Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 5

Speeding Ticket
Ulysses S Grant was given a $20.00 ticket for speeding on his horse down a Washington Street. I read this on a snapple cap just now, but couldn't find it here, although it's a well known fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.88.91 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Grant liked to drive fast.  He even got in a carriage race with President Andrew Johnson.  Grant won. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry
I think someone should put an "Ancestry" tab on the main page showing his family. He is related to FDR and both of their families roots are of the Delano family. The Delano’s are of direct ancestry related to William the Conqueror, Philip the Good, Egbert of Wessex, and many more royal blood. I will put a link to his direct ancestors. Click on “link” to see family tree. I think being related to those kings are important, just a suggestion. --Kenlukus (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenlukus (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 99% of Englishmen (and English-Americans) now living are descended from Edward III. It's unremarkable.  --Coemgenus (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

POV problem
I have no problem with including a section on General Orders No. 11, but the notion that it would "would forever stain Grant's reputation as a soldier" is a rather ridiculous example of POV pushing. First, it has nothing to do with his reputation as a soldier. As a man, perhaps, his reputation suffers accordingly, especially when looking back from our age of self-congratulatory iconoclasm, but it had no bearing on his soldierly qualities. Second, how many people actually know about the Order? For it to be this great, eternal stain, it should be on most everyone's mind when one hears Grant mentioned. For that matter, what is Grant's reputation in the public mind? If most people were asked to provide a character flaw of Grant, those that know who the hell he is would likely respond with tales of his mythical drunkenness or his equally mythical dependence on numerical advantage for his victories. Again, I've no problem with mentioning the order, but the stupid "forever stain" line should go. If not, should we not add to Confederate biographies the everlasting stains of treason and defense of slavery and white supremacy?--172.190.85.99 (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * good point and I fixed it (and dropped it from equal billing with Vicksburg) Rjensen (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing so.--172.191.53.21 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a certain editor who believed that the antisemitism is an important concern. This editor may want to revert to the original version. The order was a military order and was carried out because Grant was commanding general. I would say that this incident does reflect on his military judgement as a soldier. The central question is why did Grant lash out at Jews? I do not believe that there is an adequate answer. He may have actually believed all the merchants involved with the selling of military weapons for cotton were done by Jews.  His dad was friends with a Jewish merchant.  The whole situation is somewhat confusing, since, President Lincoln gave permission for the cotton to be traded in order to keep business ties with the South.  Why did, exactly, President Lincoln allow the continued trade of cotton?   Grant, while he was slowly dying, did not mention the incident in his biography because he was concerned the issue would cause controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Confederates, many did not accept blacks as equals and denied them their citizenship rights through violence and intimidation. Longstreet, to his credit, led African American militia in Louisiana in an attempt to put down a white supremacist revolt.  The Puritans in the 1630's  had slavery and believed Africans were inferior to whites.  Slavery was not just a Southern institution.  To find the roots of racism in America, one only needs to look at the Massachusetts colony. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my comment on editing Confederate biographies accordingly was made tongue-in-cheek. Regardless of that, how does the Order reflect on Grant's military judgment, exactly? Just because he was likely wearing his uniform when he wrote it, does not make the Order a strictly military matter. I agree, however, that it is a confusing situation, especially when Grant is known to have revoked a similar order made by another officer. Even Bertram Korn seemed to believe that the inspiration for the Order came from "above" Grant, either from Henry Halleck or someone in the War Department. As for the rest, by the 1860s, slavery was almost entirely a Southern institution (the institution, at that) and constituted the only sectional difference that was truly, purely sectional. The fact that Northerners and Southerners could largely agree about white supremacy is a separate matter (and irrelevant, especially to the subject at hand).--172.190.18.29 (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why Grant made such an irrational order. He did not put it in his biography, knowing that the subject remained controversial in the mid 1880's.  With his history of taking to the bottle, he may have been drunk.  That is only speculation.  However, the issue is prominent.  What is interesting is that no one seems to object to putting thousands of Native Americans on reservations in Oklahoma, killing the Buffalo and horses, to keep them from hunting.  Putting Indians on reservations was a practice that started in 1851. Removing Native Americans from their lands and enslaving them was a practice that went on during colonial times. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate my original objection, all I had a problem with was the notion that the Order would "forever stain Grant's reputation". That statement was highly POV and unencyclopedic. I had no issue with the mention of the Order, nor with the Jean Smith quote (devoid as it is of any context) which followed. Just the "forever stain" silliness. It was, thankfully, removed and nothing substantive was lost from the article. If "a certain editor" wants to put it back, let them explain why it belongs.--172.191.33.202 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I too think that that clause "would forever stain Grant's reputation as a soldier" is POV pushing. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Forever stain" is inaccurate since Grant did certain actions to rectify his reputation among Jews, such as appoint Jews to office and attend a Synagogue with his entire cabinet. President Grant also signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The statement concerning General Order 11 (positioned as it is, the opening statement for the Vicksburg Campaign) seems out of place and unbalanced. While General Order 11 was certainly important to mention. The statement doesn't serve to introduce the topic of Vicksburg. Nor does the statement seem balanced given Grant's notable record of tolerance.  Nor is the statement balanced given the immense importance of this military campaign to the outcome of the war and to military history.  Perhaps the fact of the General Order could be couched together with Grants "experiments" as decisions by Grant, during this campaign, that were derided by the northern press at the time, and even still not well understood.Joshkap18 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)--Joshkap18 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Grant a New Englander?
The opening paragraph says that Grant was a NewEnglander. But He was from the midwest --67.246.10.50 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, he's an Ohioan. I deleted that clause.  --Coemgenus (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Johnston misspelled Edit request from, 7 November 2011
The section on Shiloh mentions that "Confederate General Johnson was killed in the battle on the first day of fighting" Johnson is missing a t, as it was General Johnston who was killed.

65.121.28.16 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Vicksburg on needs a rewrite badly
The readability of the section following Vicksburg is poor, the text confused and badly arranged. There are several faulty constructions that I cannot immediately address. I will try to return to it in the future. Dfoofnik (talk)


 * How is the Vicksburg campaign section "badly arranged"? There was allot in this campaign to go over with only two paragraphs.  Any rewrite to improve the narration is welcome, however, key facts need to be included in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Correction: How is the readability "badly arranged" after the Vicksburg Campaign section?Any rewrite to improve the narration is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I made changes to the Vicksburg section. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Johnson releases Grant's correspondence
I believe the fact that Johnson released Grant's letters over the Tenure of Office Act is important. There was more then just disagreement over Reconstruction. President Johnson was out to destroy Grant's reputation. This needs to be mentioned in the article for a better understanding the coolness between Grant and Johnson. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources that provide evidence to support this release was an act of destruction towards grants reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meatsgains (talk • contribs) 21:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Johnson knew that Grant was popular and he first tried to get Grant to go to Mexico and put Sherman as Secretary of War. Johnson was planning to remove the Radicals from power and replace the Congress with Southern leaders.  Grant removed federal arsenals from the South in case Johnson's plan was put into effect.  When Grant gave the War Department office to Stanton, Johnson launched a press campaign that state Grant had been duplicitous.  Johnson had wanted Grant to be Secretary of War to discredit him among the Radicals. [Smith (2001), Grant, p. 439] Cmguy777 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 13 November 2011
Please change:

'On August 22, 1848, Grant married Julia Boggs Dent (1826–1902), the daughter of a slave owner.' to 'On August 22, 1848, Grant married Julia Boggs Dent (1826–1902), the daughter of a farmer'.

The use of 'slave owner' is an attempt to be derogatory and does not give a real occupation for the persons father. The case that he was a slave owner was made clear later in the article.

Americans have up to 128 5th-great-grandparents from the time of the Emancipation Proclaimation(8 generations of 20 yrs). I purport that a majority of Americans have ancestors that were 'slave owners'.

Thanks, 108.48.73.197 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Don Dover

108.48.73.197 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your request, but can you provide a reference she is the daughter of a farmer. C T J F 8 3  16:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the request. The Dent's owned a plantation and were slave owners. "Slave owner" is not in itself a derogatory statement, just a statement of fact.  Dent was a prominent "farmer" who used slaves.  Grant married into a slave owning family.  To use the word "farmer", in my opinion is misleading, since that could imply the Dent did not use slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I edited the sentence to reflect that Julia Dent belonged to a prominent Missouri slave plantation family. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Humanist as source
I believe the Humanist is a valid source, however, I am for editor consencus. The Humanist article, although brief, gives Grant's views on seperation of church and state. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Source:"Humanist profile: Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885)." The Humanist Mar.-Apr. 2009.

References clean up
I believe the references need to be cleaned up. I believe the best process would be to start with the lead and then continue through the article's narration. Uniformity in the references would help get the article to GA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Grant's reputation
Wilentz stated that Southern or Confederate historians focus on Grant's presidential corruption was fueled by Grant's enforcement of voting rights for African Americans. Wilentz believes that there was an alterior motive for labeling Grant's presidency as corrupt. Why can't this be in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wilentz garbles the story -- caused by his trying to squeeze too much in one sentence. a) it was Lee's friends in 1870s who called Grant a butcher (Willentz wrongly says it came decades later); b) the corruption issue was solidly established long before the Dunning School emerged about 1900 (eg in Henry Adams and James Rhodes & many others)--and it lasted long after Dunning School had faded away; c) it was not the voting rights issue that bothered historians--it was Grant's rejection of reform principles and toleration of corruption. For example John Hope Franklin wrote "Everywhere [in America] the emphasis was on material things, and the scandals of the Grant administration clearly demonstrated the extent to which the moral fiber of the country had been affected by this emphasis." and "numerous scandals in the Grant administration [were]  disgraces to the whole nation.") Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an instance on how historians treat scandals. The Lincoln Administration, believe it or not, had corruption in the War Department.  Lincoln dismissed Sec. Cameron and put him as Consul to Russia.  Lincoln is not labeled tolerant of corruption.  Grant dismissed Sec. Richardson for corruption in the Treasury Department and puts him on the U.S. Court of Claims.  Grant is then "blasted" as tolerant to corruption.  What is the difference? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How can a scholar such as Wilentz mess things up so terribly? I am not defending the scandals in the Grant administration.  Wilentz was pointing out an alternative reason why pro Confederate historians berated Grant.  Was it the amount of scandals why Grant is treated so harshly? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wilentz probably had severe word limits and tried to squeeze multiple points in one sentence. Happens to everybody working on tight deadlines. As for Cameron he was not personally corrupt,  but was his War Dept expanded by a factor of 100x and he had no way to keep control--he was far over his head. Rjensen (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Cameron appointed Thomas A. Scott as his assistant. Scott made the contracts and was also President of a Railroad company. Scott was Superintendant of Railroads. Cameron may have had interest in Scott's railroad. Here is the source" More of the Contract Report.  There was a governmental investigation. My concern is historical treatment. Do historians single out Grant in terms of administration corruption? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * historians generally agree that Grant was the worst president in terms of corruption. C Vann Woodward edited a whole book on the topic, Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct (1974--it appeared during Watergate) which deals with 'most all presidents. Rjensen (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Grant was the first President to launch civil service reform. He put in charge Bristow who cleaned up the Whiskey Ring. Hamilton Fish was one of the greatest Secretary of States.  And all the historians seem to judge Grant's presidency is corruption. Why is there so much hostility towards Grant? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As a leading current textbook says: "Carnival of Corruption. More serious than Boss Tweed's peccadilloes were the misdeeds of the federal government. President Grant's cabinet was a rodent's nest of grafters and incompetents, and favor seekers even haunted the White House." and "With the atmosphere so badly contaminated, it was small wonder that the easygoing Grant apparently failed to scent some of the worst evildoing in public life." [Kennedy, The American Pageant Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That just proves my point in terms of hostility. No historian would write that concerning Lincoln or any corruption during the Civil War. Grant is a historical target.  The American people were corrupt; having lusted for fast riches. There seems to be a tendency for increased corruption after major wars.  Kennedy ignores the accomplishments of Fish, Bristow, and Akerman.  Did Grant's use of federal force to destroy the Klan have anything to do with hostility towards his administration? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The original source Grant's corruption reputation comes from Charles Sumner's caustic speech against Grant in 1872. Sumner called Grant a despot.  However, Sumner, himself believed that power need be wielded if given the opportunity.  Sumner stated Grant was against the Republican Party and forgot African Americans.  Yet, it was Grant who destroyed the Klan and signed Sumner's Civil Rights Bill in 1875.  Grant also promoted all of the Amendments passed during Reconstruction, including the 15th Amendment as President.  Could it be Sumner who was mad at being disposed of from the Foreign Relations Committee.  The hostility towards Grant comes from Santo Domingo. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Historians have spent a lot of work on the issues. I suggest reading the Woodward book Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct (1974) to compare presidents.  Rjensen (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good book. Thanks Rjensen. If I can find a copy I would like to read the book.  Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a link to reviews of David H. Kennedy's (2005) book The American Pageant. The American Pageant: A History of the Republic: To 1877 I know that this is not official pier review; mainly public opinion, but there are allot of negative comments. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

US Grant In New Spielberg Pic
Steven Spielberg is currently filming a biopic about Lincoln based Doris Kearns Goodwin's book about Lincoln's cabinet, A Team Of Rivals. The film stars Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln and Sally Field as Mary Lincoln. The character of U.S. Grant will be portrayed by Jared Harris, son of the late Richard Harris (of Dumbledore fame). Jared Harris is known most recently for his role as the British advertising executive, Lane Pryce, in the AMC series, Mad Men. The film is scheduled to be released in October 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleBeyond (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This could be put in the article under media portrayals if there is a valid source. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * let's wait for the release of the movie--which appears to be about Lincoln not Grant Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rjensen. Best to wait for movie to be released. Jared Harris Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Civil War section clean up
I believe the Civil War section needs to be cleaned up, possibly with more references. Longacre (2006), Grant The Soldier and the Man, would be one good source. Longacre's primary focus is Grant's overall military career up to and including the American Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant DNA Signature is now known
Recent DNA testing my father and 3 other known descendants fo Matthew Grant (U.S. Grant's earliest ancestor) have confirmed the DNA signature R-L47* (R1b1b2a1a1a4a*) and also confirmed that his ancestry on his father's side was in fact not Scottish (the English/Yankee description of Grant's father's ancestry in the wiki article is correct, however the Scottish Clan Grant has claimed him as one of their own and this is incorrect). Is this worth creating a small section at the bottom of the article mentioning his DNA signature?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigrant74 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not unless it's been published by a reliable source. Even then, that sort of thing isn't proof of his Scottishness.  Not everyone in Scotland has the same Y-chromosome.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

it doesn't prove he isn't scottish but comes darn close. it will be published soon by the ulysses s. grant association as i've given them most of my research and notes. i can also provide a link to the dna project which displays the results as confirmed by family tree dna (the company that did the testing). but the fact is the dna signature is known now. gigrant74 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. If Grant was not Scottish, then what nationality was he? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the DNA evidence, if confirmed, prove that Grant is English? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I Google searched and found nothing on a recent DNA test that proved Grant was not Scottish. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The DNA test was done by my father and a few other known relatives os U.S. Grant. The results were done by Family Tree DNA and confirmed to be R-L47* (R1b1b2a1a1a4a*) which is a signature suggesting Anglo-Saxon roots, possibly Frisian, and is a signature that is very very rare among Scottish Highlanders. It is know that his earliest known ancestor was Matthew Grant who came over from England in the 1630's. There is no proof that he is Scottish. I will be publishing an article regarding it at some point which can then be cited. gigrant74 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Images need review & removal to reduce overcrowding

 * I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding per WP:image: File:USGrant-Childhoodhome.jpg|thumb|left|alt=This is a black and white photo of the two story wood house where Grant grew up during boyhood days at Georgetown.|Ulysses S. Grant's boyhood home in Georgetown, Ohio Hoppyh (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding: image:Hardscrabble.jpg|thumb |250px |right |"Hardscrabble" home Grant built in Missouri for his family. Photo: 1891 Hoppyh ([[User

talk:Hoppyh|talk]]) 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have substituted Hardscrabble for the St. louis home following:File:PresidentGrantSTL.JPG|thumb|left|The Dent's home, where Julia and Ulysses Grant lived in St. Louis Hoppyh (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding in the pres. campaign section: File:Let Us Have Peace.jpg|thumb|left|alt=This a black and white portrait poster of Grant during the 1868 presidential election.|This is an 1868 presidential campaign poster for Ulysses S. Grant, created by superimposing a portrait of Grant onto the platform of the History of the Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party Hoppyh (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding: File:Grant-Chase-1873.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Grant giving oath of office to Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase during second Inauguration.|Grant's second inauguration as President by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase on March 4, 1873. Hoppyh (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding: File:US Grant in 1885.jpg|thumb|160px|left|alt=Grant is reclining in a chair on a porch suffering from throat cancer and writing his memoirs.|Grant, in constant pain, spent most of his last days writing his memoirs on a wicker chair at Wilton, New York|Mount McGregor Hoppyh (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the following images and material regarding Grant's memorial coinage. Consensus has been reached in other U.S. Presidents' articles that this information lacks sufficient significance - see articles on Kennedy, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt for consensus. A link is provided to provide the reader with adequate referral to this information. Hoppyh (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Series2004NoteFront 50.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Grant appears on the United States fifty-dollar bill|U.S. $50 bill. Grant was placed on the United States fifty-dollar bill in 1913. The portrait was challenged in March 2010 by North Carolina Republican Party (United States)|Republican Representative Patrick T. McHenry, who requested President Ronald Reagan's portrait be put on the fifty dollar bill because "Every generation needs its own heroes," and that a Wall Street Journal poll ranked Reagan sixth and Grant 29th. California Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Representative Brad Sherman said that Reagan was too controversial and that, "Our currency should be something that unites us." A Marist poll of 956 Americans taken in March 2010 showed that 79% favored keeping Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill, while 12% supported the proposed change to Ronald Reagan cite news last=Neuman first=Johanna title=Congressman wants Ronald Reagan to replace Ulysses S. Grant on the $50.00 bill latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/03/ronald-reagan-ulysses-s-grant-50-dollar-bill.html newspaper=Los Angeles Times date=March 3, 2010 accessdate=2010 03-04 cite web author=Mark Silva|title=Reagan $50: Most say keep the change swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/04/reagan_50_most_say_keep_the_ch.html date=April 22, 2010 accessdate=May 11, 2010 cite web title=4/22: Making Change with the 50 Dollar Bill http maristpoll.marist.edu 422-making-change-with-the-50-dollar-bill date=April 22, 2010 accessdate=May 11, 2010 File:Ulysses S. Grant $1 Presidential Coin obverse.jpg|99px|right|Grant dollar coin The Presidential $1 Coin Program was enacted December 22, 2005 and directs the United States Mint to produce $1 coins with engravings of relief portraits of U.S. presidents on the obverse. The Grant dollar coin was released on May 19, 2011cite web author = Staff title = Presidential $1 Coin Information publisher = Federal Reserve Financial Services year = 2010 url = http://www.frbservices.org/operations/currency/new_coin_presidential.html accessdate = 2010-12-04  (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/5uiYMWnwj) making him the 18th president honored in this program.


 * I have removed the following images and other material of Grant postage. This lacks significance per consensus reached in other U.S. President articles - see Eisenhower, Kennedy, Lincoln, Roosevelt. A link is provided to provide the reader with referral to this info. Hoppyh (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Along with presidents Washington and Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant is one of the few US Presidents on US postage stamps|presidents to be honored and portrayed]] on a U.S. Postage stamp more than twice. Grant was first honored when the U.S. Post Office released the first Grant postage stamp, issued on June 2, 1890. The engraving of Grant was modeled after a photograph taken in 1872 by William Kurtz. Printed by the [[American Bank Note Company, it was issued five years after Grant's death in 1885. The last postage issue to honor Grant was released in 1986, one of a series of 36 stamps with a US President portrayed on each, commonly referred to as the US Presidents on US postage stamps#AMERIPEX issues of 1986|AMERIPEX Presidential issues. To date, Grant has appeared on U.S. postage for a total of US Presidents on US postage stamps#Ulysses S. Grant|nine issues. After Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Taylor and Garfield, Ulysses S. Grant is the seventh President to first appear on a U.S. postage stamp. Scott's US Stamp Catalogue cite web|author=Alexander T. Haimann, National Postal Museum |url=http://arago.si.edu/index.asp?con=1&cmd=1&tid=2032675 |title=Smithsonian National Postal Museum |publisher=Arago.si.edu |date=May 16, 2006 |accessdate=February 5, 2011 File:Grant 1890 2-5c.jpg|thumb|149px|1st Grant Stamp US Presidents on US postage stamps|Issue of 1890 File:Sherman Grant Sheridan 1937 Issue-3c.jpg|thumb|264px|Sherman ~ Grant ~ Sheridan US Presidents on US postage stamps|1938 commemorative issue Image:US Grant 1938 Issue-18c.jpg|thumb|152px|Presidential Issue of 1938


 * I have removed the following image to reduce overcrowding: File:Grantdeathmask.jpg|thumb|150px|Grant's death mask Hoppyh (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard Scrabble image
I believe the Hard Scrabble image has more historical weight then Julia Dent Grant's parents home. Grant built Hard Scrabble. I recommend replacing the photos. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free...I moved them over here knowing I might be removing the wrong one. I would recommend pick one or the other. Hoppyh (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just restarted McFeely and finished the part about Hard Scrabble; you were absolutely right I think and so I substituted the pics, even if the pic isn't so great. Poor Grant, he was really struggling when he built that place; I wish Julia couldv'e been a bit more tolerant about it. Hoppyh (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical ranking
Removed. This sentence does not have a source. Seems to be taken from a Wikipedia page. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Historians have given Grant an aggregate ranking of 37 among his presidential peers, due to his administration's tolerance of corruption."
 * That was me. I thought we were using the WP rankings for the Pres. articles. I'm not married to it though. Hoppyh (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Note section
Does there need to be a note section in the Ulysses S. Grant article, or can the "notes" in the references be incorporated into the USG article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
Does anyone else thing the introduction is too long and the indepth information should wait till later parts of the page?

AlexanderMelton (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that; it could do with some abridging. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  00:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What areas of the introduction need work? The Presidency section might be edited. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks too long to me too, and some detail can come out. I have done some editing to make it more concise and will do more. Feel free to revert if I go too far. Hoppyh (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done all the damage I can do - it seems more in line lengthwise now -I hope for the better. Hoppyh (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hoppyh, thanks for the improvements in the lede section. I believe Wikipedia policy is to have 3 to 4 paragraphs in the lede.  It is true Grant failed at businesses St. Louis, however, he successfully managed to raise a family.  West Point was his fathers idea for Grant's success.  I believe the most devastating part of Grant's life was not his business failures, but his resignation from the military in 1854. I recommend combining paragraphs and mentioning that his father or family got him the position at West Point. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. Hoppyh (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Edits look good, Hoppyh. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Civil Service and other reforms
I believe it would be appropriate to mention Civil Service reform and other reforms instituted by President Grant including; the Civil Service Commission; the 1872 Revenue Act; the abolishment of the moiety system; and the 1876 Anti-Assessment Law. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to check closely on this in McFeely when I get to it. Hoppyh (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Grant, also, I believe ended the Franking privilege in 1873. The Revenue Act of 1872 set up a standard for Civil Service Reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested title change "her hero"
I believe the term "her hero" needs to be changed in the title The country celebrates her hero and initial Reconstruction. I suggest, "Northern celebration and initial Reconstruction". The country was not yet a country. States had to be readmitted. Also "country" is neither male nor female. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion: "Celebrated conquering hero" from "The country celebrates its conquering hero". All of the rebel states had yet to be admitted by congress and there was much work to be done.  Grant was mainly celebrated in the North.  He was respected in the South for being lenient to Robert E. Lee at Appomattox. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done (by Rjensen). Hoppyh (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope I am not being nit picky, but I believe the sentence is in present tense. Not all the states had been reunited with the United States. The Southern economy was devastated after the American Civil War and did any Southern newspapers support Grant's election in 1868? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes the Scalawags had newspapers--for example, 6 in Georgia. see Richard H. Abbott, "The Republican Party Press in Reconstruction Georgia, 1867-1874," Journal of Southern History Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 1995), pp. 725-760 in JSTOR. Abbott also has a full length book on Republican newspapers in the southern states at this tme.Rjensen (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the Scalawags supported Grant. Did the Southern people as a whole support Grant? I take the country means both former Confederates, Democrats, and Republicans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Grant was popular among Southern Republicans. I suspect ex-Confederates probably bought few copies of his Memoirs, even though they are featured in the text. Rjensen (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks Rjensen. Does the title need to be in past tense? I was told by one editor to write in the past tense on wikipedia article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sherman sent to Mexico 1866
I believe Grant did not want to leave Washington, because he knew Sherman would take over Reconstruction efforts, and may have been more sympathetic to President Johnson's defiance of Congressional Reconstruction laws. Grant may have believe Johnson was planning to take over Congress militarily and forcibly reinstate the former Confederate state representatives. The Secretary of War situation with Grant and Johnson came later in August 1867. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My ref. to the Secty. of War. appointment is based on McFeely, p. 256-257, where he mentions the rumored discussions between Johnson and Sherman about the appointment, and Grant not wanting Sherman to become his boss, and also that Johnson was ready to get rid of Stanton at that point. The reconstruction issue may have been at play too, but it's not mentioned as I recall. It may some of both. Feel free to edit as you see fit. Hoppyh (talk) 22:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I read McFeely correctly Grant believed Johnson wanted Sherman to run the military, and he effectively would have if Grant went to Mexico. I currently only have one source from Badeau, Grant's biographer, that Johnson wanted to overthrow the Radical government militarily.  Yes.  Johnson wanted Grant to be Sherman's boss as Secretary of War.  The Racical Congress helped Grant by stating military orders had to be approved by Grant. I believe the Secretary of State issue, or that Johnson was attempting to limit Grant, is important since Grant began to side with the Radicals around 1866. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination
This is the best I have seen the Ulysses S. Grant article in a while. I believe with further work this article can be considered a good article nomination. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it might be good enough for GA pretty soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Presidential pardons
Whom did President Grant pardon after a few months in prison? I suppose this is referring to the Whiskey Ring. I believe President Hayes had pardoned McDonald. Grant my have pardoned one person involved in the Ring. The current sentence in the statement reads Grant pardoned many people. How accurate is this statement? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe President Grant pardoned Joyce. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Kohn (2000), pg. 417, The new encyclopedia of American scandal states that Grant pardoned many ring members in the Whiskey Ring without any reference. Grant did not pardon McDonald. Babcock was aquitted.  Grant pardoned Joyce.  How reliable is Kohn as a source? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed Salinger (2005), Encyclopedia of white-collar & corporate crime, Volume 2, pp. 374-375 url link. Link does not display pages. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Inferior cabinet
According to C Vann Woodward (1957), Grant did not associate with men of learning, higher education, or talent. This article states Grant's cabinet was inferior.

Here is Grant's appointed Cabinet: Fifteen graduated from College or University:

Washburne-Harvard Law School; Fish-Columbia University; Richardson-Harvard University; Morrill-Waterville (Colby) College; Belknap-Princeton University and Georgetown University; Taft-Yale University; Cameron-Princeton University; Hoar-Harvard University; Pierrepont-Yale University; Cresswell-Dickinson College; Marshall-Dickinson College Professor of Ancient Languages; Borie-University of Pennsylvania; Robeson-Princeton University; Cox- Oberlin College; Bristow- Jefferson College Cmguy777 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction: Grant had sixteen appointed Cabinet members who graduated from College or University. Akerman-Dartmouth University. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: Washburne graduated from Cambridge Law School in 1840. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Seven did not attend any college:

Boutwell; Rawlins; Williams; Jewell; Tyner; Delano; ChandlerCmguy777 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If one counts Grant's vice presidents; both Colfax and Wilson did not attend college or university. I am not sure if Grant had anything to do with choosing his Vice Presidents. Schofield, Grant's Secretary of War, graduated from USMA. In other words, 68 % of Grant's appointed Cabinet attended College or University, not including the vice Presidents and Schofield. 66% of Grant's entire cabinet attended College, University, or Academy. Grant's cabinet included men who graduated from prestigious colleges such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Only one of Grant's non-appointed Cabinet, Schofield, graduated from USMA. Belknap was the only Brevet Major General in Grant's cabinet. In terms of corruption Robeson; Richardson; Williams; Belknap; and Delano were associated with Grant Administration Scandals. Only 22% percent of Grant's Cabinet members were associated with corruption charges, not including the Vice Presidents or Schofield. I have not counted Grant's other non cabinet appointments such as Grant's private secretaries, including Orville Babcock. How justified is the statement that Grant's cabinet was inferior and he did not associate with men of talent? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Corrections: 69 % of Grant's appointed Cabinet attended College or University, not including the vice Presidents and Schofield. 65% of Grant's entire cabinet attended College, University, or Academy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think McFeely made the comment; I will look it up for context and edit appropriately. Hoppyh (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. Hoppyh (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hoppyh. I believe the article would be improved by defining the term "inferior". Delano, Richardson, and Robeson could be defined "inferior" due to corruption charges. William's wife was more of a scandal then Williams.  In terms of Belknap, Grant purposely wanted an "inferior" cabinet in the War Department.  Grant, the Hero of Appomattox, would not let any person in the War Department make any top level decisions. Grant was "jealous" in terms of other generals. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good edit, Hoppyh. Thanks. The article I believe is more historically accurate without the phrase "His [Grant's] inferior Cabinet". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

24 hour black out
Looks like there's going to be a 24 black out protest and there is approximately 5 hours left. Not sure how Wikipedia editors are suppose to handle this if they are making edits on the USG article. Any views on the black out from other editors? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place for the discussion, but since you raised it, here is my entry from my talk p....Neutrality is the hallmark of the WP platform and should not be compromised. I do agree in opposing some provisions of SOPA and PIPA; but the WP Foundation should handle their response to this as well as other political and legislative issues without co-opting the website with an unproductive and counterintuitive result. In retrospect, the blackout did not interrupt access, only editing; a nonsensical outcome. Hoppyh (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I initially wanted to know how the "Black Out" would affect the editing on Wikipedia. I was blocked from making any edits on the any articles. Since the protest apparently kept editors from editing I believed that this was appropriate for discussion in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, did you agree with the blackout? Hoppyh (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not entirely sure what the bills stated exactly, except we were suppose to take as fact, I suppose, that these two laws would be detrimental to the Internet. I believe Wikipedia and Google have a right to protest and Wikipedia's black out campaign was highly effective. From what I know one Senator is modifying these bills to make the legislation less controlling. As far as the Grant article, there was some sort of empty feeling not being able to access or view the article for any editing during the black out. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally supported the blackout but it did make me nervous--sort of like Grant in the fog of war during a battle--for the first few minutes he could hear the guns but he could not see what was happening. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the foriegn Wikipedia articles were not blocked out. For example I looked up Ulysses S. Grant on the Russian site, in addition to other Wikipedia foriegn sites, and with Google translator I got different perspectives of how Ulysses S. Grant is viewed around the world.  The articles tended to be very brief.  Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In answer to Hopphy's question-statment, "So, did you agree with the blackout?", yes I did. However, I was not sure if editors had a general vote on the black out issue. This seemed to be a top down autocratic decision.  I would have also liked if the Wikipedia controlling editors would have given the general public the actual bills that Congress was debating.  I was not sure what exactly the protest concerned, other then web sites would be blocked or blacked out if these legislation bills passed. Not being able to edit on Grant may answer an interesting question, is the Internet controllable.  Apparently and soberly the answer is yes. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Cabinet chosen without consultation
According to George S. Boutwell, U.S. Congressman at the time, Grant consulted him on cabinet appointments during his first Administration. Boutwell had recommended two persons, one was Rockwood E. Hoar, whom Grant did nominate. Does this count as Congressional consultation or was Boutwell just an exception? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Boutwell was a member of the cabinet, right? I would call him an exception. (McFeely says no leader of Congress was consulted - p.286.) Hoppyh (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Boutwell was a member of Congress from 1863 to 1869 and Cabinet member in the Grant Administration. I would say he was instrumental in Reconstruction having served on a the committee that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and he was the leader in Johnson's impeachment, serving as prosecutor in the last attempt.  Apparently, then, Grant consulted with one Congressional member. Wade was the speaker of the House. My proposals would be to say, "With the exception of George Boutwell, no Congressional leader was consulted," or "Although Grant sought advise from George S. Boutwell on two appointments, no Congressional leaders were consulted." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ulysses S. Grant was consulted in February 1869 by Congressman Boutwell. Boutwell advised Grant to pick Governor Clafin for Interior and Rockwood E. Hoar for Attorney General. Boutwell (1902), Reminiscences of sixty years in public affairs, Vol. 2, p. 204. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to make too fine a point of it or go into this much detail; I would suggest merely qualifying the statement by saying that "for the most part" he did not consult Congress. The more notable point is that of secrecy prior to submission I think. Hoppyh (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree secrecy is the main point, however, Grant is critisized for "broadly" not consulting Congress. Smith (2001), Grant, discusses this on pp. 465-466. Boutwell was a prominent Radical during Reconstruction and friend of Charles Sumner. Maybe the term limited consultation would be good, possibly overconfidence, since he won the majority of the peoples votes.  Grant was confident in his own judgement, good or bad.  I believe that needs to be stated. "Confident in his own judgement, Grant limited Congressional consultation, that proved to be problematic." Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good edits Hoppyh. The article I believe accurately emphasizes Grant's military style in choosing his Cabinet. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Minimal consultation" I believe is the best phrasing, since apparently, he only consulted Boutwell. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"shunned his father's trade"
Somewhere along the chain of edits his father's trade has been removed from the introduction. That leaves "shunned his father's trade" dangling: the innocent reader has no idea what that is. If there is no room in the introduction for that information, the fact that he shunned it will have to be dropped also 71.175.132.91 (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Schweikart-Allen as source
The Schweikart-Allan book, A Patriot's History of the United States, has been heavily critisized. Is this book valid for the Grant article? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does the term "irrational" imply that President Grant was mentally ill? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schweikart and Allen are solid established historians--their book is only criticized by people who disagree with their conservative politics. "Irrational" does not mean crazy--it means historians can't find a good reason for a politician doing something. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The book was critisized from conservative and liberal sources. Even though Babcock was involved with corrupt activities, Grant rationalized that political enemies were going after him. Babcock had a constitutional right to be defended, even if guilty.  Were Grant and Sherman suppose to throw Babcock "under the bus", in this case a "horse carriage"?  Would that be rational? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The term "irrational" is another attempt to blame Grant for the "sins" of his countrymen, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rjensen. I appreciate any discussions on the matter. I am not for an edit conflict over this issue, however, I believe the issue needed to be discussed. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schweikart and Allen was my addition. My understanding is their work is considered very well sourced. I am more confident in the work with the help of Rjensen's comment. "Irrational" is my doing and all I was trying to convey from the source was Grant's excessive or unreasonable level of trust in his appointees. Please feel free to use a different term if you feel it appropriate. Hoppyh (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Schweikart and Allen is not a research monograph (it's more like a textbook that stresses conservative interpretations). It is useful for saying "conservative historians have this view on XYZ" Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. That that is true. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to use the word "irrational". For example, at one point Grant puts together a solid reform team Sec. Bristow, Sol. Blueford Wilson, Sec. Pierreponte, and even prosecutor Senator Henderson to crack down on the Whiskey Ring. Then Grant says if Babcock is guilty he would considered him a "traitor".  Also Grant stated "let know guitly man escape, if can be avoided." However, Grant changes and then defends Babcock with a deposition. McFeely explains Grant's protectionism of Babcock, possibly, as an effort to protect his own family involved in the Whiskey Ring.  That would be dubious, however, I am not sure irrational. John Y. Simon stated "Grant's two outstanding faults, a tendency to carry personal loyalty too far and un-yielding stubbornness..." I would say excessive loyalty and unwarranted trust in his associates. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think; a cite may be needed. Hoppyh (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Simon also points out that Grant, while he was military commander, spent most of his time in Washington with President Johnson, not President Lincoln. Grant's "lashing out at critics" may have been learned from President Johnson, known for his attacks on his political enemies, including Grant himself.  Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit break 01
Here are suggested phrasings for Grant: "unyielding loyalty and trust"; "extreme loyalty and trust"; or "unswerving loyalty and trust". Cmguy777 (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * how about "uncritical" ?? the reformers complained that machine politicians put loyalty ahead of performance or the public good and thereby were corrupt and lacking in republican virtue. Rjensen (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. "uncritical loyalty and trust". Good observation, Rjensen. That is why the reformers were so angry. From another perspsective Grant was a keen observer and the President he knew the most was Johnson. Grant's lashing out at critics in many respects was like Andrew Johnson lashing out at Congress. Grant knew how to use the Presidency to protect his associates. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe Mary Louise Hindale's view that Grant fluctuated between reform and corruption is accurate and makes Grant both a reformer and a facilitator of corruption. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "complacently" might be an improvement over "uncritically". Hoppyh (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine, Hoppyh. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Maps
Military campaigns need maps and Wikipedia has lots of good ones, such as the Ft Donelson campaign I added. Also I suggest we need to broaded the reference base beyond a few biographies to give readers a taste of the excellent military histories. Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Want me to add Shelby Foote? Hoppyh (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * yes a couple cites to Foote would be good. But I had more in mind the recent technical studies listed in the bibliog. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is good, Rjensen. Would maps be better in the Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War article? Would maps clutter up his biographical article? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maps don't clutter--they reveal. They are cheap and easy to add. In my opinion this main bio needs maps on Belmont-to-Shilow, Vicksburg, 1864 Overland. The USG & war article can use more. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is fine, Rjensen. I agree on the addition to maps in the main bio and the USGATACW. That will make both articles better. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I recently added information, references, and an article source, Bonekemper III (April 2011), that specifically compares Grants war record to Robert E. Lee's, to the USGATACW article. I believe this article would be good, since the article is currently fairly recent. Bonekemper really believes Grant was a good general and statiscally Grant caused more Confederate casualties, then received Union casualties. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rjensen. I agree. Maps give a better understanding on battle information and tactics. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Death date
Did Grant die on July 23, 1885 or July 25, 1885. Crompton (2009), Ulysses S. Grant, on page 104 stated Grant died on July 25. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Some changes
I noticed the article got messier towards the end so I cleaned some of it up; I also took out a few items that I felt weren't quite significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia article (such as the item about the play "Momma's Boys", which was a very smalltime/local production). Also took out the reference to Julia Grant reclaiming a slave as an attendant - I wasn't exactly sure where this would fit, and seemed perhaps more appropriate in the article about Julia Dent Grant than in this one. Adjusted wording of the "Respite from military" section to better reflect Grant's "apoliticalness". I noticed a lot of the article in general relies heavily on the McFeely biography when there are a ton of other biographies available; the section as it was worded made Grant sound more favorable of slavery at the time than historians might agree upon. Also agree with others that the introduction/summary definitely needs to be shortened.GalenaMcGregor (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The lede had problems but it has to cover all the important events of a very busy life, so I revised it somewhat. Rjensen (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The plethora of McFeely is my doing; I did a major edit as I read the book. My understanding is that McFeely has a primary standing among the Grant biographers. I also shortened the lede significantly not long ago. Hoppyh (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

McFeely is good; however, somewhat dated in my opinion (1981). Bonekemper (April 2011) has done good research on Grant as a soldier. Bonekemper is a good source for his military section. Smith is good also, yet somewhat dated (2001). I recently found an article by Koster (June 2010) on W.W. Belknap that gave tremendous insight into Grant's presidency and the Indian Trader Post scandal. The best way to improve Grant would be through updated research articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Presidency and Confederate slavery
How could President Grant (1869-1877) have fought Confederate slavery if the Thirteenth Amendment (December 1865) outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude? Did the KKK enslave or terrorize blacks? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the issue was enforcing the 13th amdt. the "Black Codes" passed in 1865 seemed to represent a sort of semi-slavery or serfdom status that was unacceptable to Republicans. Most distrusted Southern whites who said "a) we are now good Americans again; b) we forever renounce slavery." Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense Rjensen.  The way the sentence reads, in my opinion, is that slavery Constitutionally had not ended or could be interpreted to have remained Constitutional. Would the reader understand Grant was enforcing the 13th, 14th amendments, and eventually the 15th amendment?Cmguy777 (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What source(s) states that Grant fought vestiges of Confederate slavery while President? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

True, the former Confederates believed the laws derived from slavery applied after Reconstruction. The sentence reads in essence Grant fought the vestiges of slavery. I can find no source that states Grant fought the vestiges of slavery. Grant believed blacks had the right to vote without regard to education. I would call that protecting Civil Rights. Is stating that Grant fought against "racism and racist laws rooted in slavery" more accurate? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the reason that "slavery: is important is constitutional -- there is 13th amdt. against slavery but no law against racism. Also political--numerous historians have shown that Grant could get northern GOP support against slavery but not against "racism" (that word was not in use at the time). The phrase "vestiges of slavery" was used at the time and by historians  since. see for citations Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jensen, your focus on racism here is anachronistic. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjensen on the citations. If other historians use "vestiges of slavery", that is fine. I would suggest putting in a source for the term. My focus was on the term "vestiges of slavery", rather then the chronology of semantic word usage. However, since "anachronistic" was brought up, historian Philip F. Rubio (2001) stated in A history of affirmative action, 1619-2000, on page 43, that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was a "civil rights" law. The term "Natural Rights" originated 1680-1690. The origin of the term "Civil Rights" was 1715-1725. The language origin for the term "Racism" is French and started between 1865 and 1870. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the term "racism" became popular during the 1930's when facism dominated Europe under Hitler and Nazi Germany. With that said, can the term "racism" then be applied to any Reconstruction history? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, civil rights is an old term, though it had a more limited meaning in those days. I meant that the idea of focusing on racism was anachronistic.  I doubt Grant would've thought of it that way.  --Coemgenus (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree Coemgenus. The violent actions of Ku Klux Klan would be labeled as racism today. I suppose racism is used for purposes of the modern reader. I found a newspaper article that stated Pope Pius VI attacked Italian and German racist fascism. The Catholic Church Action associations were anti-racist while the fascists supported racism. The modern usage or meaning of the word "racism" may have become popular by the Popes speech against Italian and German fascist racism. Pope Challenges Fascistic Racism As War On Church. Anyways, I have new perspective in terms of any usage of the term "Racism" in Reconstruction History or the Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "racism" misses the key issues of Reconstruction, which involved party politics and constitutional issues much more than race. The plan to disfranchise blacks as a race, for example, came in the 1890s and emerged from new people like Ben Tillman. Rjensen (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The first U.S. President to be associated with speaking out against "racism" apparently was FDR in August 1940. Roosevelt Warns Racism Perils All Americans In terms of Grant, civil rights is appropriate since Congress talked concerning Civil Rights in February 1872 WASHINGTON AFFAIRS.; Discussion in the Senate on Amnesty and Civil Rights. Possibly the word racism then could be appropriately used in Presidencial articles starting with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Belknap versus Babcock
I was wondering if the William W. Belknap trader post scandal in 1876 was more detrimental to Grant's Presidencial reputation then Orville Babcock and the Whiskey Ring scandal. The Belknap trial in the Senate may have taken away Grant's prestige during the U.S. Centennial. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

religion error
Grant was not a religious man and was not attached to any church, His wife was a Methodist and on his death wanted a proper christian funeral .There is a huge body of historical evidence to support a citation of religion - Unknown, This will not be popular with Methodists but the reality is he had practically no interest in religion Tommyxx (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Simpson and Farina, Grant prayed privately and opposed religious pretentiousness. I believe the issue is that he had no interest to study religion, rather, then no interest in religion.  His actual beliefs if he had any are unknown.  He was for separation of Church and State in public schools. He associated with the Methodist Church through his wife. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012
Please change: Regarding the newly sworn in President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln commented to Julia that he dreaded the change in administrations; he judged Johnson's attitude toward white southerners as one that would "make them unwilling citizens", and initially thought that with Johnson "Reconstruction has been set back no telling how far."

...to: Regarding the newly sworn in President Andrew Johnson, Grant commented to Julia that he dreaded the change in administrations; he judged Johnson's attitude toward white southerners as one that would "make them unwilling citizens", and initially thought that with Johnson "Reconstruction has been set back no telling how far."

...because this was a comment made at Lincoln's funeral by Grant. It's awfully difficult for a dead man to talk under normal circumstances. ;-)

Stormont2012 (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thanks. That one made me laugh.   Hot Stop   15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lee surrendered to Grant on Palm Sunday April 9, 1865
I would like to see added, "Lee surrendered his deleted forces on Palm Sunday April 9, 1865 to Grant". - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * let's leave minor religious celebrations out of it. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jensen's right, one has nothing to do with the other. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. From what I have read on Grant and Lee, both were, especially Grant, preoccupied with ending military hostilities. Lee's men were starving and in no condition to continue fighting. I do not view there was any connection between Palm Sunday "celebration" and Lee's surrender to Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Polaris expedition 1871
I believe mentioning the Polaris Expedition would be signifigant for the article. This was the U.S. first Congressionally funded attempt at the North Pole. Grant hand picked Capt. Hall and Sec. Robeson was actively involved in planning and rescueing the expedition. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Abraham S. Eisenstadt as source
Abraham S. Eisenstadt believed that corruption in the Gilded Age was a figment of the "gentility's moral imagination". In other words, Gilded Age politics was not corruption but a "new system of national politics" to answer America's problems arising after the American Civil War. Eisenstadt believes the "new capitalists" were morally indicted by the old structure gentility that could not work in a modern world. Bribery depended on the "perceptions" of the beholder. Are critics harshly judging Grant's Administration in terms of corruption? Is Eisenstadt a valid source? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eisenstadt was a scholar and edited a book on corruption in 1978. I have not seen the quote. "figment of the imagination"???? it was real enough. Eisenstadt perhaps rejects the idea that corruption is a serious issue for America--he thinks little bribes are the cost of efficiency and should be ignored. However  fear of corruption by government officials has always been a central element of Republicanism in the United States. In 2012 it remains a powerful force--look at the John Edwards trial going on right now, or the firing of a dozen Secret Service men a few weeks ago for sex while off duty. Rjensen (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eisenstadt pointed out that America was a product of the Reformation and that Christianity has been infused into politics. I am not saying I completely understand Eisenstadt's view on corruption, but he apparently believed the U.S. was a new country after the Civil War and the old values of gentility did not work in a modern world. Reformers were out of place in an industrial economy while capitalists were viewed as evil or bad people. Grant is castigated for his association with Fisk and Gould, yet Fisk and Gould, represented the new America, the old slavery aristocracy had been destroyed. And yes, as noted corruption goes on today in government. John Sherman stated in 1872 that corruption went on before Grant's Presidency. Grant, however, seems to be the bitter target of moralist historians.  Hiester Clymer, in charge of much of the Grant corruption investigations, hated Lincoln's policies and the Radical Republicans agenda, that Grant had supported as a military leader and as President. Here is the link to the Eisenstaldt quote: "the Gilded age-Americas great age of political corruption- was the figment of the gentility's moral imagination" from John Thomas Noonan's (1984), Bribes, page 550. If criticism of corruption in Grant's Administration was merely "imagination" from envious and judgmental reformers, doesn't Grant's Presidency deserve positive recognition? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * if corruption in high places does not bother somebody, he will not be upset with Grant's behavior. Give that person $500 and he will praise Grant to the sky. Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying, Rjensen. Was Eisenstadt being bribed to say that the Gilded Age was a moralists imagination? Why is Grant singled out from other Presidents who have had corruption in high offices? Isn't slavery corruption? The original Constitution was a slave document stating slaves, who had no rights, were 3/4 people that allowed Southerners more representation.  Why is not that corruption? I don't recall the hallmarks of Christianity was to enslave persons and to keep them in perpetual bondage. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Grant is singled out because he blatantly rejected American values regarding corruption. No Eisenstadt was not bribed, he just did not appreciate the horror Americans have of corruption in high places. Rjensen (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Grant favored industrialists to break the vestiges of slavery. My comments on corruption, slavery, and the 3/4 clause in the Constitution have not been answered. Thousands of Klan were prosecuted by Grant, Akerman, and Bristow. The corrupt Whiskey Ring was shut down by the Grant Administration. Grant got rid of the moiety system. Grant outlawed pornography. Yes. There was corruption during Grant's presidency, however, there were signifigant reforms. I disagree that he blatantly rejected American values, but rather he represented American values of diplomacy, democracy, and industrialism. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * was slavery corruption--yes that was a major theme of Lincoln and the new Republican Party. It was not Grant's line of thought. He protected his friends (included black veterans in the South) and set industrialization back years by his mishandling of Wall Street (again to help his friends). Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that signing the Resumption Act of 1875 helped Wall Street and Sec. Richardson's release of money into the market helped aleve the crash of 1873. Grant also packed the Supreme Court to overturn their ruling that outlawed paper money. I do believe that Grant made a mistake in not consistently releasing gold, as Boutwell had wanted, since he apparently believed Fisk's view or lie that this would help western farmers. Yet Grant and Boutwell did release gold into the market to thwart Fisk and Gould scheme however temporarily crashing the market. Grant's appointment of Bristow as Secretary of Treasury, certainly helped Wall Street bankers in his support of gold currency and cleaned up corruption of the Whiskey Ring. The Eads steel bridge in St. Louis represents Grant's effort to modernize the U.S. His support of the Polaris expedition was ahead of his time as many countries today are attempting to make claims on the Arctic Circle. Grant and Fish keeping American out of War with Britain and Spain allowed the nation to grow economically and united as one nation. I admit Grant made mistakes in office, he himself admitted that, however, how does this justify vitriolic reaction from historians concerning his Presidency? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The GDP was set back in 1874 at 21.6; in 1873 the GDP was at 21.7. By 1875, the GDP increased to 22.7. In 1876 the GDP was 23.0 and by 1877 the GDP was 23.7. Apparently there is no record for GDP in 1869, Grant's first year in office. Clearly the economy took a nose dive in 1874 for one year resulting from the Panic, however, the economy did pick up Grant's remaining years in office. Statistics are from Angus Maddison (1995), Monitoring the World Economy, 1820-1992, page 150. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Eisenstadt deserve anyplace in the Ulysses S. Grant article as a reference source? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If this means anything, I am not defending any corruption charges found in the Grant Administration, however, I am attempting to access why historians are so critical of his Administration compared to other Presidents. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rothbard (2002), A History of Money and banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to world War II, pg 154, stated that U.S. economy grew at a rate of 4.5% from 1869 to 1879, despite the Panic of 1873.  The economy recovered due to hard money policies and industrialization. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2012
President Grant's middle name is Simpson. So, I think that insted of Ulysess S. Grant, it should be Ulysses Simpson Gratn

98.218.122.186 (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you.


 * Grant himself did not recognize the "S" as Simpson or standing for anything. His original name is Hiram Ulysses Grant. Congressman Hamer, who nominated Grant to West Point, abbreviated the S in Simpson, his mother's maiden name. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Little Big Horn
Would mentioning the Battle of Little Big Horn in combination with Sec. Belknap's resignation, House Impeachment, and Senate Trial improver the article? Grant received criticism for his treatment of Custer after testifying against Grant's brother Orville for investing in three trader posts. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request 5/14/12
In the third paragraph of the introductory section, you have this "More then any other President, Grant had to respond to Congressional investigation financial corruption charges in all federal departments.[3]" This should read '... Grant had to respond to congressional investigation OF financial corruption charges...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.124.143 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Selection of subordinates
I believe the following statement is POV and possibly historically inaccurate:


 * "...Grant was weak in his selection of subordinates, and even pardoned several convicted officials after they had served only a few months in prison."
 * The reference source was: "Lawrence M. Salinger 2005 pp. 374–375"

Hamilton Fish, Benjamin Bristow, and Amos T. Akerman were exceptional Cabinet choices. Orville Babcock finished 3rd in his class at West Point and was a very capable engineer, not sure if he was a "weak" selection. The President has power make Presidential Pardons under the Constitution. Whom did Grant actually pardon? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe President Rutherford B. Hayes pardoned John McDonald. John A. Joyce was pardoned by President Ulysses S. Grant. That would be one pardon of persons convicted in the Whiskey Ring.  Who were the others? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved sentence to talk page:
 * Although personally honest with money matters, Grant was weak in his selection of subordinates, and even pardoned several convicted officials after they had served only a few months in prison. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I added specific information on President Grant's presidential pardoning and the Whiskey Ring. Salinger stated several months. According to Simon those two convicted spent six months in prison. These persons spent time in hard labor prison. Prison was extremely harsh during the 1870's. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidential Library
Grant has a permanent Presidential Library located at of all places the Mississippi State University. Any objections to adding this into the article? Here is the source link: Ulysses S. Grant: How 'bout them Dawgs! Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yes please add it Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

William S. McFeely as source
Is William S. McFeely hostile to Grant in his book Grant: a biography? For example, McFeely (pp. 375-376) makes Grant appear as if he did not do anything to end hazing at West Point, however, the appointment of Thomas H. Ruger, West Point Superintendant, reduced the amount of hazing at the Academy by 1873 as stated in the New York Times (August 23, 1873), The Military Academy Report of the Board of West Point Visitors. The crux of this depends on whether Grant appointed Ruger or influenced his appointment, however, hazing was reduced at West Point Academy while Grant was President. McFeely was angry that Grant did not publically denounce the hazing of James Webster Smith, yet does not mention that hazing was actually reduced at West Point. Henry O. Flipper, the first black to graduate at West Point, entered the academy in 1873 and was not treated to the open hostility that Smith received in 1870. Was McFeely being fair to Grant concerning West Point hazing? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think McFeely was particularly fair to Grant about much at all, to the point of making me wonder why he wanted to write a biography of Grant in the first place. To your specific point, I fear I can't help you much, except that I remember (vaguely) mention of the hazing incident in Foner's history of Reconstruction. Can't remember anything more specific.--172.190.146.199 (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Reputation segment
Would the article be fair to put in a reputation segment, since Grant was apparently vilified by the Dunning School in early 20th Century? Grant's reputation suffered during the 1920's through the 1980's. McFeely made Grant to be a half hearted "civil rights" President who was a viscious soldier. Possibly mentioning revisionist historians would be helpful to understand why his reputation has improved. Any objections to adding a reputation segment? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a historical reputation section that gives an overview of Grant's reputation as Commanding General and President. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My only question would be whether or not reputation sections are common for articles of similar size and depth. I don't think that it is a bad idea, as long as it isn't allowed to degenerate into a Grant-bashing exercise where people can excoriate a nineteenth century man for not living up to twenty-first century values. Also, though it may still (sadly) be regarded as the "standard" work on Grant, it might be best to not rely too heavily on McFeely.--172.190.146.199 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

$50 Bill
Shouldn't there be something about Grant being on the $50 Bill? There's only seven people so honored, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.119.83 (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There was a section. Not sure why this was deleted from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Julia Dent in Georgetown
The line "After settling Julia into a house in Georgetown, he then established his headquarters fifty miles away" makes it sound like Julia lived in Georgetown during the end of the war. But she only stayed in Washington a few days before leaving for Philadelphia according to "The Personal Memoirs of Julia Dent Grant (Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant)". She then lived in Burlington, NJ and Philadelphia until the end of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.140.241 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good observation. This needs to be changed if not changed already. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Treatment of Indians NOT accurate.
Grant sanctioned brutal actions against the Indians as president, contrary to the article.

"Later, during his presidency, one of the most corrupt in our nation's history, Grant again called on the savage General Sherman. This time he ordered Sherman to wage war against native American Indian tribes so that the Union Pacific Railroad, whose owners had given Grant stock in their company, could be constructed on the Indians'sacred lands. Sherman eagerly complied, and his soldiers implemented an efficient pogrom, resulting in the removal and slaughter of Indians." http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis39.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.214.152 (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How does ownership of stock in the Union Pacific, if true, equate that Grant slaughtered Indians? Grant was very lenient to the Modoc uprising in 1873, desiring peace, rather then extermination of the tribe. Grant got Indian wars to 15 per year by 1875.  The gold rush in the Black Hills was a signifigant factor in the rise of Indian Wars in 1876, not Grant's Peace policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Lew Rockwell site appears to have a neo-Confederate bias. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 of Ulysses S. Grant Memouirs
I have two vol. of U.S. Grant memouirs...Vol. 1 is signed by him and dated 1887. Are they worth anything monetarily? Carol Way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.117.51 (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not an auction discussion forum. There are communitees on eBay that might have an answer to your question or Ask.com. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Grant died before the book was printed. every copy has the same fake signature Rjensen (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Trapeze cartoon
Why was the trapeze cartoon put in the Presidency section? First, the cartoon was made in 1880, during Grant's third term nomination attempt and needs to be in that section. Second, the cartoon has been tagged. Third, the cartoon needs to be put in as a thumb caption. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not against the photo being in the article. I removed do to a tag issue on the photo. The photo belongs in the Third term section of the Grant bio article. The cartoon was made in 1880, not during President Grant's tenor in office, and Keppler's view of Grant's third term run for President. I can upload at the library of Congress at this link: Grant trapeze cartoon. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The cartoon has been fixed. I have modified the same cartoon from the download at Library of Congress, that I believe has better color and clarity. I am concerned with the tag on the current photo. I am glad the Grant's cabinet is getting more press time. Thanks Rjensen. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for fixing it-- it's a hilarious cartoon that readers will enjoy. Rjensen (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I added another photo I got on the Library of Congress; more clarity and color. I was concerned over the tag on the other photo. Yes, the cartoon, although not entirely fair, is hilarious. I am glad Babcock got his caricature printed. I believe he was alive at the time of printing. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientific expeditions (1871)
President Grant was the first President to support two 1871 federally funded scientific expeditions into the North Pole and Yellowstone. Why have historians overlooked these signifigant events? I believe they would add value to the USG article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are the two federally funded 1871 expeditons. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Polaris Expedition
 * Hayden Geological Survey

Edit request on 13 July 2012
Eliminate the following sentences in the second paragraph: "In 1862, as a general he fought a series of battles and was promoted to major general after forcing the surrender of a large Confederate army and gaining control of Kentucky and most of Tennessee. He then led Union forces to victory after initial setbacks in the Battle of Shiloh, earning a reputation as an aggressive commander."

Substitute the following: In 1862 Brigadier General Grant sought and received permission to begin a campaign down the Tennessee River. In February he was successful in taking Fort Donelson guarding the mouth of the river. When the confederate commander of the fort, one of Grant's West Point classmates, sought to negotiate its surrender, Grant "returned one of the most peremptory refusals in the records of the conduct of war" [footnote John Keegan, The American Civil War, Alfred A. Knopf, New York 2009, p.127] and became popularly known, consistent with his initials, as "Unconditional Surrender Grant." [footnote: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/grant-timeline/ accessed 7/13/12]  Lincoln promoted him to Major General. In April 1963 the Grant's forces prevailed in the costly two day Battle of Shiloh, driving the confederate army back to Mississippi. Grant was heavily criticized in the press and Congress for the high rate of union casualties, but Lincoln famously replied to critics "I can't spare this man; he fights." [reference Wikipedia article on Battle of Shiloh]

Reason for the edit: Although concise, I think the sentences proposed to be deleted are so general they are confusing. The proposed sentences are more specific and contain interesting highlights of material appearing later in the article.

Sanjuandav (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You can change it yourself after you are confirmed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Grant Cabinet editors needed
I have been attempting to expand the articles of Grant's cabinet appointments. I believe this will help in understanding President Grant's two terms in office. Included examples are Hamilton Fish, William W. Belknap, and George S. Boutwell. Grant had a revolving door cabinet so any help from other editors is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are Grant Cabinet members that need editing. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Elihu B. Washburne
 * William Adams Richardson
 * John Aaron Rawlins
 * J. Donald Cameron
 * Edwards Pierrepont
 * John Creswell
 * James William Marshall
 * James Noble Tyner

Sherman did not participate in the Mexican War
"Sherman's experiences in the military had been very similar to Grant's; he had studied at West Point, served in the Mexican War, and later had resigned from the Army only to fail in his civilian career."

In Sherman's Wiki it says he served in California during the Mexican War and was one of the few famous Generals who do so. Which is true?

Thank You

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.177.99 (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * California was not a U.S. state when Sherman served in the Mexican American War. California was either an independent nation, Bear Flag Rebellion, or part of Mexico, since apparently Mexico did not recognize California as independent in 1846. You bring up a good point since one needs to determine if California was an Independent Republic in 1846 or Mexican Territory. Apparently the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo recognized that California was a Mexican Territory. That would mean that the U.S. nor Mexico formerly recognized The Bear Flag Republic. This would mean that Sherman then was stationed on captured Mexican territory, if Sherman was stationed in California before February 1848. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)