've misrepresented them twice, per Chernow and McFeely. Please stop carrying on as if others can't remember past yesterday, or don't have access to McFeely and Chernow. I have them in hand, along with Smith, Simpson, White, Brands, Calhoun and others. Not one of them describe Grant's condition in terms of actual poverty, and when that term is mentioned, it used figuratively, and in context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All of this is causing the article to be unstable again. Please don't push POV on other editors. Not one source has been cited that Grant was wealthy or not in poverty, or even broke even. He was forced to move back to his father because of poverty. Simon 2002 used the term "scars". Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "emotional scars" has been removed from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Insert : Thanks, that was another unsupported statement. The only thing that makes the article unstable, is misrepresentation, accusations and "endless argumentation" over what should be a simple issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I really like the quotation from Smith, where Grant says, "I am solving the problem of poverty". This, of course, doesn't mean that Grant solved the problem; but it means that Grant considered himself to be either in poverty or close to it.
 * The discussion in this talk page, where we have been arguing over what exactly "poverty" means, illustrates one of the problems of using the word ourselves. Wikipedia articles should avoid words whose meanings might be interpreted differently by different readers.  The other problem is the problem of euphemism.  I have to wonder if "Civilian struggles" was used as a euphemism for "Civilian poverty".  Should we come out and say it, or should we follow down the path of, for example, Perret, who manages not to say it?
 * But these problems are neatly sidestepped if we quote Smith's quotation of Grant. It is an apt summary, yet it's not our judgment, it's his, and if the word is ambiguous, well, OK, it's his word.  Then, we could go through the other uses of "poverty" in the article, particularly the one in the lead section, and the one in the section title.  In some cases it would be appropriate to use more clear-cut phrases or just delete the word.  In the FA version of the article, the lead section doesn't even mention his life between the wars.  But I'm not advocating that we go back to that; I think that many readers will have already heard that Grant had some business failures before the Civil War, and it is, in Wikipedia-speak, "notable".  But we don't have to use an ambiguous or difficult word; we can just say something about "business failures".  The section title could just be "Inter-war period" or something neutral like that.
 * Just some ideas! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bruce. Several major details were left out of the narrative when it became a FA, which only bolsters my opinion of the FA review process altogether. Anyone can be an FA reviewer, the remedy of which is a reform WP will someday consider. Anyway, thanks to fellow editors, and in spite of our differences of opinions, the article continues to improve. Given the general opinion over the idea of "poverty", this at least should not be in the section title all by itself. Grant was never in real poverty. None of the sources, even those that mention poverty, describe his condition as wanting for food, basic, decent clothing and a sound place to lay one's head upon a pillow. We can mention the idea of poverty, in context, sources permitting, but the section title should read either Inter war period, 'or Civilian struggles, as you first suggested. Either is far more neutral than the idea of "poverty". I would go with your first suggestion,  Civilian struggles, as it's more definitive, while being neutral.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, none of the sources support your assertation Grant was not in any real poverty. Why do you push this notion on editors. Coemgenus agreed with my editing. The Grant's always had enough food, so in that sense, no one went hungry. There are different levels of poverty. "Civilian struggles" vs "Poverty". Is that what this is all about. The problem is that you do not agree Grant was poor or lived in poverty. All the sources support this. It should not be controversial. Again, is this editor control ? No matter what sources are provided you disagree. You want to change the title to Civilian struggles fine. But please leave the information on Grant's poverty. It seems that every edit has to have your approval. That is not how wikipedia works. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, none of the sources substantiate the idea that Grant and family was in a state of actual poverty, and you have yet to cite sources, per name and page numbers, that say otherwise. I never disagreed that Grant was poor. All that was asserted that he was not living in a state of poverty. I asked you what pages McFeely refers to the idea of poverty. All you're giving us is the same ole argumentative digressions, per my eminent "approval". You need to put arm-wrestling aside and go with what is honest and neutral. If there are sources out there that say Grant was longing for food, decent clothing and shelter, we'd be happy to receive them. The text in the section needs clarification, and should be in accord with sources. The section heading should read Civilian struggles, which is definitive and neutral. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You refuse to read the sources I supplied. This is POV. Coemgenus said the sources I supplied did. You are spreading misinformation. You are not abiding by what the sources say. You just want to make Grant the way you want. You want other editors to abide by your own rules you impose. I don't want to keep feeding the beast. Please stop. This article is unstable because every edit needs approval. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant was not in dire need of food, clothing or shelter. You've misrepresent Chernow and McFeely. I asked for page numbers per McFeely, and all you're giving us is this number about rules I want to "impose". The article becomes unstable because of the chronic accusations and distortions you keep advancing. You seem to need straw men and scapegoats to carry your otherwise unsubstantiated talk. Once again. none of the sources substantiate the idea that Grant and family was in a state of actual poverty, and you have yet to cite sources, per name and page numbers, that say otherwise. Civilian struggles is neutral. Thanks at least for restoring that.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources: Chernow 2017, pp. 95, 106; Simon 2002, p. 242; McFeely 1981, p. 60–61; Brands 2012, pp. 94-96. Gwillhickers. Here are the sources. I don't like going around in circles. Julia Grant said that the Grant family lacked clothing, furniture, and money. She did not even have shoes to go shopping. There was enough food. And Grant always had shelter. We can't go by your narrow definition of poverty. Again. I don't want to go in circles and reargueing the same thing ad infinitum. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Julia felt she didn't have decent shoes to go shopping with, but you seem to be stretching this as to mean she was walking around barefoot. Another misrepresentation. My view of poverty is not narrow, but realistic, so we should make attempts to have the narrative read this way if you insist on using the term poverty. This will be at least the third time this has been explained for you. Again, Chernow and McFeely don't support your take on poverty as it concerns the Grants. Brands, pp. 94-96 says they were poor in clothing and furniture, but didn't go hungry and had a sound roof over head, and doesn't refer to their existence as being in a state of actual poverty. He also says they dressed very plainly. He doesn't say they were in need of clothing. Simon is a general reference about all US presidents, and not viewable, so we should replace that with something better, given all the sources to choose from. Still waiting for a source that says the Grants were living in a state of poverty.  Three editors have expressed reservations about the idea of poverty here. The section title is now more accurate and neutral. That was a major improvement. Thanks again for that.  The last sentence, however, is sloppy. Grant always had a loyalty to his family, to those who helped him, and saying he had a strong desire not to be poor is like saying Grant had a strong desire not to get shot during the war. This is good writing?  Again, Brands, Chernow and McFeely don't support the last sentence, and Simon remains a questionable source, esp since you've continually misrepresented sources. Would you please fix the last sentence in terms of content and citations, so we don't have to tag it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary statement
The last sentence in the Civilian struggles and politics section is so simple it really isn't necessary:
 *  Poverty caused Grant to develop a loyalty to those who helped him and strong desire for security and economic stability.

Aside from not being neutral, and not supported by the sources, in regards to the idea of poverty, it would simply be best to remove this obtuse statement entirely. We already use the term poverty near the beginning of the section in context with "financial struggles". However, it's used in a stand alone fashion in the last sentence. This, after a discussion about making contextual statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * would you quote the passage in Chernow, p.95 that says poverty caused Grant to develop a loyalty, etc?
 * would you quote the passage in McFeely, pp.60-61 that says poverty caused ... ?
 * would you quote the passage in Brands, pp.94-96 that says poverty caused ... ?
 * would you quote the passage in Simon, p.242 that says poverty caused ... ?

Statement is not supported by sources

 * Chernow, p. 95 speaks only of Julia's unyielding faith and admiration for Grant. Chernow only refers to their struggles as a "trying period".
 * Brands, pp.94-95, covers Grant's partnership with Boggs, which ended, and his efforts to get a job as county engineer, which failed because he was new to Missouri. On p. 96 Brands quotes Mrs Boggs as saying they were poor in cloths and furniture, but they always had enough to eat, and that Julia, who came from a wealthy family, once complained that she didn't have shoes suitable to go shopping with. None of this amounts to poverty.
 * McFeely, pp.60-61 speaks of life at Hardscrabble, a house Grant built and owned, and that he struggled financially and did things like sell firewood and farming, which got him by. Like other farmers, the Grants sometimes had to go without things like sugar, spices, coffee, etc. They never wanted for food, basic clothing, and again, always had a sound roof overhead, even if they didn't have all the furniture they wanted.

None of the three sources above mention "poverty", but only describe financial difficulties, also experienced by other farmers in the general area. Civilian struggles best describes this period. None of these sources talk about how Grant "develop[ed] a loyalty to those who helped him..." Unless we can quote Simon as supportive of the statement in question, it should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Closing statement
Cm' it is not my intention to see your edit simply wiped out for no good reason. A good, FA worthy, closing statement for the section is welcomed and you were on the right track at least. There's no doubt that Grant came through his struggle with a new perspective on life, and perhaps a renewed appreciation for his family and friends, not that it was lacking in the first place of course. I've not reverted any of your edits all along, that seems to only further anger you. If you can come up with a closing statement, per the sources mentioned, it would be welcomed by all editors here, I'm sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that it is helpful to have a statement about the effects of poverty right there, at the end of the paragraph about his settling in Galena and his views on the 1860 election. If it goes anywhere, shouldn't it go at or near the end of the previous paragraph?
 * But I am not sure that a grand closing statement is even appropriate. Who are we, a bunch of anonymous amateur encyclopedia editors, to be deciding why Grant conducted his life the way he did?  That's the privilege of serious scholars, and even then, it's only food for thought, not something to be taken as gospel.  Why was Grant loyal to those who helped him, why did he want security and stability?  Do we even have to answer those questions?  Isn't it normal to be loyal to those who help you?  Isn't it normal to want security and stability?  Maybe those traits just got stronger as he got older and wiser.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The lot of use are experienced editors of Grant's life. No, we don't know everything, but we should say something to close the section with, imo. A closing statement, per sources, is appropriate, per good writing, as is expected of FA criteria. No one is trying to advance anything unusual here. Grant's life, at this late date, is pretty much carved in stone. We're only passing on the torch. Cm' made attempts to do this, but was not completely inline with the sources, per poverty, though his thoughts were still in line with the established facts. Grant, with wife and children, went through a seven year trial, yet always kept his head above water. A closing statement to this effect, imo, is needed. I'm sure history buffs and students of American history would welcome our scrutinized assessment of the sources, not to mention any scholars that visit our page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear Gwillhickers you are acting as a controlling editor. Only your opinion matters. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You got your way. Final sentence removed. I don't like being badgered in the talk page. Any more orders ? Cmguy777 (talk) 08:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Legitimate concerns were submitted to you. Reasonable discussions regarding poverty v civilian struggles were made, per sources. You added a statement which wasn't really necessary, and then, once again, got the citations all wrong. Even so, no reverts were made in the hopes we could resolve this in a reasonable capacity and maintain a measure of stability. I asked you to cite passages. You were given a chance to come up with another closing statement, but apparently are too disgruntled to be bothered with that. You've been extended courtesies that most editors don't get, and you're still not happy. To top it off now I have to deal with your usual accusations. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My citations were not all wrong. They weren't wrong at all. And neither were my edits. Coemgenus agreed with me concerning poverty leaving scars with Grant. "extended courtesies" That sounds like I am a subordinate editor. We are all equal here. It is difficult to edit when every edit needs to be approved by you and extremely hostile to edit on this page. Prior to your return this article was much more pleasant to work on. Grant deserves better than this. For some reason you continue to direct your attacks towards myself. Not sure why. You can edit all you want, but don't badger me to remove my own edits. You have the ability to work well with editors when you want to. I have not seen that side in awhile. In my opinion, editors live in fear their edits won't be approved. That is just not right. How about a pax and just work together without all the negative talk. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow. You unload all of that and then mention "negative talk" while attempting, once again, to make me your scapegoat. It is not "negative talk" to insist you get the citations right. Chernow, Brands nor McFeely mentioned "poverty" on the pages you cited and not one of them explained the idea of Grant's renewed loyalty. You were asked to cite any supporting passages. You didn't because there are none. Also, what source/page number covers the idea of "emotional scars"? If you care to read Chernow, p. 95 (starting with the paragraph that reads, "Even during this trying period...") you'll read about how happy Grant was to be at Hardscrabble, after living years at isolated military outposts, and that he would return from a hard days work in the field and stepped into Hardscrabble as if  it was his "haven", ... "completely relaxed and happy" with his wife. Naturally Grant didn't enjoy having little money, but none of the sources, at lease none that you presented, talk about Grant living in "poverty" and suffering from "emotional scars". Of course you know all of that having carefully read the sources you brought to the table. And if Simon had supported any of this it seems you would have presented the supporting page number and passage by now.  I made attempts to "work together", made no reverts, asked you for supporting passages, invited you to come up with another closing statement. Instead all you're doing is passing the same old hat.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Chernow (2017), p 1046, "on growing poverty", and Brands (2012), p 705, "poverty of" mention poverty in their respected indexes. Indexes are part of the book, an important part. McFeely (1981), p 61 says "The "poverty, poverty" which had haunted Grant in the West came east with him." You are spreading misinformation and pressuring me to remove my edit that Coemgenus approved. Its your citing of misinformation that is negative. You are very capable of editing yourself. I was happy with my closing statement and did not want to change a thing, so I removed it. You are still complaining about an edit that has been removed. Again, it is all nit picking editing over a definition of what you believe poverty is. Again. I hope we can work together. This continued argumentation over poverty is making the article unstable. And again. This article needs stability, not coninued bickering. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The idea of "poverty" listed in any index should be qualified in the text. We don't cite indexes, we cite contextual prose, and "poverty" wasn't mentioned in the pages you cited. Regardless, your citations didn't support the idea, esp when weighed against the actual circumstances of Grant's family life. They were not living in actual poverty, but trying, belt-tightening, times, regardless of any index notation. Also, you made all of your own reversions in the text, all I've ever done is appeal, and assert the idea that "poverty" is a misleading overstatement. Real poverty involves hunger and want of basic clothing, and good shelter, not lack of some furniture items. Grant and wife always had their own home, horses, food, and decent clothing. Julia's want of fashionable shoes to go shopping with doesn't come close to substantiating the idea of "poverty". If you are so hell bent on asserting the idea of "poverty" you should have something more to show for than an index notation or a passing reference to the idea. As editors, who deal with dozens of sources, and, hopefully, evaluate all the factors involved, we should give the readers the best narrative possible. Saying Grant lived in poverty is a gross overstatement, all things considered. Please tell us what in Grant's life amounts to "poverty", and in what source(s) is this actually substantiated in terms of wanting for food, basic clothing and shelter? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers. The indexes that say "poverty" are describing poverty in the narration, although not specifically saying the word. That is common sense. You should not enforce your definition of poverty as one of destitution. Even by the standards of the times a first hand account said that the Grants were very poor. Yes they had food and shelter. But so do homeless people. Food and shelter does not make one wealthy. You want to romantisize Grant and poverty. Grant did not. He hated it. The Civil War got him out of poverty, quickly, and he would never desire to go back. He loved the wealthy: Fish, Fisk, and Gould. He dined with Royalty and lived a life of luxury on his world tour. He ate. He gained weight. He wanted to be wealthy. He lived the life of a pauper in Missouri. He was forced to return to Illinois to work for his father Jesse under strict terms. Louisa Boggs said they lacked furniture, money, and clothing. That was quoted in Brands (2012) p 96. "They were very poor in money and in clothes and in furniture, " Louisa Boggs recalled. They always had enough to eat, but Mrs. Grant had to dress very plainly. I remember once someone asked her to go downtown shopping and she said, 'I can't do it. I have no shoes fit to wear on the streets.' "  But no matter what I say or the sources I cite will convince you otherwise. It is best to move onto other things. As Grant said: "Let us have peace." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've not "enforced" my definition of poverty, but have only related to the established facts, per sources. The idea of "poverty" listed in any index should be qualified in the text. We don't cite indexes, we cite contextual prose, and "poverty" wasn't mentioned in the pages you cited. Regardless, your citations didn't support the idea, esp when weighed against the actual circumstances of Grant's family life. They were not living in actual poverty, but trying, belt-tightening, times, regardless of any index notation. Also, you made all of your own reversions in the text, all I've ever done is appeal, and assert the idea that "poverty" is a misleading overstatement. Real poverty involves hunger and want of basic clothing, and good shelter. Grant and wife always had their own home, horses, food, and decent clothing. Julia's want of fashionable shoes to go shopping with doesn't come close to substantiating the idea of "poverty", and your suggestion she was walking around barefoot seems beneath you. If you are so hell bent on asserting the idea of "poverty" you should have something more to show for than an index notation or a passing reference to the idea. As editors, who deal with dozens of sources, and, hopefully, evaluate all the factors involved, we should give the readers the best narrative possible. Saying Grant lived in poverty is a gross overstatement, all things considered. Please tell us what in Grant's life amounts to "poverty", and in what source(s) is this actually substantiated in terms of wanting for food, basic clothing and shelter? We already mention poverty, but in context with financial difficulties. How further do you want to expand the idea of poverty, and what facts will you present to advance that idea? Have the lot of us missed something here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with your own assessment of Grant and poverty. My citations and sources did support Grant lived in poverty. You disagreed. You are entitled to your own opinion. The information the Grants lacking money, furniture, and clothing should suffice for now. Let's drop the stick and move on. Please. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We can say the sources support your idea of poverty, but not mine. My, and I would dare say most people's, idea of poverty includes hunger, poor clothing, no employment whatsoever, and poor or no shelter. None of the sources use the term poverty in their narrative, and don't even come close to describing these things; they only refer to "trying times", and things like "poor in furniture", etc. Chernow, p.95,  describes Grant as "completely relaxed and happy', thankful to be home in his safe "haven" with wife Julia, regardless of financial difficulties. I don't, and didn't, order you around or regard you as one of my subordinates. It's unfortunate that you had to unload all that personal stuff on my doorstep. Didn't appreciate that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The definition of poverty is not set in stone. Poverty simply means the state of being very poor. It is open to some debate or speculation. An eye witness said the Grant family was very poor. Grant's poverty was not soley economic. Maybe similar to a religious vow, Grant chose not to sell his slave for $1,500. He set him free. Maybe that point could be emphasized. His conscious could not allow him to sell a slave for profit. The Grant family was not destitute, but practically speaking, very poor. When you look at Washington's or Jefferson's homes and compare it to Grant's Hardscrabble home, I personally would call that very poor. But it was a home, nonetheless. I don't want to rehash old arguements. Just clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Morally choosing not to profit from slavery, Grant set his slave free, rather than sell him, for a potential $1,500." That emphasizes Grant's poverty was not all economic. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be obsessed over a term more than you are about Grant's actual living condition, as the sources have outlined rather well. i.e.You forgot to compare Hardscrablle with the Taj Mahal. That Grant didn't sell a slave that was dumped in his lap, only emphasizes that he was not in a state of poverty, so much so that he had to sell the slave to make ends meet. Grant owned his own home, was happy, owned his own horses and such, tilled the soil, sold firewood, etc. Grant was on the "poor" side, like most folks, but not dirt poor, and always provided for his family where it mattered most. "Poverty" more than suggests that he didn't measure up to this end. Is that what you really want to say? Unless you have ideas for the narrative, in terms of clarity and article improvement, per sources, we should move on, as you previously suggested. You said you didn't want to rehash the debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved on. I have made edits on the First Barbary War. But you made a counter remark and accused me of unloading "personal stuff on my doorstep" when I had asked to drop the stick. The two books I sourced referred to that time in Grant and Julia's life in the indexes as poverty. That is why I used the word. It is not about my idea of poverty. It is what the sources say. Indexes are part of the books. I am not sure who compiles the indexes, the editors or author, but the indexes are part of the source, as a whole. The sources say Grant needed money when he freed the slave. That is a mark of personal sacrifice on Grant's part. Let's move on, without any more personal remarks. Please. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Then I can trust I'm not going to see remarks like this when things don't go your way?:


 * — "You want other editors to abide by your own rules you impose" — "I think it is clear Gwillhickers you are acting as a controlling editor. Only your opinion matters." — "It is difficult to edit when every edit needs to be approved by you and extremely hostile to edit on this page." — "Prior to your return this article was much more pleasant to work on." You were asked to cite page numbers/passages that supported the above statement. Poverty isn't used in the narrative, all the sources use different terms, like "trying times",, etc - and you failed to show where it said poverty caused Grant to "develop a loyalty to those who helped him..." It was a reasonable request, not an "order" or an "imposed rule". Things would be much more pleasant if you didn't carry on as if we can't remember recent discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, Grant made a personal sacrifice when he freed a slave while needing money, but again, he wasn't going hungry, lived in a sound house, not a run down dwelling, was happy, owned horses and made a modest income that kept his head above water -- all along. This is not the picture of poverty, regardless if the word is used as a generic reference in one of the indexes. If Grant was living in actual poverty it seems at least one of the sources would have said so, and in qualified terms. None did. All we've seen thus far is mention of financial difficulties, trying times and a hearsay remark from a neighbor about "poor furniture". You say let's move on, but before you do you try to breath life into the idea of poverty every time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Memorialized as ...
"At the time of his death, he was memorialized as a man who preserved the Union and a symbol of national unity."

Strange to say this, but reading in Rice's book, the "Epilogue" chapter, pp. 653-656, I came to the conclusion that the "national unity" part was very important at the time, and that we should stick with just that. For instance, there were the Confederate generals who were pallbearers, and the tributes from the Montgomery and New Orleans newspapers. I didn't revert your change, but I propose to do so. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * H.W. Brands Grant biography title is: The Man Who Saved The Union Ulysses S. Grant In War and Peace. The "national unity" or "reconciliation" had a cost. The Civil Rights of African Americans. That was taken away at the Compromise of 1877. From what I have read in Brands Grant kept America from going into another Civil War during his presidency, especially in the aftermath of the election of 1876. Grant also was the leading Civil War General who got the job of Union victory done. The Union soldiers who fought for Grant deserve some credit too. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved The Union pages 578-579 gives some explanation on Grant securing the Union. "The Union was secure." (page 579) I am not sure that other historians go as far as Brands does in saying or implying Grant saved the Union. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Grant was widely noted for acting as the General who saved the Union for his victory at Vicksburg, a long campaign that split the Confederacy, and his defeat of Robert E. Lee and his subsequent surrender at Appomattox. Grant had succeeded where several other generals failed and quickly rose through the ranks, with praise from Lincoln and others. National unity and Saving the Union share similar ideas, but the idea of Saving the Union, a war time effort, is more specific, which again, was what Grant was noted for. His funeral procession was mostly that of the military. National unity, otoh, was an ideal and an effort that involved his presidency, which he was not completely successful at. Many historians cover 'Saving the Union', and one goes so far as to spell this idea out in the very title of Grant's biography. Since this seems to be a matter of opinion, I'll not re-revert the statement, but, imo, we should also mention saving the Union. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant did not unite the country. The next day after his death his Presidency was critisized. Confederates who participated in Grant's funeral, probably were against citizenship for blacks. I can't say that for certain, but the South was against black citizenship, as well as the North. Any national unity only lasted one day, his funeral. The nation was secure after his generalship and presidential careers ended in 1877, not after his death. There was no Civil War II, but the vision of blacks being equal citizens that Grant had was lost for about 80 years. Critics buried Reconstruction as corrupt. Lynchings of blacks, Jim Crow, and the revival of the KKK took place or continued after Grant. In my opinion that is not a united or secure nation. We can say that Grant secured the nation during the election of 1876-1877. Securing the nation is more specific than saving the Union, although, I am not against using that term in the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, "securing the nation" is a bit vague. We wouldn't say the lifeguard "secured" the drowning man – we would say he saved him. Same with the Union. "Saved the Union" is just that, a specific event, for better and worse, and the sources support that idea. As for national unity, I agree, that is sort of an up in the air idea, considering the calamity of Reconstruction efforts, the plight of blacks, the South's unwillingness to comply with Union authority, etc. Of course, he didn't do it by himself, but Grant has been widely memorialized for saving the Union, and it was this effort that won him the presidency. We should simply say that at his funeral Grant was memorialized for saving the Union, rather than for national unity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. The "national unity" was only for the funeral. There may have been some unity at the dedication of the Grant memorial in New York City Grant's Tomb in 1897. President McKinely, a Civil War veteran, was a fan of Grant. But these were special events. America at that time was pretty much segregated. Reconstruction was viewed negatively. Blacks were second class citizens. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Going beyond his military authority ...
In the section about Appomattox, we write, "Going beyond his military authority, Grant gave Lee and his men amnesty; ..." But looking through Perret, Smith, and White, not to mention the Memoirs, I see no mention that Grant exceeded his authority. Is there some other source that says that he did? (Of course there was the well-known incident a few days later where Sherman exceeded his authority in offering terms to Johnston.) Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement is sourced by Goethals 2015, p. 92; Smith, 2001, p. 405. Smith says that Lee had requested considerations (e.g.keeping horses) that were not spelled out in the terms of surrender. Since it was Grant and his staff who drafted the terms, it would seem saying that he exceeded his authority is not the best way to communicate the idea. Perhaps we can reword the statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lincoln gave no specific instructions, plus, he was assassinated. Booth did a lot of damage to a peaceful reconciliation of Reconstrution. The President could only give the Confederates amnesty or pardons. Grant was only a General. Could Grant give the Confederates parole ? Maybe we could say: "In line with Lincoln's request to "Let 'em up easy" Grant gave Lee and his men parole; ..." Also there really was no official end of the Civil War. No peace treaties were signed. Congress prevented upper rank Confederates from voting in elections. Johnson allowed their lands to be returned. Was Grant authorized to give paroles to Lee and his men ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lincoln's death occurred well after the surrender and had no bearing on the terms of surrender or whether Grant overstepped his authority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lee surrendered to Grant on April 9, 1865. Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865 and died the next day April 15, 1865. That is a period of 5 to 6 days. I would not say: "well after", in my opinion. But my main question is did Grant have the power to parole soldiers, or was that only the priviledge of the President ? There apparently is no evidence Lincoln objected to Grant giving the Confederates parole, even within 5 to 6 days. What was Lincoln's initial reaction to Lee's surrender ? That might help this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Last Public Address Washington, D.C. April 11, 1865 "We meet this evening, not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace whose joyous expression can not be restrained. In the midst of this, however, He from whom all blessings flow, must not be forgotten. A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated. Nor must those whose harder part gives us the cause of rejoicing, be overlooked. Their honors must not be parcelled out with others. I myself was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honor, for plan or execution, is mine. To Gen. Grant, his skilful officers, and brave men, all belongs. The gallant Navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take active part." Abraham Lincoln Cmguy777 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Both White and Perret mention Confederates being paroled at Vicksburg, and Perret says they were also paroled at Fort Donelson. It sounds as though this was more or less normal when the number of people who surrendered was too large to handle.  White says that at Vicksburg, officers got to keep their side arms.  Apparently the only difference from Appomattox was that at the latter surrender, officers and men got to keep their horses.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article should say "parole" instead of "amnesty." I think it is obvious from Lincoln's last speech he had no issues with Grant giving the Confederates parole and he hoped for a fast reconciliation. Was Grant giving Lee horses exceeding his responsibility ? Lincoln did not seem to mind. I believe Lincoln was on a ship when Lee surrendered. Both Andrew Johnson and Grant believed Sherman went to far accepting Joseph Johnson's surrender terms. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I have found the place in Goethals where he says Grant's last sentence "exceeded his military authority, as Lincoln had earlier made clear". So I can't blame anyone for quoting or paraphrasing that.  Thanks very much for the clarifications!
 * However, balancing what Goethals is saying against what the other sources I have seen are saying or not saying, I think it would be judicious to refrain from taking this from Goethals. If Grant and his subordinates, and afterwards everyone else, did not cavil at this would-be usurpation of authority, probably we should not either.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa, I just realized what the real issue was, and it wasn't horses. It was where Grant said, "... not to be disturbed by U.S. authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside."  This may have meant, and I'm relying on what I read in White, that the surrendered men did not have to fear prosecution for having fought in the war.  This was actually a point of contention later -- Johnson said that "treason must be made odious", meaning that he wanted to prosecute at least some of the higher-ups.  But Grant largely got his way.
 * I guess this is what Goethals is referring to. I will think about how to rewrite our sentence so that it explains that more clearly.  Again, thanks for the help!  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnson was later lenient to the former Confederates, but he did initially wanted to prosecute Lee, who was under Grant's parole. Grant may have disobeyed Johnson outright. But Grant gave the parole technically under Lincoln. Maybe the article could say that Grant's parole would later bring contention between him and Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, Lincoln's death had nothing to do with Grant's decision to allow Confederate officers to return home with their horses and swords. The question remains, i.e.did Grant overstep his authority? Lincoln trusted and allowed Grant to make his own field decisions – he didn't try to control the battles, and their aftermath, from behind a desk. This would not be the first time Grant made big decisions on his own. e.g. He attacked forts Henry and Donelson without General Halleck's authorization, for which Halleck bitterly complained to Lincoln. Lincoln had received other such complaints about Grant, along with allegations of drunkeness,  where Lincoln uttered his famous words, "This man fights", commending Grant's otherwise questionable battle decisions. As Bruce points out, Grant was dealing with large numbers of Confederate troops at the time of surrender.  It seems Grant's decision to placate Confederate officers was a wise move, helping to defuse a potentially unstable situation and within the limits of the discretion allowed him by Lincoln, et al. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not go into the question of what sort of leeway Lincoln was allowing to Grant. Goethals seems to think that "Lincoln had made clear" that Grant shouldn't overstep his authority, although I do not know what statement by Lincoln Goethals was referring to.  It may be that, by the time of the actual surrender, Lincoln had come around to having no qualms with an amnesty.  But the question would have come up anyway.  There were plenty of people, including Johnson, who thought (at least at first) that amnesty was not a good idea.  Grant might have expected to encounter resistance to his move, even if not from Lincoln (had Lincoln survived).


 * So I think I'll take the tack suggested by Cmguy777: change the sentence so that, instead of emphasizing the "exceeding authority" aspect, it emphasizes the later friction with Johnson, or perhaps just the generic controversial question of amnesty vs. prosecution.  Bruce leverett (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said Lincoln's death or assassination had anything to do with Grant's parole to Lee and his army. I am saying there was a turn over in Presidents. Johnson wanted to arrest Lee, but Grant said no, because he gave the Lee and his army parole, under Lincoln. Would Lincoln have wanted to arrest Lee ? We will never no because of Booth. That is the whole problem. We don't know what Lincoln would have done for Reconstruction. It seems, from Lincoln's last speech, he either agreed with Grant giving parole to Lee's Army or did not disagree with Grant giving parole to Lee's Army. From what I have read Grant directly disobeyed Johnson's order to arrest Lee. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Johnson was not the President at the time of surrender. Arresting Lee it seems would have been counter productive. Lee was (and still is) idolized by the south. Putting this man in irons, with a large Confederate army all about, would only have made matters of reconciliation, and later, Reconstruction efforts, much more difficult than it already was. A pragmatic Grant must have known that Lee was better left to lead his faithful followers back home. I don't think there's any reservations here that Grant made the right call, all things considered. Overstepping his authority on the field? I'll have to dig up an exact source/page number, it seems, but Lincoln gave Grant much latitude when dealing with an enemy in the field. Unless there are specific sources that say otherwise, we shouldn't say Grant overstepped his authority when he allowed Confederate officers to retain their horses and swords. After all, he wasn't allowing the Confederate army to walk away fully armed, rifles, cannons, ordinance, supplies and all. At this point we'll need to speak in terms of specific sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said Johnson was president at the time of Lee's surrender. Lincoln was. But Johnson was in charge when Lee was indicted for treason. Not Lincoln. Grant had to work with Johnson, who apparently did not think much of Grant's parole of Lee and his army. Lee could have been tried by a military tribunal. From what I read it is inferred that Johnson wanted Grant to put Lee on trial. Grant said never. From what I read in White (2016) it seems Johnson wanted Lee tried by the military. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What we need to clarify is whether Grant overstepped his authority. Since he was never recalled, reprimanded or charged with anything thing it seems he acted in accord with what was expected of him on the battlefield with many thousands of Confederate troops and officers all about.  It seems the only way we'll really nail this one is to review the surrender at Appomattox, esp where it involves Grant's direct dealings with Lee during the actual surrender, signing, etc. I've read several accounts about Grant permitting officers to return home with their horses and swords. Don't recall anything that said this was somehow an unofficial or otherwise illegal action on Grant's part. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * White, p. 406 says: Grant met with Robert E. Lee ... to arrange for the surrender. Grant's magnanimous terms would become part of his enduring legacy.  This suggests that Grant's actions, i.e.leniency, forgiveness, etc, never involved any sort of legal or official issue(s). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Grant went beyond his authority at Appomatox. The confrontation with Johnson had to do with Lee being indicted for treason, but it was indirectly affected by Appomatox. I am not sure why it is said Grant went beyond his military authority. For the sake of the article, I would take the statement out of the narration. It is too confusing to the reader without anything specific to what Grant supposedly overstepped his own authority. It seems to be a basic surrender document. It certainly was not a peace treaty to end the war. That seems to have been more what Sherman did. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find the statement in the article. Apparently it was removed. It is kind of a moot point to argue in the talk page since it is not in the article. Unless there is a specific source that says Grant overstepped his authority and mentions what that (those) overstep (oversteps) was (were) specifically, I am not sure this talk is productive anymore or needed for now. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Also on White, p. 406 it reads: The final sentence in Grant's quickly written 185 word terms of surrender said, This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by U.S. authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside After Lee signed the letter he asked Grant if some of his men could keep their horses.  Grant replied, "Well the subject is new to me ... I take it most of the men are small farmers." Knowing they would need their horses to put a crop in, he granted Lee's request.  Nothing there that even suggests that Grant had over stepped his authority. [Add :  I agree, at this point, that it would be best to leave the statement in question out of the article, but we should look a bit further to make sure this would be appropriate.] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I found the discussion of this in Smith, pp. 417-8, to be especially helpful. Johnson could, legally, have overruled Grant, and proceeded with prosecuting the Confederate generals.  In that sense, Grant's promise that they would not be prosecuted was overstepping his authority.  Elsewhere, I read that a number of Confederate generals, after their armies had surrendered, went to Mexico to avoid potential prosecution.  But Johnson must have realized, eventually, that going after the Confederate generals would be a bad idea; so he backed down.  Was it because Grant threatened to resign?  Or were there other arguments that were persuasive to him?  I don't know.  So the fact that Johnson had the ultimate authority, and not Grant, proved in the end to be relatively less important.  That's the main reason I removed the part about "going beyond his authority" -- it's true, but it's relatively less important.


 * This was a very interesting situation. Soon afterwards, it was Grant who was zealously pursuing Reconstruction, which Johnson had vetoed.  It almost seems as if they had switched roles.  Yet, I do not doubt that each one thought he was being consistent in his ideas about how to achieve reunification.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnson was not president when Grant gave parole to the Confederate Generals. Apparently that was the will of Lincoln who gave Grant leeway at Appomattox hoping for a speedy return of the rebel states into the Union. True. Johnson did not have to abide by or continue Grant's policy of parole. Grant privately threatened to resign which he could have done in protest. It was ultimately Johnson's choice and priviledge to prosecute Lee and his generals. Grant expressed objective to Johnson. Was that insubordination ? It could have been. Probably was, maybe similar to McCarthur defying Truman. Grant had an unmilitary attitude, according to Simon (2002) page 246. It was Grant's unmilitary attitude that made him a great general. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

editbreak2

 * Bruce, on the surface it seems Grant and Johnson switched roles, with Grant pursuing Reconstruction and Johnson in opposition, but they're actually two different situations. Grant allowed Confederate soldiers in the filed to return, which is quite different than pursuing Reconstruction legislation and (trying to) unite the country. This is not to say, however, that their sympathies for the south overall seemed not to have been reversed. To say Grant had over-stepped his authority, a direct order from Lincoln or Johnson would have had to of been issued. Removing the statement in question was and is the best way to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cm', had Johnson, or Lincoln, gave Grant a specific directive to detain Lee and other Confederate offices and then Grant ignored them and permitted them to return home, then we could say Grant had definitely been over-stepping his authority. Early on, Lincoln had told Grant that he could make his own decisions in the battle field, and this is exactly what Grant had done. All things considered, it seems to have been the right call, which is why neither Johnson or Lincoln pursued the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree Grant made the right call. There is some irony. Lee was the one who captured John Brown, who was indicted, tried, convicted, and executed for Treason. As for Grant I think he was insubordinate at times to authority, but that is what made him a great general, and saved Lee's life. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * John Brown's father, Owen Brown, apprenticed Jesse R. Grant, Grant's father. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Grant's father, Jesse, though an ardent abolitionist who admired John Brown, thought he was an idealist and a naive fanatic, and was recognized as such by most Blacks, which is why he could never get the following he had hoped for. Regardless of his apparent 'good intentions', Brown was rightfully hanged, trying to play god, taking lives at the armory at Harpers Ferry, over social issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Concern over foreign intervention
Re: the removal of this phrase (in bold) : In 1869, concerned about encroaching European powers, Grant initiated his personal "pointed strategic vision"; the annexation of the Dominican Republic, then called Santo Domingo. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive_40#Grant_the_%22expansionist%22? We recently had a discussion about this, in early October.]

Chernow's comment on pp.661-662 i.e."Grant portrayed himself as a passive spectator" is a reference to Grant's involvement before he assumed the presidency. However, when Grant was president, which is what the phrase in question lends itself to, he was giving serious consideration to annexation for several reasons, as pointed out by Chernow, p. 662. Grant authored a complete statement, "Reasons why Santo Domingo should be annexed to the U.S.", where he refers to a haven for blacks, mineral wealth, sugar, coffee, and an island free from European control. Brands, pp.454-455 covers where, Grant, in a memo wrote that "Santo Domingo is the gate to the Caribbean Sea, and in the line of transit to the Isthmus of [Panama], destined to no distant day to be the line of transit of half the commerce of the world. Britain's possessions in the Caribbean threatened to block American access from the Atlantic to Central America." Indeed there was great concern over foreign intervention, shared by Grant and his administration. This is not a "passive" involvement, or concern. The deleted phrase, "concerned about encroaching European powers", is supported by the text that follows in that section. i.e."Grant believed acquisition of the Caribbean island would increase American prosperity, and U.S. naval protection to enforce the Monroe Doctrine". Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We are being repetitive in this section. The first sentence explains why Grant was interested in Santo Domingo, and then the second sentence explains it again, not any better or worse, and not covering new ground.  Without pointing the finger of blame, I would ask the editors that have recently been working on this section to reduce the redundancy.
 * Also, I am concerned that we are coming close to plagiarism in the sentence, " If you read the discussion in Chernow, we are using almost, but not quite, his exact wording.  I would be willing to try to rewrite this in my own words, if one of you would not prefer to do it yourself.


 * Also, opinions may differ, but I don't think that Calhoun's phrase, "pointed strategic vision", is so outstanding that we need to quote it. It would be enough just to describe Grant's ideas about Santo Domingo -- the reader will easily draw the appropriate conclusions.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The source Chernow 2017 page numbers cited did not support that statement: concerned about encroaching European powers. That why it was removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no "plagiarism" involved when we make, and designate, quotes. The opening statement should make clear why Grant favored annexation. This can be, and should be, reiterated, with context, in the following text. i.e. " from "the crime of Klu Kluxism", etc. All statements were, and are, well sourced. We are only further clarifying the opening language with important context. i.e."U.S. naval protection to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The opening statement is general. The following text provides the details, per Panama, Britain intervention, etc. We are not balancing an atomic equation here. If there is a better way to cover all points in the opening language, per a proposal, I'd be interested. A haven for Freed Blacks, and foreign obstruction to American commerce were major considerations. Grant, a president, was not "passive" in his concern for these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Calhoun has been reworded. I put things in my own words. "Oceanic canal" was all me. In fact it is better wording than Calhoun. I don't mind using my own words, but we also need to keep context. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have to say, you guys have addressed all my complaints, though I will look around for other things to complain about.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will put things in my own words. I personally author better than the sources. I won't be shy anymore. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the changes were okay, some of them not necessary. I agree, however, that sometimes we should speak in Wikipedia's voice, so long as we don't start employing original research, or over state simple points with hyper-speak. Also, the addition of "Oceanic canal" is more definitive and a good choice of words. At least now we are clear about Grant's concerns about annexation, far from "passive" and that the threat of foreign intervention was a major consideration, points that were obscured, and in one case, removed, previously. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, I edit in a manner that is in my own words and what I believe is the intent of the author. It might not be perfect, but, I don't want to be accused of "plagerism" even though the sources are cited and editors are free to make the appropriate corrections. It is a balancing act. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All's well that ends well, but I want to make it clear that when I said "plagiarism", I was not accusing anyone of intentional plagiarism. I was thinking of these lines from WP:Plagiarism:
 * ... Wikipedians are highly vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism because we must stick closely to sources, but not too closely. Because plagiarism can occur without an intention to deceive, concerns should focus on educating the editor and cleaning up the article.


 * Sources are annotated using inline citations, typically in the form of footnote (see Citing sources).[3] In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material (for example: "John Smith wrote that the building looked spectacular," or "According to Smith (2012) ...").[4] The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more.[5] Naming the author in the text allows the reader to see that it relies heavily on someone else's ideas, without having to search in the footnote.
 * At the time I wrote, our text said "He forsaw an oceanic canal and Samaná Bay would control its gateway." Chernow said, "... he foresaw that the 'Isthmus of Darien' would someday have a canal ... and a naval base at Samaná would command its gateway." Our wording was close enough to Chernow's wording, that we would have had to use "in-text attribution".  The footnote citation was not sufficient.  But by rewriting it in your own words, you've done the right thing, both to avoid plagiarism, and to get to a wording that suits our purposes better than it suits Chernow's.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Reading in White, the impression I get of the firing of Motley is that it's not that Grant was angry, but that Motley was Sumner's man, i.e. Grant had appointed him to be nice to Sumner; and once he felt he didn't need to be nice to Sumner any more or, or that he wasn't getting any benefit from being nice to Sumner, Grant wanted his own man there, esp. with negotiations going on for the Alabama claims. I haven't read Kahan, perhaps he is quoting conversations that I haven't seen in White (let alone in Perret)? I am surprised to see words like "anger", "retaliation", and "hurt" in connection with what I figure was a pretty cold-blooded decision, but if Grant (or Fish or somebody) came out and said so, I could be wrong. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again. I read and interpret. Grant was a general. It would not be surprising to find the top Union general was cold hearted, at times. Grant believed that firing Motley was the same thing as firing Sumner, but he could not fire Sumner because Sumner was a Senator. Fish was against firing Motley. Grant was not mad at Motley, he was mad at Sumner. Everybody thought that Grant was getting back at Sumner for not endorsing Santo Domingo annexation. It clearly was not meant to be nice. There was no valid reason to fire Motley. Plus it occured the next day. Now as an editor, you are more than welcome to edit on the page and make changes. I believe Sumner was upset that Motley his friend was fired. I would have to re check the sources. At this time, I can only conclude Grant fired Motley out of spite for Sumner. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Calhoun 2017 page 258 Grant was angry at Sumner and he fired Motley because he could not appease or conciliate Sumner. There was no reason to have Motley at the post. Reading between the lines it sounds like Grant was getting back at Sumner. The article no longer says: "hurt Sumner". Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bruce, plagiarism, as you must know, is an idea that can be interpreted broadly. Imo, this is not an issue when we designate quotes.  For example, "Historian Ron Chernow maintains, this, that and the other thing..."  Of course this can be taken too far if we recite Chernow for more than a few sentences. Nor should it be an issue  if we are expressing the same basic ideas, with the same basic phrases, as the sources do. Nothing of this magnitude has occurred around here to an extent that this should be an issue, imo. Further, at this late date, it would seem that any idea, common figures of speech, etc. expressed by a historian has been used before by others. At the same time, I would encourage editors to speak with Wikipedia's voice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cm', I'd have no objections if you can further clarify Grant's feelings and/or intentions, not that the section really needs it at this point, so long as it's well sourced. The Grant biography is about Grant the person, foremost, as compared to battle tactics, and political details, for which there are a fair number of dedicated articles for: ( e.g. 1,  2 ). Any information that can be brought to the table that further illuminates Grant feelings and intentions is welcomed here, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Grant said himself that going after Motley was the same thing as going after Sumner. Grant was angry after Santo Domingo failed. I don't know what Grant's personal feelings were. I don't believe biographers of his life or presidency know Grant's true feelings. Fish wanted Grant to wait to force Motley to resign a few months. Grant would have none of that. The narration has been toned down in the article. Fish was correct. Grant should have followed Fish's advice but he did not. It seems the military general part of Grant took over. He was obsessed about Santo Domingo. What Grant did was cold hearted. But again. The narration has been toned. I don't want to psycho analyze Grant's feelings. Calhoun pages 258-259 said [Fish] urged Grant to allow Motley to remain in office until winter. Grant said "That will not do." "I will not let Sumner ride all over me." Fish said he would be striking Motley not Sumner. Grant responded by saying "It is the same thing." Again. The narration is toned. There is some reading between the lines. I take the conversation to mean Grant was angry at Sumner and took it out by dismissing Motley the next day. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Taking measures against Motley for no other reason than to anger Sumner seems completely out of character for someone like Grant. Motley's association with Sumner must have had much to do with Grant's decision. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing "hurt Sumner". Also thanks for furnishing, above, the quotations by Calhoun from the discussion of Motley by Grant and Fish.  In the article, the present characterization of Grant's decision looks OK to me.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To make the section neutral I removed "in retaliation". We do need to keep in that Grant was angry. That is sourced by Calhoun (2017) pages 258-259. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sumner and Motley
The section reads good, but there was room for an additional point of clarification. Motley had already angered Grant when he disregarded Fish's carefully drafted orders regarding settlement of the Alabama Claims, feeling Motley was influenced by Sumner (which is not mentioned). Grant had already wanted to remove Motley, but it was Fish, at that point, who discouraged it. When Sumner, who had previously assured Grant he would lend his support for annexation, headed the committee that rejected those treaties, Grant of course was "outraged", as the article mentioned. Both Motley and Sumner had deeply disappointed Grant. Without actually saying so, this entire course of events gives plausible reason for Grant's dismissal of Motley. ( See also: Corning, 1918, p.69 )-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

More about Vicksburg
White, p. 235, quotes an order by Grant from July 1862: "Hereafter no Passes will be given to Citizens of States in Rebellion, to pass into our lines." This is quite different from "Grant wanted all non-combatant civilians expelled." It doesn't talk about expulsion, only about restricting people's movements; and it only refers to citizens of the Confederate states. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that the phrase, "while his Union soldiers died in the fields", is largely copied, without attribution, from Flood, p. 143, who writes:
 * Both Grant and Sherman found the situation infuriating: as they saw it, while brave Northern boys died, profiteers poured into the South to trade with the enemy ...

It is conspicuously wrong for us to do this. The reader doesn't need us to inform him that soldiers died in the battlefields, nor that Grant was concerned about this. We are an encyclopedia, not a monograph on Grant and Sherman. Flood's use of the phrase "while brave Northern boys died" is itself a cliché, presumably deliberate for him, but inappropriate for us (WP:CLICHE). Since we are about to describe General Order No. 11, I can see that we are trying to prepare the way for this by making excuses for Grant. But this is transparent and lame.

The reference, in the edit summary, to "the mediation conference of 2015" doesn't mean much to me. I wasn't there, and I assume that the effort required to find this dispute in our 42 archives would not be well rewarded. I suppose the implication is that this text was not included entirely on its own merits, but rather, because of some difficult and painful compromise. After the passage of almost 5 years, we can hope to be able to put the mistakes of those years behind us. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the continual rewrite issue, I address above. You can see the mediation link up there where I link it, but you are right you were not there, the thing is others were and agreed and they still churn the text. So no blame on you, if you go in and take that part out. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please cite White (2016) page 235 accurately: Grant told Halleck, "I am decidedly in favor of turning all discontented citizens within our lines out South. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Gwillhickers for drawing my attention to the mediation, and to Alanscottwalker for making a pointer to it available to me. I haven't read every line of it, but I have read parts of it, including the beginning and end, and I have respect for you guys and the process you went through to get to the end point of that mediation.


 * I would not change my complaining about the "while Union soldiers died in the fields" passage, but at the same time, I was not trying to screw up a delicately balanced agreement. Part of being WP:BOLD is that sometimes you get reverted.


 * I see that, while I was pondering my next move, Cmguy777 removed that passage, and added a different, unrelated, one. You have read my thoughts about the passage he removed, but I will back off, and if anyone wants to put it back, I won't jump back in.  Bruce leverett (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need to: "back off". Please keep editing or talking. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Grant's anti-Catholicism
I will argue that Grant incited anti-Catholic bigotry and fear to divert attention away from the scandals in his administration. (1) as stated and quoted above at  (2)  Grant's 1875 call to veterans to defend the nation against the second enemy  specified “superstition, ambition and ignorance,”  --those were the code words in the 1870s for Catholicism. says: {{{cite book|author1=Paul E. Peterson|author2=Michael W. McConnell|title=Scalia’s Constitution: Essays on Law and Education|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r_FdDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA78|year=2017|publisher=Springer|page=78}}  (3) see  (4)  Grant's "pejoratives referring, everyone understood, to the Catholic Church"    (5)  In his December 1875 Annual Message to Congress, Grant urged taxation on "vast amounts of untaxed church property" which Professor McGreevey says was "a transparently anti-catholic measure since only the Catholic Church owned vast amounts of property – in schools, orphanages, and charitable institutions". Grant told Congress such legislation would protect American citizens from tyranny "whether directed by the demagogue or by priestcraft." Rjensen (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's say Grant was "anti-Catholic". Was not Grant just expressing, a popular opinion, at that time, or an accepted opinion, at that time, in the Republican Party ? Why should historians apply modern standards to 1875 or 1862 ? The Mormons had vast amounts of territory in Utah. Maybe Grant wanted to tax them too. Are not evangeliticals part of the Republican Party today, an untaxed Church group. No Republican today would mention taxing them. Grant never mentioned excluding protestant churches from being taxed. His statement actually sounds progressive because he did not directly distinguish who would be taxed or who would be excluded from being taxed. Also, the current Republican Party I believe is for the voucher system: tax dollars going into religious education. Grant's amendment proposal would have prevented that. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the cited RS state that Grant as President in 1875 was repeatedly arousing hatred and bigotry in order to divert attention from his administration scandals-. The RS explicitly say he was directing the hatred at Catholics--(and was grouping Catholics with pagans and atheists!) That is nativism and it was a powerful force in 1870s. He was not casually "just expressing" something casually in private--instead he called on his soldiers and Congress to fight it, using the power & prestige & access to media of the presidency.   Rjensen (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in trying to interpret these events to determine if Grant was a good guy or a bad guy. As Wiki editors, we should carefully avoid doing that, in fact.  The main question for me is whether the sources are WP:RS, and whether the events are notable enough to merit mention in the biography.  I am not sure about the notability, because as Anbinder admits, the speech was "the most talked-about speech of his presidency", but "all but forgotten today".  But I would defer to the judgment of User:Rjensen on the question of notability.  We are chronically spending too much space talking about things that Grant was unable to do, such as annex the Dominican Republic, at the expense of things that he actually did and is remembered for.  But this incident is a highly instructive glimpse into the politics of the 1870's.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This was a signifigant contrast between the Grant of 1862 and the Grant of 1875. Maybe there is a fine line between patriotism and nativism. Grant was careful not to mention race or a specific religion in his speech. It can't be said Grant was anti-Catholic, when he did not mention them in his speech, regardless of: "code words". Possibly Grant knew this. More importantly, we can't apply the standards of the 20 or 21 Centuries to Grant. The economy had tanked. It not always the scandals, and 1875 was a good year for Grant with Bristow, Pierrepont, Fish, and Chandler at the helms of their departments. Grant prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. His administration prosecuted fellow Republcians, including Babcock and McDonald. The speech was shrewd and crafty, but, in my opinion, represented Grant and his times while he was in office. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)