Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions about Ulysses S. Grant. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
This is a suggestion but I believe mentioning Cuban beligerency should be mentioned in the first paragraph...I would rewrite the first paragraph...This would increase the neutrality of the article by mentioning Cuban beligerency first before introducing the failed Santo Domingo annexation...also I am not sure why there needs to be so much background information concerning the Johnson Administration since this is a Grant article...In the interest of the article and FA status I am going be editor consensus...I hope this suggestion is helpful and is made in good faith...I supplied Bradford (1980) references...any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Is that accurate? I don't think anyone in the administration advocated recognising Cuban independence in 1869. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I strengthened the first part of the Gilded Age corruption and reform section. I fixed the faulty Woodward link. Some sentences were reworded to accuratlely fit information found in Woodward...who never stated Grant was honest in money matters...I believe all the sentences in the section should have references. The Crédit Mobilier scandal was discussed in the Reelection section. I removed that information. Cmguy777 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a suggestion but why not have two photos of one Cabinet reformer ie Bristow and one corrupt Cabinet member ie Belknap...and replace the current Whiskey Ring cartoon... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the Salary Grab cartoon by Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper ...I think adding the Salary Grab would be good to the article. Grant got a pay raise but the act was embarrassing for Congressmen who took a $5,000 bonus in addition to their own pay raise. The discovery of the pay raise apparently took place after the Panic of 1873 thwarting Congressional Republicans from being elected the next year. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is Brands 2012b being used as a reference for the last sentence ? Brands specifically states " Historians have long underated Grant's performance as President...Yet he deserves credit—and indeed respect—for the bold action he took at a perilous juncture in postwar Reconstruction to expand federal guarantees of racial equality and to protect freed slaves and their supporters from the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan..." That means that historians have under estimated Grant's presidency and that he deserves credit for Civil Rights. The current sentence only states he is well below average in historical surveys without mentioning equality or civil rights...In my opinion this does not accurately represent Brands 2012b statements and could be misleading to the readers...any opinions ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion in FA review -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Surely we cannot have a single sentence paragraph in this article, as we do now in the Death section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The Reelection section states Congress created the Civil Service Commission...this is not true...Congress passed a law that allowed the President to implement Civil Service as Grant saw fit...Grant then by executive order created the Civil Service Commission and appointed Curtis Commissioner...many of the recommendations of Curtis later became part of the 1883 Pendleton Act when Congress officially created the Civil Service Commission...The first Civil Service Commission was Grant's creation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of changing the sentence as little as possible, how about tweaking it to read "To placate reformers, Congress authorized Grant to create the Civil Service Commission, which he did by executive order in 1871. The Commission, chaired by reformer George William Curtis, had the power to propose reforms." --Coemgenus (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Flood (2005) page 105 makes no mention of soldiers caught by surprise having a leisure breakfast at Shiloh...Flood states Union soldiers were jarred from thier sleep...also Colonel Peabody had discovered the Confederate Army on morning of April 6...there was no surprise...just terrible army management and planning by Grant, Sherman, and Halleck. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
While the Grant biography is shaping up nicely there are some significant items still missing.
If it's any help, all this is sourced in Appletons' cyclopædia of American biography, Vol.ii -- I'm sure other more contemporay sources cover this material. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems a little odd that topics like 'Military career' and 'Family' would be lumped together under one section. Should not Family or Family life get its own section, as should Military career? These are both general and distinct topics. Even if lumped together, shouldn't 'Family' come before 'Military career'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Please accept my apology for the remark about the gold star, it wasn't made to suggest you haven't worked hard or that it was your only concern. In any event the article is going to be read regardless of the FA. Yes, for the day the article is on the front page it gets many 'views', but only those interested in Grant are going to read most/all of the article, FA, or no FA. As concerns the "eleventh hour", April 9 is almost a month and a half away, and you're suggesting that no additions, improvements or changes can be made because of this FA review. Changes and additions are common during FA reviews.
The following additions/changes are recommended:
Grant's marriage, wife, children and home life needs to be covered better and not just mentioned in passing and lumped in with the military section. The marriage can still be mentioned under Military career for chronological reference. Currently the article only devotes two short sentences to these important topics, while Julia's picture is absent altogether -- yet we have a picture of King 'what's his name' and others far less important/associated to Grant. That is not comprehensive coverage of Grant's family and home life, per FA requirements. Sections: If the Military career and family are a major section, then Civil War needs to be a subsection as it comes under that heading, while there should also be a subsection for the Mexican American War -- an entire war, not a battle. Grant's hip injury, something that directly effected him, personally, needs to be mentioned, as it left him crippled and dependent on a crutch or cane for the rest of his life. One sentence would cover that. These things would not require that the article receive a "full review" all over again. Such edits could be made in minutes and can easily be evaluated on a per item basis. As military content goes, the article shines, but it's still greatly lacking in Grant's personal life and needs a bit of section work to truly come off as an FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)He spent some of his time in Missouri visiting the family of his West Point classmate, Frederick Tracy Dent; he became engaged to Dent's sister, Julia, in 1844.[14] . . . Four years after becoming engaged, he married Julia on August 22, 1848.[22]They had four children: Frederick, Ulysses Jr. ("Buck"), Ellen ("Nellie"), and Jesse.[23] Grant's first post-war assignments took him and Julia to Detroit and then to Sackets Harbor, New York.[24] In 1852, Grant's next assignment sent him west to Fort Vancouver in the Oregon Territory . . . Julia, who was eight months pregnant with Ulysses Jr., did not accompany him.[25] . . . He was unhappy being separated from his family, . . . on condition that Julia and the children stay with her parents in Missouri or with the Grants in Kentucky. Ulysses and Julia opposed another separation and declined the offer.[33] . . . Two years later, he and his family moved to land on his father-in-law's farm, and built a family home he called "Hardscrabble".[33] Julia hated the rustic house, which she described as an "unattractive cabin".[33] . . . Having met with no success farming, the Grants left . . . In 1860, Jesse offered him the tannery job in Galena without conditions . . . Grant and family moved . . . After settling Julia into a house in Georgetown . . . Lincoln invited him and his wife to Ford's Theater, but they declined . . . Grant told Julia that he dreaded the change in administrations . . .Grant secured a house for his family in Georgetown Heights . . . Further travels that summer took the Grants to Albany, back to Galena, and throughout Illinois and Ohio, with enthusiastic receptions.[117] . . .Grant confided to his wife that he thought the President's speeches were a "national disgrace" . . . Grant and his family vacationed for the first time in what became known as the "summer capital" and "the resort of presidents", Long Branch, New Jersey.[153] To ensure his family's privacy, Grant barred the general public from entering the White House grounds.[154] . . .Grant and his family stayed with friends [] before setting out on a tour of the world . . . The Grants dined with Queen Victoria . . . The Grants spent a few months with their daughter Nellie, who had married an Englishman . . . Grant and his wife journeyed on to France and Italy, spending Christmas 1877 aboard USS Vandalia . . .Grant's son Ulysses Jr. had opened a Wall Street brokerage house . . .Grant joined the firm . . .To restore his family's income, Grant wrote several articles . . .Grant's son Fred assisted with references and proofreading . . . Julia Grant received about $450,000, suggesting a royalty of about 30 percent.[293]
Grant's ancestry extends back eight generations. In his memoirs grant wrote, "My family is American and has been for generations, in all its branches, direct and collateral." In 1630 Matthew Grant and wife Pricillia with an infant daughter sailed to the new world from Plymouth and landed in Nantasket and settled in Dorchester, south of Boston. They were part of a large Puritan migration to New England. The Grant's descendants fought in the French and Indian and Revolutionary wars. Ulysses' father, Jesse R. Grant, emigranted from Pensylvinia to Ohio and married Hannah Simpson on June 24, 1821, settling on the banks of the Ohio River at Point Pleasant. During Grant's presidency his father served as Postmaster in the town of Covington, Kentucky. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: There may be a chronology issue in the Military Career and family 1843-54 You may have already brought this up...the title sounds like Grant's family ended in 1854 and there is no mention of marriage...Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that Military career and personal life' is the best alternative. Personal life covers marriage and family while military career covers his West Point training, his service during the Mexican-American War, and service until his resignation in 1854. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
According to two older sources sources (1, 2) Grant was baptized and attended a Methodist church. The article currently says he wasn't and didn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Until you showed up, there was a consensus to abide by the rules. I don't think you changed anyone's mind, but if any other editors disagree, I hope they'll chime in. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Grant's father sent Ulysses to boarding school just across the Ohio River in Kentucky when he was in his early teens. While there he was often ridiculed by some of the other classmates because his father was an abolitionist. At this school Grant participated in a debate club and held several 'liberal' views concerning Women in society, slavery etc. I'm at the public library now, but when I return home I'll provide the source for that one. In any case, seems the article would do well if we mentioned that, under Early life (hopefully soon to be renamed 'Family and early life'). Again, this is the only article suitable to go into any comprehensive coverage of Grant's early and family life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Mexican American war topic needs more content -- currently this war is inadequetly covered, esp in terms of Grant's involvement.
There is really no introductory statement for this War, which needs its own subsection to be consistent with the rest of the TOC. The existing opening statement is more like a detail that should follow an opening statement.
Proposed intro statement:
Also, mention is not given to the following:
Needless to say, Grant's extensive involvement during this war warrants that this topic gets its own section or subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sources :
Again, older sources are used here, but I'm sure this stuff can be cited with newer ones, if we must.
The True Ulysses S. Grant, Charles King, 1914
Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin Spencer Edmonds, 1915
Ulysses S. Grant, Owen Wister, 1900
Ulysses S. Grant, his life and Character, Hamlin G, 1898
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two very important and definitive items absent in the coverage of the Mexican American War. Coverage of this topic says nothing about Grant serving in almost every major battle, and nothing about his fast advancement in rank. The opening statement is lacking while overall writing style is almost nonexistent.
We should also at least mention that Grant volunteered for the task of delivering a dispatch through sniper fire. This will give the readers a better idea about grant's overall involvement in this war, without all the details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this article needs Hamilton Fish to negotiate an editor detente. Including myself, I propose minimal editing be done until FA status has been achieved. The focus should be on FA article rather then adding additional details. I would hope FA status could be achieved as soon as possible. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone objected to the family photo, and I'm happy to see it added. As to substantial additions or subtractions from the text, it seems we're all in agreement (with one exception) that it should stay the length it is. It would be the longest FA of a president by about 1,000 words, but I think the subject easily justifies it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
We've gotten some more comments about overlength at FAC just now. I trimmed one sentence very slightly in response, but I'm reluctant to do more, lest we cut something important (not to mention re-opening all the old arguments). The third paragraph in the Mexican War section (the part about Grant's memoirs) was singled out again. Consensus here had been to keep it when I proposed deleting it a while back, but do you think we could tighten it up, at least?
I think this is not a make-or-break issue for us--we've gotten considerable support for the article at its current length. I just wanted to keep you all informed about FAC. I'm inclined to leave it basically as it now is. What do you folks think? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find your limiting principle here. There's more that can be said about everything. That's why we have links, subarticles, etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that some books only lend themselves to Grant's role in the Civil War, not covering his personal life, role in the Mexican-American War, and terms as president, modern scholarship covers Grant's role in the M.A.War (referred to in Grant's day simply as the Mexican War) in better proportion than this article does:
A sample taken from modern sources used in this article:
Also, in his memoirs, Grant mentions the Mexican War more than 50 times, mentions Santa Anna by name 15 times and refers to him indirectly numerous times.
No one is suggesting we have subsections for various battles in this war, but it would still be appropriate that this war be given one subsection and not just passed over in the Military career... section. There are two paragraphs of content for this war in this article -- but no subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion Civilian life is not the best description for Grant's economic hardships between his early military career and the Civil War.
I suggest adding "and education" to the current Early life section title: Early life and education. This would refect Grant's enrollment and military education at the United States Military Academy. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the number of times Grant was brevetted it would seem that he did rise in rank quickly, but then this is not always a permanent advance in rank. Okay, fair enough. Whether he was actually firing a gun in every battle or not, it is said he fought or participated in every major battle, save one. Seems we should at least mention that. And since the article does mention he delivered a dispatch on horseback through sniper fire, it would seem we should at least mention that he volunteered for the assignment. What say you? Your thoughts about giving this war its own subsection would also be appreciated, as there is two paragraphs devoted to the topic. In any event, thanks for providing a rational reply. (Same goes for you Cm'). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.