Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 46

Casualty figures
Re: a statement about Cold Harbor in the Overland Campaign (1864) section: "Grant led a costly assault and was soon castigated as "the Butcher" by the Northern press after taking 52,788 Union casualties; Lee's Confederate army suffered 32,907 casualties" The source/citation (Bonekemper essay) does not support these highly inflated figures. The info box in the Battle of Cold Harbor claims 12,738 total and 5,287 total casualties for the Union and Confederacy respectively. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it best to use the Cold Harbor article numbers for clarification. Bonekemper could be right, but it is best to match articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We would have to cite at least seven historians for the average number of casualties, so it's probably best if we just refer to the Cold Harbor article, per Wikipedia's voice, which is permissible, unless someone wants to contest the idea. Chernow and Bonekemper pretty much sums up the situation and casualties. Chernow is quite graphic. Granted wanted to appeal to Lee, under white flag, for both sides to go out and collect the wounded and the bloated bodies, that in some places were stacked up against one another, but Lee insisted on a complete truce. While they were deliberating all but a few of the hundreds of wounded died in the field. (God help us). Sorry to get so "purple", but I'm wondering it this should be included in the Grant 'biography', which should concentrate on Grant and his relationship with other notables, like Lee, especially, more so than battle tactics and the like. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can get along without mentioning this. It is tempting to defend Grant from calumnies like the accusation of being a "butcher", but we would have the same problem here that we had with General Order No. 11, where the more we say about it, the more people take the opposing arguments seriously.  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need to get graphic of course, but the article being a 'biography' it's appropriate that we highlight various relationships between Grant and notable people like Lee under the various circumstances. [Additional:] Also, the "Butcher" statement has been replaced with a more objective encyclopedic statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Robert E. Lee was a butcher too. He used attrition warfare more than Grant did. Every general could be labelled a butcher. One soldiers death is a tragedy. That is what war is. People sadly get killed. There is no nice war. In a modern military evaluation, Grant is not considered a butcher. Grant is considered a modern general. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, any general who engages men in mortal combat can be referred to as a butcher, if someone is so inclined. Usually such labels are more readily slung around by the losers trying to appease or justify their defeat. Then there's the newspapers, and we all know how they behave. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The ultimate question is, "Are there really any rules to war?" At what number is a general a butcher? 10,000 casualties. Then 9,999 casualties is acceptable? The modern assessment of Grant is that he was a modern general who used superior numbers and strategy to win the war. Grant is considered the first modern general. No theatrics. The only goal is to defeat the enemy. I have no issues with emphasizing high casualties at Cold Harbor, that Grant regretted. But I don't favor labeling him a butcher in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerning your (Cmguy777) latest edit, your substitution "said" for "intimated" is, I guess, the right thing to do according to MOS:SAID, although I guess "wrote" would be better than "said". Thanks. But "memiors" should be "memoirs" of course. I believe the introductory phrase "Concerned over the costly battle" is unnecessary -- the fact that Grant wrote what he wrote proves that he was concerned. I'll make these changes, but if you disagree, you can, of course, continue the fixing and/or talking. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wanted to use the word "confessed" but "said" is the most neutral word. Thanks for the spelling correction and opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The term intimated was chose because it involved something that was personal, deep, and not told casually or in passing, per FA good writing. Grant's memoirs are noted for their intimacy in many instances. Aside from using the wrong battle strategy, there was nothing to "confess" in terms of moral wrong doing, and simply saying he "wrote" something comes off a little empty and only touches on the physical acting of writing. It more than suggests that Grant wrote this down with no more thought than he would have for writing out a grocery list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)   [Add :] Instead of using the term wrote or intimated I changed the term to revealed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Use of "revealed" is specifically called out in MOS:SAID. This is not a subtle error, it just violates NPOV.
 * The new passage about "never apologized" is just weird. If Grant's sentence in his memoirs isn't an apology, what is it?  Actually it is unusual for a general to "apologize" for a defeat -- if Grant hadn't done so, there would be no reason for us to mention that he hadn't done so.
 * I'm going to jump in and edit-war here, but I expect it will be my last on this topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, making a revert is not exactly an edit-war if it's done reasonably, esp if it's discussed on a Talk page. No worries there. Regardless if 'other' Generals never(?) (this is Grant's bio, no one else's) apologized for handling a battle so badly, that Grant never apologized is not an opinion, according to reliable sources. Saying so gives perspective to the idea that, in spite of no apology, he revealed his feelings over his regret about the defeat, which is different from an apology. Grant did what he thought was right at that time, so an apology wasn't called for. The guidelines you refer to are indeed guidelines, and all it says there is that some words should be "watched", not forbidden, as a rule and WP policy. No one is advancing some weird idea here. Imo, esp in this case, Cold Harbor, the statement is called for, so before I restore that statement I'll run it by here at Talk. This is not something unusual, controversial, highly unlikely, fringe or debated by historians, so we should say what they say. It reflects on Grant greatly, which is what biographies (as opposed to article about battles) are supposed to do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two separate questions. Should we say that Grant never apologized?  Judgment call, and I would just as soon leave that kind of judgment call to you.  Use of "revealed" or some other verb?  I would be very uncomfortable going against this guideline.  But even on that one, I won't revert if you choose to change back.  Bruce leverett (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your words of patience. I can live with using the verb "wrote", but I feel a bit strong about mentioning no apology in contrast to his admission of regret. It, if I may, reveals the struggle Grant was dealing with emotionally over the disaster and monumental loss of life at Cold Harbor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Concerning rules of war – of course there are rules. They involve surrender, treatment of prisoners, procedures for conducting a truce, etc. None were broken here.  Rules of war really have nothing to do with public mud slinging and using terms like "butcher". That term can and was used at whim, regardless of the number of casualties. The term is half understandable given the unprecedented high number of casualties, but imo went way too far, esp for someone as conscientious as Grant was.  'Butchering' is something that is done to a defenseless animal. All soldiers were armed and trying to kill each other during a battle. Terms like that were, and still are, typically used by the media and social agitators. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There really are no rules to war, other than defeating the enemy. Who will enforce the rules? Remember Lee allowing soldiers to suffer, rather than submit to a ceasefire. Grant blowing up Confederate soldiers from an underground mine in the battle of the crater. No rules there. Confederates return the favor by blowing up a Union steamship. Aside from this, Grant was on his death bed when he wrote his memoirs. We really don't know whether he was confessing to God or apologizing. Regret means remorse. There is no need for an edit war. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Blowing up the enemy, above ground, or from below, with gun powder or bomb shells, falls into the realm of acceptable war tactics. As someone savoy in military history I'm sure you must know there are indeed rules of war, ironic as it may seem at times, given the carnage. Seems to me if Grant was confessing to God in his memoirs his words would have been most truthful. By most accounts Grant wanted to set the record straight.  Again, Grant never expressed that he had committed any moral wrong, only that he regretted how things turned out and the huge loss of life.  We're embarking on speculation.  Let's keep to the sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Cold Harbor "apology"

 * 274 Confederates died instantly. There was no warning. It was in a sense a type of modern warfare. People dying instantly on a larger scale more than one at a time. I can't say there were any rules at that time for blowing up people. As far as Grant and God it is speculation to say it was not an apology. Maybe he was reaching out to God for forgiveness before his death. That would not be uncommon for his fatal illness. Again. Just defending my statements. No edit war in the article. I think the article has vastly improved. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Confederates knew about the Union mining operation and attempted to counter their efforts by boring their own shafts and lowering explosives, but their plan wasn't successful. War, with its rules of war, do not cancel out surprise attacks. As you must know, these have been conducted throughout history. Also, all we are doing is citing sources. Grant never apologized. Grant expressed regrets for the loss of life. You were the one who was trying to equate Grant's expression of regret into some sort of apology. Otoh, I have no intention of having the article say that Grant's expression of regret 'is not' an apology. We simply let the reader decide. We can avoid all this if we just stick to the sources and leave any speculations out of the picture. The intelligent reader half familiar with Grant's character should have no difficulty connecting the dots. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is all speculation whether Grant apologized or did not apologize. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We have at least two notable RS, Chernow and Bonkemper, who say Grant never apologized. [Add:] We also have McFeely who on p. 173 says, "As Grant understood the war, Cold Harbor was not a defeat. It simply did not contribute to his victory. He did not apologize for it or lie about it in his official report after the war was over." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Grant's official report is different from his memoirs written on his death bed. McFeely was not referring to Grant's memoirs. Mcfeely should be excluded as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Was Chernow referring to Grant's memoirs or Grant's official report when Chernow said Grant never apologized? Chernow does not say. I think that reference is not speaking directly concerning Grant's memoirs. That is Chernow's opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Bonekemper reference was a note on page 407. I don't have access to the note on Google books. Does that note say Grant never apologized in his memoirs or was the note referring to Grant's official report? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Endless speculative questions? This is getting a bit argumentative with no solid basis presented thus far. Chernow, Bonekemper and McFeely, and no doubt others, are quite clear. Is there a particular statement in the article you have some pressing issue with? There is nothing amazing, fringe or unusual going on here. All statements are straight from the sources. If you have issues and sources that say otherwise, in factual and in no uncertain terms, I'd be most interested. Please present any objections in terms of what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the Bonekemper quote. Chernow is unclear whether he was referring to Grant's memoirs or Grant's official report. McFeely is not referring to Grant's memoirs. The reference should say that Grant's memoirs were not an apology. Does Bonekemper directly say Grant's memoirs' "regrettable" quote was not an apology? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Chernow, McFeely and Bonekemper said Grant didn't apologize and McFeely even qualifies it. The sources, including Chernow, don't have to say that the memoirs were not an apology for them to be 'not an apology'. All that need be said is that Grant never apologized. That would include his memoirs, diaries, dispatches, official reports, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers: Chernow, McFeely, and Bonekemper are not theological authorities as to what an apology is. Regrettable could mean Grant was sorrowful for Cold Harbor, and this was on his deathbed. Maybe even a confession. Grant did attend Church with his wife. Maybe a preacher got to him. Grant was dying of cancer. There probably was a little bit of remorse for his soldier's deaths in 1885. Grant knew he was going to die. That context is missing from the text. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Speculation. Argumentative. You seem to be taking exception as to what notable RS are saying. Of course there was remorse on Grant's part for the loss of life, as is always the case with Generals who march their troops into the face of death, but he did not apologize for his actions, per the objectives that have been outlined. He was obviously trying to end a costly war quickly. The sources, and the logic add up. If you can present a source that says otherwise, in factual and in no uncertain terms, please present it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ulysses S. Grant Kate Havelin (2004) page 47 Havelin says Grant told his staff he regretted that assault [Cold Harbor]. Havelin called that an apology. I don't think the article should say "never apologized" We need to reduce historical bias in the article. "Later, Grant apologized to his staff, saying "I regret this assault more than any I have ever ordered."" Cmguy777 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Grant did not say 'I apologize' to his staff. This is Havelin's subjective interpretation, and it remains quite debatable. e.g. Grant chose Cold Harbor to attempt a breach in Lee's line for reasons that he deemed were best, as explained above. He regretted the disastrous result. We don't include bias by including the interpretation of one author about Grant's expression of regret to his staff. Grant is quoted as saying he had 'regrets' to his staff, and in his memoirs. No where does he say 'I apologize' or 'I'm sorry'. We can't ignore at least three sources on the basis of one author's interpretation about regret.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, I have to question Havelin's take on that battle altogether. She refers to "senseless deaths" in reference to Union casualties. That's way off.  The troops were sent into battle for specific reasons - again, to breach the line, split Lee's forces and advance on Richmond which would have ended the war.  Hardly a "senseless" effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Havelin is just as much RS as the others. She said Grant apologized. That means that there is disagreement among historians. We can't side with one historian over the other. That is bias. It is also subjective to say that Grant did apologize, since Grant never actually said the word apologized. That is the subjective interpretation of historians like Chernow, McFeely, and Bonekemper. You could say that Havelin is subjective too. That would mean it is best to take out that Grant apologized from the article. Historians differ in their opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

McFeely, Bonekemper and Chernow only related what Grant said. i.e.that he expressed "regret", Grant's words. They did not insert their own opinion. Since there is no record of a straight forward apology from Grant anywhere, and since he was still ready to take on Lee, confident that the Union victory was only a matter of time, he continued his campaign. Grant found out from the battle that Lee was employing a strictly defensive strategy, keeping behind breastworks, which was out of character for Lee. Grant read this well, which greatly shaped his next move, to outflank Lee, forcing him to extend his lines where there were no entrenchments, and no time to construct them. Grant was ever ready to continue making sacrifices to end the war asap. That doesn't sound like an apologetic character to me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Havelin, as a historian, has a right to her opinion of "senseless deaths" at Cold Harbor. I don't agree with her, but that does not make her less reliable of a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Her obtuse and naive remark sheds a questionable light on her objectivity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Historians are entitled to their opinions. We have to go by the RS. The soldiers made sacrifices for Grant to win the war. I supplied an RS that said Grant apologized. That was what was requested. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have to go by what the RS say, and we have three that say Grant never apologized. We have one that says he expressed regrets to his staff but with an interpretation of that regret, that it was an apology. Grant said he had regrets, and expression of how he felt. He never extended any apology to a second party. When you extend an apology you are asking for forgiveness. Grant never did that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's say Grant never apologized. That makes him look like the cold hearted butcher he is falsely claimed to be. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * In the context with his expression of regret to his staff, and many years later, in his memoirs, tells us he wasn't a cold hearted butcher. The statement currently in the section reads,
 * "Grant never apologized for the disastrous defeat, but later wrote in his memoirs that he "regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made. I might say the same thing of the assault ... at Vicksburg."
 * This allows the readers to access Grant's inner feelings for themselves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Apology definition: A written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another. (Dictionary.com) An expression of regret is an apology. So Havelin can say Grant apologized. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Battles have resulted in the deaths of combatants throughout history. We need more than 'dictionary.com' to define Grant's state of mind. To be fair, however, I have little doubt that Grant felt an apology was in order, but as a general, I'm sure you can appreciate he wasn't in a position to say, 'opps, sorry guys'. I'm sure you can appreciate Grant's position here, and again, no one can say with 100% certainty Grant was apologizing for his decision to attack in an attempt to end the 'war' quickly. We should only present the established facts. If you want to say that some historians have interpreted Grant's expression of regret as an apology I've no issue, all things considered, so long as you don't present the idea as a fact, or as something Grant had said. Please give us a proposal statement that doesn't give undue weight to the established facts or what McFeely, etc, have maintained. Btw, good leg work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Havelin is not undue weight. She said Grant apologized. Since the sources disagree, then saying Grant never apologized is biased information. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Havelin is presenting an opinion. To give her the same weight as the other widely recognized historians who have only given us the known and established facts, per Grant's actual words, would be biased, and raise serious undue weight issues. There is no actual account of an apology, only regret for the great loss of life. As asked, what would be your proposal statement? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the biographers are presenting an opinion. Havelin is a reliable source. She said Grant apologized. That can't be ignored. I would add something like this: "Without giving a formal apology, Grant expressed remorse over the loss of life at Cold Harbor, telling his staff, "I regret this assault more than any I have ever ordered." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The biographers Chernow, Bonekemper and McFeely refer to the established facts. There is no record or eye witness account of Grant making an apology. It is not to be found in his memoirs, letters to his wife and others, diary, official reports, etc. That is not an opinion. Otoh, Grant expressed regrets to his staff and in his memoirs, which is also not an opinion. In any case, your last edits are fine, but I added that Grant also expressed regret to his staff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind saying Grant made no military apologies. That gives clarification. But he did have regret for the loss of life. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Cm'. We, while we sit in our easy chairs with our progressive pinkies in the air, can only imagine how Grant and everyone kept their sanity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Sherman might have had some "sanity" issues. Grant had headaches. IMO I think Grant gave a private or unofficial apology for Cold Harbor and Vicksburg. But it is clear Grant did not give an official apology for his generalship at Cold Harbor. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Grant's oversights

 * As much as I admire Grant I'm frankly a bit puzzled as to why he didn't see what he was up against at Cold Harbor. The Confederates were dug in good, and even if Cold Harbor was deemed the weakest point(?) in Lee's line it would seem Grant would of (or should of) had the intel. Grant's assault occurred at dawn, so it would figure Lee reinforced his position overnight before Grant could make a further assessment. A couple of sentences clarifying that point in time would do well for the section, so I'd recommend we look further because, as it is, there's sort of a gap in the narrative there. i.e. How did a well seasoned general like Grant make such an oversight? He deeply regretted the tremendous loss, so had he known what was in store he no doubt would have tried another approach. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, but I don't think Grant wanted to start siege warfare at Cold Harbor. That was at Petersburg. He wanted to keep the fighting going. He was probably overconfident he could damage Lee's army and break the Confederate defense works. Also, this attack could have been a covering for him going across the James River. The technology could be a factor too. Hi-tec back then was a pair of binoculars. No night vision equipment. Grant did not fully assess the situation correctly. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there could and no doubt was a lot of mitigating circumstances, and obviously Grant was not aware of them all. We should nail this down. This is not to get carried away with battle tactics and such, but to focus on Grant's decision making, esp since he took much if not most of the blame, thanks to the clueless newspapers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The battle, and lack of the latest info and Grant's oversight involving the newly constructed entrenchments, etc, have been summed up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My best guess goes back to technology. There is only a telegraph wire. No walkie-talkies or infrared vision goggles. Grant was not one to wait around before attacking. He may have thought that attacking was better than siege warfare, at that point. That he settled for after Petersburg was not captured. Also, this attack gave Grant the cover to cross the James River. Lee did not know where Grant was, so strategically this allowed Grant to cross the James River without resistance. This might explain why Grant pushed his men at Cold Harbor, to break from Lee's Army. Possibly the real goal of Cold Harbor, for Grant, was to cross the James River. 02:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Confederate lines protecting Richmond extended, somewhat intermittently, for some ten miles, involving tens of thousands of soldiers. Yes, no night vision, radio communication, satellite surveillance, air strikes, mobile troop transport, etc. Intel' was accomplished via the scouting calvalry, but time prior to and in the midst of battle was a crucial factor. Any situation could change in a matter of a few hours, and so it did. The Confederates dug in quickly overnight and Grant, pressing to split Lee's army before too many of his troops ammased, advance on Richmond and ending the war, was his pressing concern. There's little doubt, at least in my mind, that Grant did all he thought was best. I believe the section conveys these ideas adequately, but any further context and/or clarity is always welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Was Grant pushing for Richmond or did he actually want to take Petersburg? It seems Grant was wanted to damage Lees's army as much as he could at Cold Harbor but failed.Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Image captions
Is it really necessary to name all the photographers and artist's names in the image captions? As it is, we have at least five photo's where Mathew Brady's name, and link, occurs in the caption. All such info can be found in the image file summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything about this in MOS:IMAGES, but I would agree with you: we don't ever need to name the photographer. Also, there are a couple of photographs where we don't know the date and say "circa unknown".  That is pretty silly.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The dates of publication are useful, but the names of artists and photographers aren't necessary, imo. If there are no objections I'll begin removing them in a day or so. We may allow for one exception involving the renown Mathew Brady, famous for taking thousands of photos during and after the war and was sometimes right in the midst of battle. He became friends with Grant and also with Lincoln who gave him the authorization to march with the troops at various times. The presidential portrait taken by Brady at the top of this section would do well to have his name remain there, at least in a footnote. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought of that about Brady, too, and I agree with leaving his name on one of the photos. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to acknowledge the photographer's name, as long as the photo is a portrait of an important historical figure. Painters' names are important too. I would put the year, only if known for certain. I think just the last name of the artist is good. The maps or drawings probably don't need any crediting, except possibly the year. "circa unknown" is not needed, nor are dates like "1865-1870". Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the subject in a given image is the important consideration. In Brady's case, his name would do well in one of his very famous photo's, e.g.Grant's presidential portrait, but his name and link in all of his photo is a bit much.  As it is, the lede photo has an entire caption and link devoted to Brady. Dates of publication work well because their publication date coincides with the event depicted. All such information, however, can be found in the image's file summary. Given his background and association with Grant, Brady should be allowed one exception, but the article should not also serve as a forum for photographers and painters. As it is, Brady's name, and link, appears in the article seven times, more than Grant's V.P. Schuyler Colfax, who is only linked twice.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that Brady could be reduced to B just the letter. and then the year. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed Brady to B in the image captions without link. The Presidency photo is Brady (B) for the transition to the single capital letter B. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The intention here seems unclear. The reader's aren't going to know who 'B' is, and listing one of Brady's associates seems odd, as they are virtual unknowns. We were actually better off just using Brady's full last name as there was no confusion.  This is not a guideline or WP policy, but imo, names in captions should only be used for famous photographers and artists, per famous images, and with exception, not in every common or average image in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Using B was a very bad idea for the reasons mentioned by GW. It is not self-explanatory and does not follow any well-known convention.  Also, it's irritating that you went ahead and did this without trying to get consensus.


 * If you don't like leaving off the photographer's name entirely, as GW has suggested, then we don't have consensus on that, and we should leave things with the status quo. I thought it was a good idea, but consensus is how it goes here, as we all know.  I am glad we have consensus on removing "circa unknown" -- thanks for doing that.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

B was meant to be creative solution to repetative Brady names. Feel free to revert. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Your point about painter's names is well taken.  Looking at, for example, George Washington, of course there are no contemporary photographs, but there are quite a few paintings, and all the paintings of Washington are identified by the artist.
 * Since the reader can learn the provenance of a photo or painting in Wikipedia by clicking on it, our including that provenance in the caption is "optional", not necessarily wrong or right, but we can decide it on a case-by-case basis, perhaps depending on how "interesting" the provenance might be to readers. Because Brady is famous, it is tempting to put his name in the captions of his photographs, but it gets repetitive after a while.  Bruce leverett (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it important to mention the author of the photo in the caption. The only option would be to remove the extra "Brady" mentions in the photo captions. Except for one or two photos. The B idea was mentioned on the talk page before put in the article. I believe in Consensus. If the B idea failed, so be it. The "Brady" in the non Grant photos should be removed from the caption. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus to remove all "Brady" names from non Grant photos? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, we should have Brady's full name and link in the presidential photo in the lede image and in the Presidency section, leave the dates of publication in the images that have been published near or shortly after the event in question, and perhaps we can mention one artist's name for the famous painting of Grant, Lincoln, Sherman and Porter, by Healy. Once again, details for the various images are almost always available in the image file summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Info-box image caption
In the caption under the presidential photo in the info-box it says "Portrait by Mathew Brady, 1870–1880". Grant was in office from 1869-1877. In the file summary for this image, under 'Date' it says "1870-1880", but Grant left the presidency in 1877, so it would seem the photo wasn't taken thereafter. The source of this photo at the Library of Congress says the photo was "created or published between 1870-1880", but again, Grant was in office from 69-77, and the image is clearly a presidential photo. Also, our caption here doesn't say "created or published", so the date by itself is sort of confusing, esp since the term of Grant's presidency began before 1870 and ended in 1877. It's very unlikely the image was taken after 77. This information, such that it is in this case, can be viewed in the file summary. It's a little odd that that no one seems to know when Grant's presidential photo was taken. It's highly unlikely that Grant was all alone with the photographer that day and no one ever knew about it. I'm guessing that the staff at the LOC didn't take the time to look into the matter much at all and simply marked down an obtuse and highly questionable date range in the record. I would recommend this date range, listed with no pretext, simply be removed from the caption. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A reasonable suggestion. A 10-year date range is an odd thing to have here.  Bruce leverett (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that this is a presidential photo by it self dates the photo well enough. It would seem little time would have been wasted before getting a photo of the new president. Certainly such a photo wasn't taken after Grant left office. This photo was used as the model for the engraving of Grant that appears on the 50-dollar bill. Only presidents appear on U.S. currency, so naturally a photo taken while Grant was General, uniform or no uniform, would not have been used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Date ranges only will confuse the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Healy painting
Btw, there's a problem with the way we have the Healy painting incorporated into the article. There is mark-up i.e. ' ', for this painting that allows one to hover the arrow/cursor over a given person, causing that person's name to pop up in the painting. However, when you click on the painting itself, it doesn't come up in its own window, enlarged. The hovering arrow function is a little frivolous since the four characters are already well defined in the caption. Since this function disables the image from being displayed in its own window, enlarged with the image summary, we really should remove this function. It would seem that the 'imagemap' function was intended for images with numerous items contained in one image where it would be a little ackward trying to define them, loaction-wise, in a caption. It's not needed for a simple image of four men sitting next to one another in a row. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem with removal. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Santo Domingo annexation and Republican Party split
Is it is safe to say that the attempted annexation of Santo Domingo caused a party rift or break up creating the Liberal Republicans? Racism may have played a factor in its defeat of annexation in the Senate. I think the article is not quite clear why the initiative was defeated, may be confusing to the reader. Was Sumner trying to take over the Republican Party? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is new to me. Do you have a source that says these things?  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There may be a few sources on the matter. Those who opposed annexation were against allowing mixed-race or blacks statehood including Sumner. Alaska was annexed because the Russians were Europeans. The DR was the size of three American States. Something should be added that there was racial opposition to Annexation. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, there really was no debate on the treaty itself by the Senate, on its own merits, probably due to Sumner, who had fully supported the Alaska treaty. The first debate was a closed session of Congress. Also, there really is no timeline when Sumner switched either support for the treaty or when he was openly opposed to the treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * From what I have been reading it sounds as if Sumner's sole intention from the beginning was to defeat the treaty. I am not sure "feud" is the correct wording. Sumner should be viewed as an obstructionist because Grant initially went to Sumner´s residence in a cordial manner. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Rife with scandal
I think it misleading to use the term "rife with scandal" concerning Grant and federal corruption. The Interior Department under Delano was rife with scandal, but not under any other of Grant's appointed SOI (s). Chandler, Bristow, and Pierrepont were reformers in their respected departments. I think the term should be removed from the article. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can find a more neutral way of saying it, good. "Rife with scandal" is journalistic cliché, not encyclopedic.  However, the major biographies dwell on the scandals to some degree, so we have to acknowledge something.  Bruce leverett (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Modern historians emphasize Grant's presidential leadership in Civil Rights. Grant did appoint reformers to clean up the corruption. Grant also created the Civil Service Commission. I like the term "corruption charges". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest rewording the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Struggled to detect corruption
Is there a source that says Grant struggled to detect corruption? Grant was not the only President to have corruption in their respected administrations. Is it uncommon for Presidents to ignore corruption? Cmguy777 (talk)▪︎


 * Since Grant appointed reformers and created the Civil Servise Commission, is it clear he struggled to detect corruption? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * One section in the introduction devoted to scandals. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A paragraph in the introduction opens with Grant scandals. Not trying to be avoided but not trying to overemphasized them with out mentioning Grant appointed reformers. Thanks.

Bronze bust (1896)
I updated information on Grant's bronze bust (1896). Unlikely to return to Golden Gate Park. The toppling of Grant's bust clearly had to do with him briefly owning a slave. Unlikely to return to Golden Gate Park. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For earlier discussion of this, see Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive_45. Thanks for updating this.  Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where the Grant (1896) bust is located today. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021
Make a note that the “S” in his middle name does not stand for anything. 68.53.219.198 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The "S" in his name is in reference to his nickname "Sam" which he adopted when entering West Point, per the article. — Sirdog (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2021
Suggest an additional sentence in the first paragraph in the Memorials section:

Also in Washington, D.C is Grant Circle, a traffic circle at the intersection of New Hampshire and Illinois Avenues and 5th and Varnum Streets (NW) in the Petworth neighborhood. The circle includes a plaque memorializing General Grant, and the lack of a statue or larger memorial in the circle has been a subject of interest to local historians.

Re: original research -- the cities are included in the Grant Circle page. Here are the footnotes I added to that page:

Ables, Kelsey (August 27, 2021). "A Driving Force: Traffic circles bring life to the city in unexpected ways". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 3, 2021. ^ "Cultural Landscape Inventory". irma.nps.gov. Retrieved September 4, 2021. ^ Sadler, Christine (October 3, 1939). "Our Town: Petworth Really a Community Conscious Area". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 3, 2021. ^ "Ulysses S. Grant", Wikipedia, September 3, 2021, retrieved September 4, 2021 ^ Coates, Ta-Nehisi (June 1, 2010). "How Did Ulysses Grant Become a Caricature?". The Atlantic. Retrieved September 4, 2021. ^ "Children to lose another play site by improvements: Grant Circle will be sodded and made into park space". The Evening Star. April 6, 1922. Retrieved September 3, 2021.

Yogafogie (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also review Wikipedia's original research policy. Thank you. (pinging Yogafogie) — LauritzT (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021
Add sentence at the end of the first paragraph in the section, Memorials and presidential library. Sentence to add:

Also in Washington, DC is Grant Circle, a traffic circle in the Petworth neighborhood of Northwest Washington, D.C. New Hampshire and Illinois Avenues NW, Varnum Street NW, and 5th Street NW all intersect at this circle.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Circle Yogafogie (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Yogafogie (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 16:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 16:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021
Remove or edit this inaccurate, misspelled sentence (which looks like vandalism): Grant also prosecuted immoral Morman polygamists (1871) and abortionists (1873–1877). 97.126.115.199 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I would call it vandalism. Grant's prosecution of polygamists and abortionists is sourced later in the article at the end of the section titled "Presidency (1869–1877)". I do take issue with us calling them "immoral" (WP:NPOV – not our place to say) and believe the tone could be slightly adjusted, perhaps: "Grant also prosecuted Mormon polygamists, as well as pornographers and abortionists." This better summarizes the later content without making any claims as to morality, the context for which is better described later by referencing the laws used to prosecute these parties (ideally, we shouldn't expand the lead much, as it already fills an entire screen right now). ASUKITE  02:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so I have removed "immoral" as PoV, and changed Morman to Mormon - Arjayay (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific law, Statutes at Large, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, said Mormons were "evasively" calling polygamy a "spiritual marriage". The law also uses the word "punish", which could in essence imply that polygamy was immoral. According to the law polygamy certainly was not spiritual. That could imply polygamy was carnal or immoral. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2021
The way it says "unfairly ranked" thing very obviously violates the "neutrality" that we hold dear. He allowed for rampant corruption during his term. Trying to make this a slavery issue is silly because this is about their rankings as PRESIDENTS, not as people. The person who had the last edit made was clearly biased themself. 74.96.227.154 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The only use of "unfairly" I can find in the article is: "According to historian David Heffernan, Grant's presidency has been "unfairly denigrated" for generations", which was properly attributed to the historian using quotes, thusly it does not violate WP:NPOV ASUKITE  15:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Heffernan has a Ph.D. Readers can agree or disagree. Editors are allowed to have their own opinions. Please read the article above. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why too many historians look down on Ulysses S. Grant It is not just Heffernan who is concerned with Grant's low rankings. Robert Farley is too. If I am reading and understanding correctly, Grant is ranked low because of the Cult of Lee and the Dunning School. The main reason was Grant helped black people. He defeated Robert E. Lee. He prosecuted the Klan while he was President. Grant treated blacks as Americans. Historians don't like this. So they give him a low ranking. Washington owned hundreds of black slaves and he gets high rankings. One can conclude historians are racist. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Cult of Lee
It seems the Cult of Lee and Dunning School has denigrated Grant's reputation as a war general and president. Since there is so much bias I propose to remove mention of the lower presidential rankings and just put in the current ones. Are historians racist? Washington owned hundreds of slaves while Grant prosecuted the Klan. Washington is a great president. Grant is a loser President. That is extreme historical bias. In McFeely's book on Grant, there is no criticism of Lee or President Johnson. Apparently, according to McFeely, Grant's just an ordinary guy compared to Lee and Johnson. Sources: Robert Farley Why too many historians look down on Ulysses S. Grant; McFeely (1981) Grant Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "This cult had little room for Grant, in no small part because Grant was the only president to vigorously pursue Reconstruction and the first to treat blacks as both human and American. And so Grant became simultaneously butcher of the flower of the South and pawn of the Radical Republicans, his military brilliance ignored and his literary genius forgotten." — Robert Farley Why too many historians look down on Ulysses S. Grant Cmguy777 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Older readers, such as myself, would certainly remember the days when Grant's reputation was unfavorable. You can't erase that era from history by removing mention of it from the article.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not erasing anything. But why should Wikipedia support racist ideology that condemns Grant for prosecuting the Klan and supports Robert E. Lee who rebelled against America and fought for slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of the "Historical Reputation" section, as it is now, is that it is written in a neutral tone, and that it adequately represents the evolution of historical judgment from the Dunning school days until today. It does not "support racist ideology", but largely adheres to Wikipedia's high standards.  You have played a role in this.


 * I have read that McFeely's biography was overly and unjustifiably critical of Grant. Perret's biography, for example, says so, and there may well be others.  But our article doesn't.  Do you think this omission is worth fixing?  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Concerning Grant any omission is worth fixing. My fundamental question is are historians racist who keep Grant unfairly ranked low because he prosecuted the Klan? According to the source I gave prosecuting the Klan is linked to Grant's lower Ranking. George Washington, another General President, owned hundreds of slaves, signed the fugitive slave law, and rotated his slaves in Pennsylvania, to keep them in perpetual slavery. Washington is lauded a great President. Is the whole ranking system corrupted by historical racism? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Are modern historians under the Cult of Lee? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no consensus. Other editors are welcome to respond. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as McFeely goes, White mentions McFeely's bias against Grant. We could mention that Perret and White mentioned McFeely was overly critical of Grant. I have no problem with that. There is zero criticism of Johnson or Lee. McFeely seems more in line with the Dunning School than modern scholarship. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "Are historians racist?" Possibly, yes. Compare List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves and Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Relatively high rankings for slave owners like George Washington (2nd in the 2021 ranking), Thomas Jefferson (7th), James Monroe (12th), James Madison (16th), and James K. Polk (18th). Low ranking for Ulysses S. Grant (20th). Very low ranking for Warren G. Harding (37th), whose policies included "anti-lynching legislation" (and support for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill), and "equal political rights" for African-Americans. We quote him for saying " "Whether you like it or not, unless our democracy is a lie, you must stand for that equality." Yet he ranks far below most of the slave owners. Dimadick (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Right. There would need to be a source to put that in the article. When slave owner presidents rank high, then historians are racist. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021
Correct discrepancy in Dates of Rank for Grant for ranks up to Captain. Main text differs from the table provided at the end of document. 2603:6000:9840:E07:8932:EFCD:2B18:D8B5 (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I linked the document in question to aid in verification. The dates all seem to match up correctly (is it possible you were looking at another copy? The quality on the Google Docs version, the first I found, was terrible.) If there's something missing, please specify what and we can look into it. From what I can tell of the shorthand used, it looks like all of the official military ranks are listed correctly. ASUKITE  16:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Policy vs affairs
Should the titles in the Grant presidency section say "affairs" or "policy"? For example "Foreign affairs" or "Foreign policy"? Any help on the matter is most welcome. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Comstock Act
What historians are critical of Grant signing into law the Comstock Act? I don't think it was overturned by the Supreme Court and is still in effect today. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Since no historians have been mentioned for his critical role in the Comstock Act, the information in the article should be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The moral standards of the 19th Century do not apply to the moral standards of the 21st Century. I removed information on historians being critical of Grant for his role in the Comstock Act. Yes. There was resistance in 1876 with a petition, but this was rejected. There may be good and bad parts about the law, but this article is not a forum for debate. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Simpson as middle name
Grant did not use the "S" for "Simpson" during his lifetime, as explained by the serious biographies (Chernow, Smith, etc.). The "S" was added due to a clerical error when he was enrolling at West Point.

One should be careful about citing sources such as the Ohio State biography or the Galena biography; they are tertiary, not secondary, and do not meet the usual reliability criteria. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022
These introduction sentences aren't in chronological order:

As president, Grant was an effective civil rights executive who created the Justice Department and worked with Radical Republicans to protect African Americans during Reconstruction. Previously, as Commanding General, he led the Union Army to victory in the American Civil War in 1865 and thereafter briefly served as Secretary of War.

Could they be put in order?

As Commanding General, he led the Union Army to victory in the American Civil War in 1865 and thereafter briefly served as Secretary of War. Later, as president, Grant was an effective civil rights executive who created the Justice Department and worked with Radical Republicans to protect African Americans during Reconstruction.

Thank you. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Bruce leverett (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Who is "Smith"?
"Belmont (1861), Forts Henry and Donelson (1862)": "Unaware of the garrison's strength, Grant, McClernand, and Smith positioned their divisions around the fort. The next day McClernand and Smith independently launched probing attacks on apparent weak spots but were forced to retreat by the Confederates",

Who is this "Smith" guy? Principal of west point Captain Charles F. Smith sounds wrong.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was Charles Ferguson Smith. By then he was a general.  Bruce leverett (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Another one, Footnote 227: Chernow, 1992 p 384, no such book exist.--Jarodalien (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Clearly the book exists. YoPienso (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Confederate General Van Dorn's raid on Holly Springs (December 20)", "Van Dorn" only appear once, so perhaps just change to his full name Earl Van Dorn?--Jarodalien (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was Smith's idea to have an "Unconditional Surrender", a phrase that Grant used, I believe at Fort Donelson. Smith, in essence, launched Grant's fame as a U.S. general. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Civil Service Commission
change ((Civil Service Commission)) to ((United States Civil Service Commission|Civil Service Commission)) 2601:541:4580:8500:4DB2:E91:1BAE:B16A (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism
In the last paragraph in the beginning why does it call historians taking a positive view in his presidency historical revisionism? It goes on to list a bunch of legitimate reasons to look positively on his presidency so that connection feels biased. 112.134.209.144 (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The Historical revisionism article starts with In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account. This strikes me as neither positive or negative. In this context, I think that the statement However, revisionist challenges to this narrative have received significant support in recent times. is accurate. Peaceray (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur. The consensus narrative on his administration became really negative in the early 20th century and stayed that way through most of the rest of the century. Do I think it was wrong? Yes, but historical revisionism is a means to get back to the truth. Boo Boo (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln assassination
The citation of Facebook in this section is not something we can do. Apparently the quotation is from Julia Dent Grant's personal memoirs -- can someone who has access to a copy of them change this to a proper citation? Also, although it was fun to read this vivid account, I wonder if, since we are an encyclopedia, we should be just summarizing it rather than quoting it in full. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Non-sequitur Caption
"Cartoonist Joseph Keppler lampooned Grant and his associates. Grant's prosecutions of the Whiskey Ring and the Klan were ignored.". Appears under a political cartoon in the "third term attempt" section. The last sentence is a snide remark and not an objective description of the image. 70.48.168.145 (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the Whiskey Ring was not ignored; it appears in the cartoon. I will remove the last sentence. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sherman meeting Grant on the street in St. Louis
See: The Regular Army Before the Civil War, by Clayton R. Newell. https://history.army.mil/html/books/075/75-1/CMH_Pub_75-1.pdf 2601:400:C000:D370:2C9C:298A:EB52:BB69 (talk) 2601:400:C000:D370:2C9C:298A:EB52:BB69 (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023
Rank- General of the Armies of the United States https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/12/23/ulysses-s-grant-to-receive-posthumous-promotion/69745690007/ 2603:6010:6A02:52F4:5527:2DC:C80D:932B (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Khrincan  ( talk ) 05:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023
Change rank from "General of the Army" to "General of the Armies" effective 2022 2600:6C58:607F:A64E:A1A3:55F7:EF72:6CFA (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Mel ma nn   13:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The following clarification appears in an edit summary in the article: "The NDAA 2023 only authorises the promotion; like with George Washington, the Department of the Army still has to issue promotion orders along with an effective date of rank. The Act of Congress promoting Washington to General of the Armies passed in 1976, but the actual promotion orders were not enacted until 1978."  Bruce leverett (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Update of rank
Shouldn’t his rank be updated to General of the Armies now? 71.90.53.73 (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The following clarification appears in an edit summary in the article: "The NDAA 2023 only authorises the promotion; like with George Washington, the Department of the Army still has to issue promotion orders along with an effective date of rank. The Act of Congress promoting Washington to General of the Armies passed in 1976, but the actual promotion orders were not enacted until 1978." Bruce leverett (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Apocryphal stories, include them?
As things go with big name leaders, there's an apocryphal story involving Grant that is currently making the rounds in the news. The story is about a low station policeman arresting then President Grant on a speeding charge. Surely apocryphal, but these stories have cultural value. This one, to highlight that American values put justice and law above every person. Examples of the recent citing includes The Guardian, WaPo, Biography, NPR. It's a lot, and none of them recognize the dubiousness of the claim. 

I understand this isn't the venue for this discussion, but the fact that WP considers many of these to be RS should perhaps be reevaluated. Other sources have mentioned this same story in the past, and it is now becoming a citogenesis problem. I posted the same concern on the supposed policeman's WP article. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the story is apocryphal? The question is kind of moot since we are not (currently) mentioning the incident in this article.  But apparently the police log has the incident(s), according to a news article from 2012. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can only report what reliable sources tell us. Just because you think that it's apocryphal does not make it so. Clearly reliable sources disagree. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly "reliable sources" are just quoting themselves in a giant circle jerk. wp:citogenesis. Now there's a dedicated WP article on it.
 * That said, even if it is apocryphal, I argue for it to be mentioned somewhere. As I originally said above: "these stories have cultural value. This one, to highlight that American values put justice and law above every person" 76.178.169.118 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Harry S. Truman which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrative note: So you don't have to click through, the request was withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023
Throughout the article, Black people are referred to as "the blacks", "blacks" - I suggest a language update more suitable to our times, using terms like Black people or African Americans. Thank you! Ekshapland (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ but the article never used the construction "the blacks". Also, "African American" is a modern term that doesn't really make sense in a Civil War and Reconstruction context.  casualdejekyll  19:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I write this in case anyone is interested, and not because I plan any edits. The term "African American" was used in the antebellum era. "Use of ‘African-American’ Dates to Nation’s Early Days" - The New York Times (nytimes.com), April 15, 2015. But, even if it wasn't used then, we are not obliged to use the language of the era we are writing about. We wouldn't use "Negro" today when writing about an era when it was used. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Use of African American Dates to Nations Early Days. NYTs (April 20, 2015) The term does refer to black people. The term was first used in 1782.Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Update of rank
See Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 46. For the umpteenth time, authorization is not promotion.

I note that some careless language in the Clermont Sun has been cited in support of the claim that the authorization was a promotion. I would not take that small-town news weekly as authoritative, especially since it is the "home-town news" for the counties of the Grant Birth Place and Boyhood Home and Schoolhouse, as noted in the Sun. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Alt text
Alt text has been removed from several images, but the edit summaries do not say why. Is there something going on here? See MOS:ALT for some explanation of the purpose of alt text. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I didn't know anything about MOS:ALT or its purpose. I removed the alt text because I thought they provided nothing and were just there for no reason. Completely on me. Will undo it.


 * Edit: Added back alt text on the images where it previously was. Again, I am very sorry. Had no idea about MOS:ALT. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Why so strangely pro-Grant
I never post on talk, but I use Wikipedia a lot. This article seems like a hagiography almost, and ascribes many vague accomplishments to Grant. For example, where does “Under Grant, the Union was completely restored” come from? I understand there has been a rehabilitation of Grant’s image overall, but this article seems like it was written by his most ardent advocate. 2600:1001:B10B:D2AB:7C4C:BD9A:77B:9D7 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * "Union was completely restored" is a reference to the fact that the Confederate states that had seceded were re-admitted to the Union. This is mentioned in Ulysses S. Grant.  If the wording of that section and of this sentence in the lead paragraphs doesn't make the connection clear, feel free to try to improve it. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Length
At nearly 19k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. See WP:TOOBIG. Detailed content should be condensed or moved to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The article is quite a bit longer than it was in March 2015 when it became a Featured Article. When I first looked at it, around 2020, there were already arguments in the talk page about how, and whether, to split it and condense it. It is possible that such discussions would be more productive now than they were then, if only because the editors that were active on the article then, including myself, have moved on to other topics.
 * I would remind everyone of WP:HASTE. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The size is fine for such an important figure in world and U.S. history. Cutting important information for the sake of cutting size defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. The policy ignore all rules would fit here, as it does at the other major historical articles that have been recently tagged with this template, as drastic trimming hurts, not helps, encyclopedic content. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an encyclopedia is to concisely summarize a topic; appropriate editing enables that and improves the reader experience. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My original idea was to separate the article into two articles (Military and Political, with both covering his early-life. This would keep all the information and make it easier to look through (if you want to know about Grant’s military history, you look in the Military article). The Last President of the United States (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Grant is known for both his military experience and his political life, both major aspects of this page and should be kept together. This "too long" focus should certainly not be used to chop the page into aspects of the full notability of the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Promotion to six-star general
I believe that President Biden has signed Grant's promotion to (six-star rank) General of the Armies, thus making it official. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Ulysses_S._Grant/Archive 46. Actually there are two discussions in that archive entitled "Update of rank"; you might as well read both of them. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This page needs updated but it's locked
December 2022 Grant was posthumously promoted to General of the Armies. One of 3 men appointed to that rank. Please update this information. HoosierKid95 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 46. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to me Grant was promoted by the 2023 James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act.
 * Biden signed it Dec. 23, 2022. YoPienso (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read the linked archived discussion. Actually, there are two discussions in that archive entitled "Update of rank"; you might as well read both of them. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please just update the page to reflect the rank. It is missing from his rank category and dates of rank. HoosierKid95 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Have the promotion orders come through? Can't find anything on any military news website I frequent. If you've found it, please post it here! Carlp941 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2024
Please add the following section:

Posthumous promotion Ulysses S. Grant died on July 23, 1885, at the age of 63. Upon his passing he was listed as a retired General of the Army on the rolls of the US Army. Over the next 177 years, various officers surpassed Grant in rank, the first of whom was John Pershing, who was promoted to General of the Armies of the United States in 1919 for his role in the World War I. With effect from 4 July 1976, George Washington was posthumously promoted to General of the Armies of the United States by authority of a congressional joint resolution.[138] The resolution stated that Washington's seniority had rank and precedence over all other grades of the Armed Forces, past or present, effectively making Washington the highest ranked U.S. officer of all time.[139] Ulysses S. Grant was posthumously promoted to General of the Armies of the United States when President Joseph Biden signed the 2023 Defense Authorization on December 22, 2023. Mdonaghue (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is mentioned in the Notes section, in note a, called from the infobox; and mentioned briefly in the last of the lead paragraphs. Note that the bill signed by Biden is not an actual promotion, only an authorization; the actual promotion will be done by the Department of Defense.  When that happens, appropriate changes should be made to the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotion to General of the Armies?
Section 583 of the National Defense Authorization Act of the 117th Congress authorized the President to promote Grant to the rank of General of the Armies. It seems the President signed the legislation on 2022-12-23. Did such a promotion ever take place? Dotyoyo (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, no. The Army hasn't signed any such promotion orders. SuperWIKI (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I've updated the article updated to reflect that the Act authorized such a promotion, but did not by itself carry out the promotion. Dotyoyo (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:GRANT, Ulysses S-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 25, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-03-25. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Long article
What areas of the article are too long? There was a tag added to the article saying the article was too long. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The editor that placed that tag has placed them on several articles. It's frustrating when someone places such a "drive-by" tag without doing enough analysis even to suggest ways of shortening the article.  I say this while acknowledging that the article ought to be shorter.  But someone has to sit down with it and figure out how that's going to happen. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Civil War and presidency sections are the areas that would benefit most significantly, although the rest should not be neglected. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Shiloh and Vicksburg sections possibly could be reduced or resummarized. Maybe that would be enough to get the tag removed. I would keep all the sources and references. Just a narration trim. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The introduction section looks a lot better in the recent editing. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.
 * Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. 152.166.156.103 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be totally clear, this is currently the longest featured article on the site by a wide margin. 18k words is well past the point where one should really be miffed about drive-by tagging, imo. Remsense  诉  15:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: it's #2, behind Douglas MacArthur (19.2k) and ahead of History of Poland (1945–1989) (17.2k). Remsense  诉  15:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sincerely thankful for, as well as amused by, this bit of trivia. But again, we are in drive-by mode.
 * This article became FA in March of 2015 (long before I was involved). I don't know what the word count was back then, but the source size was about 134K bytes, whereas now, 9 years and more than 8K edits later, it is closer to 228K bytes, and the word count is 19K. How much better is the article for all that labor and additional text? Well, in Wikipedia, you can't officially get any better than FA.
 * Bloat doesn't happen by itself. Every superfluous sentence was added by an editor who thought it was necessary, and in most cases, these were experienced editors, and some of them are still around, still keeping an eye on the article.  Everything that is removed to get down to "reasonable" size is going to be fought for. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added something which should honestly be on every substantial article's talk page, which just shows the byte count per section, it's a good grounding mechanism. Remsense  诉  02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Remsense. The Shiloh and Vicksburg campaign sections are good places to start to reduce. Your addition of the byte per section counter is good. That way progress can be evaluated on the article reduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! I am intimidated by this article, frankly, so I'm glad the little technicality I could contribute is helping others, even if I don't have anything more insightful to suggest. Remsense  诉  05:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As an older editor on this article, I think it's great, some editors are pairing it down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2024
In the "Surrender of Lee and Union victory (1865)" subsection of the Civil War section, there is a photo with a caption, the caption should be changed from "Defeated by Grant, Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House." to "Defeated by Grant, Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House." or "Defeated by Grant, Lee surrendered at the McLean house at Appomattox Court House."

Appomattox Court House is the name of the town where the surrender took place, not the name of the building where the surrender took place, so saying "the Appomattox Court House" is incorrect here.

Thanks!

Dylan Dglenn26 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2024
President Hiram Ulysses Grant was born in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. WikipediUser2024 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinions needed
Contacting editors of this article. ,, , . The Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant article has been nominated for deletion here. Opinions are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Obviously, this article is longer than its relatively unimportant subject warrants; more space is devoted to the subject than I suspect is devoted to it in the leading Grant biographies. Nevertheless, I oppose its deletion. It seems professionally done, and lots of effort has gone into it. It's not as if the internet lacks space and that to include this article precludes a more important one. Let it be. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have only skimmed the article, and when I expressed the above opinion, I had not read the nomination for deletion, which claims that the article is a hagiography. If it is, then I would favor deletion (or revision if it is feasible) for that reason. I opposed deletion only on the grounds that the article is unimportant, which I had assumed was the grounds. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the article has importance, but should be trimmed or rewritten. Maybe focus on Grant while he was in the military, and while he was a General. Did Grant ride horses while President? Things like that. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)