Talk:Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 1

Archive 1

More editing needed

This is just the beginning of the article. I plan to make changes and make things more chronological, especially on domestic issues. I believe it is best to show legislation signed by Grant during his two terms in office. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)}

Citations

I added sources and changed one sentence to read there were eleven scandals associated with Grant's Presidency without the causational link trust in personal associates. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)}

Orphan

I added more links to this article. Thanks. I am removing the cite.{Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)} {{orphan}}

I redirected related links to the USGPA article. I removed the orphan cite.{Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)} {{orphan}}

Korean invasion or expedition

I am not sure why the Korean invasion was delisted or why it is considered Minor. The authors sources were valid. However, it is good know know someone is reading this article. The Korean Expedition is actually an article on Wikipedia. If it is good enough for an article, why can't it be mentioned in The Presidency of USG? That seems fair.{Cmguy777 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)}

We've now fixed that using good sources. It was a minor episode for the Grant Administration (but one the Koreans fixate about to this day). Rjensen (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comstock Act

Grant was against signing the act until Comstock assured that he would enforce the legislation. This has to due with Civil Rights. I am not sure why it was deleted. What is Controversial is that Grant allowed a private citizen to enforcing federal legislation. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

note that biographers don't even mention Comstock (who for a while was indeed a federal official). Rjensen (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Grant allowed Comstock to arrest pornographers and even ban Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass". {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

Comstock is interesting but it doesn't belong in this article.Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Grant gave Comstock unprecedented power. Comstock arrested doctors and midwives who performed abortions, banned nudity, and regulated public libraries. Comstock in a sense, did all of Grant's "dirty" work, and is an example of how Grant was an astute polician avoiding controversy while creating it simultaneously. The source is by Daniel P. Carpenter in the book "The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: reputations, networks, and policy innovations in executive agencies 1862-1928". {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

Well if you have a good source then it can be included. Watch for the POV, please. Wiki cannot call actions we don't like "dirty work" (the Comstock Law passed by Congress is today still the law of the land and it is enforced esp re child pornography. Rjensen (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't use the words "dirty work". That is POV. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

Alfred Pleasenton

I am not sure if Pleasenton to be considered a scandal. He was fired before any scandal broke out, however, he attempted an unauthorized refund. Should that be considered a scandal? {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)}

Scandal is when they get away with it. When people get caught we praise the government for catching the guilty. Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A rare case in the Grant presidency. Should Pleasenton be removed from the Scandal list, even though it is obvious he attempted an unauthorized refund? {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)}

John Creswell

A 12th scandal has been found known at the Star Ring. This scandal took place under Postmaster John Creswell's tenor that involved postal route contracts at exorbitant fees and an excessive increase in the amount of postal routes. Creswell was also a reformer. Should Creswell be involved in the scandal section? If so, should he be labeled both a reformer and corrupt Grant associate? {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}

If the sources still have Creswell as a Refmorer, then keep him labeled as such. You should add the Star Ring scandal to the list of scandals during Grant's 2nd term (in both this article and in the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals article. –MuZemike 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. They do. The facts are that the intricate Star contracting ring flourished under Secretary Creswell. The only detail I found is alleged bribery in links throughout the Ring, simular to the Whiskey Ring. There is no evidence Creswell was bribed, however, down payment bidding checks were deposited in banks with just John Creswell's name. The name by law on the check was supposed to be John Creswell, Postmaster-General. He stopped this practice when informed of the checks. It begs the question if those were the actual bribery checks in order to get the lucrative mail route contracts. Other then the alleged bribery, it was all legal, although excessive pricing mixed with unneccessary additional routes. Is this a Creswell scandal or just a Postal scandal or both? Thanks for your valued input. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}

It would probably be both. I think it should still probably be included in the "Scandal cabinet and appointees" section; I wouldn't put it under Creswell's section near the end of the article. –MuZemike 21:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, Creswell's name should be mentioned in the Scandal segment and also the fact that he resigned ubruptly without explaination. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)}

I think we both agree on the same thing there; I think you may have explained it a bit better than me. –MuZemike 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. One more scandal added. Greed really was rampant during the 1870's.

Edits and contributions

Thanks for all the edits and contributions to this page! Looks good. The article is well on its way for GA status. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

It is indeed getting better. I dropped a lot of useless links and returned the list of scandals covered on the Scandals page. More cleanup is called for -- such as replaceing textbooks as sources. Rjensen (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Native Americans might take offense to being called hostile and in my opinion it is a stereotype promoted by Hollywood and Western media. The term "hostilities between Native Americans and settlers over commercial buffalo hunting and mining land rights" is historically accurate. Another option is "hostilties with native American tribal leaders." The entire Native American community was not hostile. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

The text book source was helpful in summarizing Ulysses S. Grant's presidency and written by many recognized historians. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

The Indians were not involved in any commerce, and buffalo hunting was not an issue at the time. The hostilities of course involved more than the leaders--the war parties raided railroad camps and wagon trains to loot and kill. (Editors who get outraged at killings in the South ought to be equally outraged at killings in the West, I suggest). The Blum textbook is great--I helped write it as a graduate student in the 1960s in fact--but Wiki rules recommend using better scholarship when available. So I replaced it with better sources.Rjensen (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am aware the Indian resistance to the Americans dates back to Jedidiah Smith and party coming into the West. Part of the hostilities stem from, I believe, the Indians were divided in their loyalty between 3 European powers, Spanish, British, and the French. The Russians could be a 4th influence at Fort Ross. The Americans seemed to be caught in the middle allot of the times. Indians may have favored the European influence, especially the British in the North West, over Americans. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)}

the state of residence of a presidential candidate is a Constitutional issue and Grant was officially from Illinois. He left Ohio as a teenager.Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all your edits in the Grant Presidency article. My concern with the Native American comment was the word "hostile" followed by "Native American". The term "Native American resistance" could be a better phrase. The western migration was propigated by buffalo hunting and mining interests. I was not implying that Native Americans had mining interests themselves. However, the destruction of the Buffalo forced Native Americans off their reservations to look for food. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

I did not know about the Grant state residence controversy. Thanks. I believe there is a controversy over Andrew Jackson either being born in North or South Carolina, also. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}

yes but Jackson came from tennessee when elected. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

as for the Indians, the ones shooting up the wagon trains and RR workers were racist anti-white terrorists trying to preserve the old order in which they ruled the Plains--rather like the racist anti-black terrorists in the South who tried to preserve white rule. Negotiation--as the Modoc episode shows--did not work well. Rjensen (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting perspective. It is true they wanted to preserve their old order. I am unaware if the Indians viewed whites as inferior. However, the Indians, at times resorted to terrorism and were very good at it. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)}

Cuban War Bonds

Should the Cuban War bonds be considered a Grant Scandal. Secretary of War John A. Rawlins had bought these bonds and had urged Grant to go to War with Cuba. Is this a scandal? {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)}

Hamilton Fish battles Orville Babcock

There needs to be segment on the infighting between reformers led by Hamilton Fish and the corrupt cabinet led by Orville Babcock. Fish was attempting to block the corrupt nominations that Babcock wanted Grant to make. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor judgement

I have read the Nevin's reference and there is no direct inference that Grant had "poor judgement". I understand that Nevins was refering to "consultive talent" and he even makes the claim that Grant was genetically ignorant of proper political edicate. Grant appointed Fish, Cox, and Taft to his cabinet. That would show signs of good judgement. Nevins states that Grant contradicted himself. I would suggest putting in the following:

Grant's personal ignorance of proper political edicate and Machavellian tendencies brought on by the Civil War often led him to appoint corrupt associates to positions of power within the administration.

or

Grant's own political ignorance and Machavellian tendencies brought on by the Civil War often led led him to appoint corrupt associates to positions of power within the administration.

or

Grant's own political ignorance and Machavellian tendencies brought on by the Civil War often affected his choices to appoint honest men.

Disagree. "poor judgment" is pretty widely accepted. 'Machiavellian' means extremely clever plotter, which he was not, Ignorance goes away after a few years, but Grant was just as bad in terms of supporting bad people in 1876 as in 1869. Rjensen (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you that Grant had poor judgement. I was only referring to the Nevin's reference. He does not specifically use the word "judgement". Secretary Cox said concerning Grant "In civil affairs there would be danger that such a rule would run into the pernicious maxim that the end justifies the means. A very different kind of knowledge, both of men and of affairs, is needed to conduct properly the civil business of the State." That is Machiavellian philosophy. A cornerstone of Machiavellianism is to appear good but to do bad behind the scenes. Grant appeared to be good but allowed others to do bad things. Nevin's words were "consultative talent". Nevins claims that Grant's "disability" was an inherited trait and stemmed from personal insecurities. Ignorance is not the proper word. If you are implying that lacking consultive talent is that same as poor judgment, then I am mistaken. Nevins claims that Grant was a contradiction in personality. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Grant's judgement was contradictory. At times he put the best on his cabinent, Fish, Bristow, and Taft. At times he made terrible appointments Babcock, Delano, and Robeson. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object to adding the word "contradictory"?

"Grant's judgment was poor and contradictory when it came to appointing honest man."

OK. Perhaps the problem was that 1) Grant could not tell the difference between good men and bad; 2) he protected his men when they got in trouble, especially the bad men. Rjensen (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevin's states "Grant's was a contradictory personality, and facile generalizations upon him are to be avoided." That is why I objected to using the term "poor judgement". He had his own definition of good and evil. Anyone who was for Grant was good and anyone who was against Grant was bad. That is the only explanation in my opinion that explains why he appointed criminals such as Babcock, Delano, and Robeson on his cabinet. In Grant's universe supporting those people was good judgement. There is no record of Grant believing that men were born inherently evil as in Calvin's doctrine. Nevins also suggests that Grant may not have had any judgement or judgmental faculties: "He was destitute of the great gift which may be called the consultative talent." I take that to mean he did not have any genetic or inherited basic faculties to make moral judgements on people. All of this can be defined as "poor judgement", but then Grant in contradiction appointed some of the best men in the country Fish, Bristow, Cox, Hoar, and Akerman to his cabinet. Nevin's points out that people around Grant could not figure out his thought processes or believed he did not even think. If Grant did not think, then he would have been morally void. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fish was appointed because his wife was friends with Grant's wife. Bristow was appointed to treasury because he was a hard money man. Cox was appointed because Sherman liked him. Hoar was appointed to try to appease Sumner. Akerman was appointed because Butler wanted to enforce Radical legislation and the Constitutional Ammendments. They were not appointed for moral reasons. Why were they appointed then? I believe Grant, according to McFeely, had an instinct for survival. He knew that these men somehow would be good for his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To say He had his own definition of good and evil. Anyone who was for Grant was good and anyone who was against Grant was bad. makes him look REALLY incompetent to hold high civilian office. His job is to pursue the national interest. Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That statement was my gross generalization of Grant, only in an attempt to understand why he appointed the corrupt men in the first place. You were correct to say that Grant was not ignorant. Nevin's warned not to make generalizations. You make a valid point, was Grant's objective the national interest? In one sense yes. As far as I know no foreign entity challenged his Presidency or risked going to war with U.S. Grant. Having Fish at the helm was in the national interest. Putting Bristow at the Treasury was in the National interest. The Republican party was disintegrating into a den of theives. His goal to allow African Americans civil rights and freedoms was in the long run for the National interest. In another sense no. He appointed many family members to high power positions. He appointed to and protected dishonest men in high office. Nevins was correct. Grant was a man of contradictions. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Scandal summary table spelling of "retroactive"

Shouldn't the spelling be "retroactive" instead of "rhetro active" in the Scandal summary table? Tashiro (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The word is found in the dictionary and is spelled correctly. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

retroactive

Separate cabinet article

Should the Presidency of USG have a seperate cabinet article to save space? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose he idea. The cabinet never worked together in a special role apart from operating the Grant Administration.Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Eads steel bridge

Why was the Eads steel bridge section taken away? I thought that Smith stated Eads went to Grant to save the bridge from being destroyed. Any clarification? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Santo Domingo and Charles Sumner

I believe the Santo Domingo section can be cleaned up. Pres. Grant tried a second time to ratify the treaty. Also, Sen. Charles Sumner accused Pres. Grant of abandoning the Republican cause of freedom for African Americans, not just political patronage. How can this issue be addressed since Pres. Grant enforced the Force Acts and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan? Also, Pres. Grant sent over Frederick Douglas to investigate the Santo Domingo treaty. Did the people of Santo Domingo want to be part of the United States? Did Sen. Sumner actively oppose the treaty the first ratification attempt? Any suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen for your work on the Santo Domingo section! Looks good and adds understanding to the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Civil rights clarification

I thought the Liberal Republicans were against government intervention with army troops. Did Charles Sumner become a moderate when joining the Liberal Republicans? Fredrick Douglas supported Grant and the annexation of Santo Domingo. Who were the moderates Grant supported by using patronage? Butler is considered a radical rather then a moderate. Bulter wrote the bill that authorized federal troops to destroy the Ku Klux Klan. Also, was Sumner the leading spokesperson for civil rights or Douglas? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald is an important source. Most Radicals supported Grant and Sumner broke with them--you can't say he became a moderate. Grant cut a deal with Butler because Butler was an enemy of Sumner. Grant also wanted to destroy the KKK, and one moderate he named was Akerman of Georgia as attorney general. Douglass was not a big player in Washington--Sumner was the chief spokesman for civil rights until his death. Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read, neither McFeely, Smith, or Simon, state that Grant became a moderate after Santo Domingo. I would need to read the Donald source. Butler recommended Akerman because Grant's previous Attorney General Ebenezer R. Hoar was not going after the Klan. Akerman was not a moderate after he assumed office. Akerman constantly talked on Civil Rights in cabinet meetings annoying Hamilton Fish, a conservative. In fact the Klan fled to the hills fearing prosecution from the Justice Department under Sec. Akerman and Sol. Gen. Benjamin Bristow. Grant continued to use the military during the second term to enforce civil rights. Stauffer refered to Douglas as a Giant and even Sumner had concerns when Grant sent Douglas over to Santo Domingo, since Douglas had tremendous influence over African Americans. I would have to refresh on the Liberal Republican versus the Republican platform in 1872 to find out any modifications on Civil Rights. My objection is calling Grant a moderate while calling Sumner a radical after he bolted the Republican Party. Grant never bolted. Grant signed the Civil Rights bill in 1875 authored by Sumner and Butler. Sumner, sadly, died before the bill was signed. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald says that Grant built a new coalition, called "New Radicals" and ousted all the Sumner people. Of course Grant rejected all the Liberals too, and we should not call Grant a moderate. Nor Sumner. Douglass became a pawn for Grant--he needed the money (his newspaper and his bank went bankrupt)--and had little control over the blacks in Congress or state legislatures. (see Frederick Douglass by William S. McFeely p 277). Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Grant made a new coalition due to the Santo Domingo and Sumner battles. I believe this sentence needs to be modified:

"Grant reshaped his coalition, working with enemies of Sumner such as Ben Butler of Massachusetts and Roscoe Conkling of New York, giving in to Fish's demands that Cuba rebels be rejected, and moving his Southern patronage from the radical blacks and carpetbaggers who were allied with Sumner to more moderate Republicans."

I suggest changing "more moderate Republicans" to "an alternative coalition known as "New Radicals". Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ok. Donald says "Grant turned his back on antislavery veterans in New York to make an informal alliance with Conkling, ... consequently he continued the course he had already begun of fostering more moderate Republican leadership in the South." p 446 Rjensen (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote Rjensen. Yes, Conkling was a Grant ally, but he represented the north and was a Stalwart. Conkling was on the Joint Committee for Reconstruction that gave African American citizenship and divided the South into military districts. Slavery had been abolished prior to Grant becoming President in 1865. Does Donald give an example of any moderate Southern governors whom Grant supported? Who are these moderates? Where does Donald call these moderate Republicans "New Radicals"? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Grants allies in the Senate were Matthew H. Carpenter, Zachariah Chandler, and Oliver P. Morton. McFeely (1981), pp. 345, 346. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Chandler and Morton were radicals. Carpenter appears to be the only moderate. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald (Sumner vol 2) has numerous references to the New Radicals. It's a must-read for article on Grant. p 491 Sumner's "enemies were the New Radicals that now surrounded Grant plus most of the Southern Republican Senators who depended on federal military assistance to maintain their places." and page 350: "These New Radicals differed from their predecessors less over policies than over priorities. Sumner and Wade were as outspoken in their desire to keep the Republican party in power as were Conkling and Butler, and all four men were ..." Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Donald is perceptive and gives a different perspective. The term New Radicals is appropriate for the article. I would have to see if my local library has the book in stock. I know that different authors can give unique perspectives into non primary biographical historical persons. I believe Donald wrote this book in 1970. I believe the focus in this article needs to be on Grant's retaliation against Sumner. In fairness Sumner did allow the treaty to be brought up before Congress, however, his political weight as Senator kept the treaty from passing. I believe the discussion is relevant in modern times. Would Santo Domingo becoming a state have made any difference? My view is that black representation would not have dissappeared in Congress for a few decades. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Scandals called rings

This is for discussion. Would calling the scandal Rings be best for the article and other connecting articles. For example; Gold Ring; Indian Post Ring; Navy Contract Ring; Star Route Ring. Whiskey Ring has already been mentioned. Or would the word "Ring" be repetative? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony

Susan B. Anthony voted for Grant in the 1872 Presidential election. She was arrested, put on trial, and convicted. Grant was going to pardon her for voting, however, she never served jail time. Is this worth mentioning in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

not here because it had nothing to do with Grant or national politics--this belongs with woman suffrage. Rjensen (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mormon controversy

I believe a section on Grant's love/hate relationship on the Mormons and polygamy would be good. Grant appointed 5 territorial governors and arrested 100's of polygamists. When he visited Utah, he had a change of heart on the Mormons. Any opinions or objections on the subject? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exposing the culprits sentence

Is the following sentence accurate?

"Instead of exposing the culprits, Grant defended them and attacked the accusers." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

During the Whiskey Ring scandal Grant did defend Babcock in a trial deposition. He did not defend McDonald, although he pardoned McDonald. Grant, through Sec. Bristow and Att. Gen. Peirrepont, shut down the Whiskey Ring. He initially hired special prosecutor Henderson to go after the Ring in court. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

During the Gold Ring, Grant and Sec. Boutwell flooded the marked with Gold to shut down the Ring. He was friends with Gould and Fisk, but he did not defend them. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

True, Grant defended Sec. Delano from the press. He stated that if Delano resigned he would be "retreating under fire" and an "admission of the charges". Grant missed the opportunity to "defend the integrity of govenment sercice" according to Smith (2001), Grant, p. 587. In the case with Delano, I would not say his statement was directly attacking the press, even though there is no excuse for defending Delano. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Klu Klux Klan law

Both McFeely and Smith have different views on Grant and the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871. Mcfeely believed that Grant was reluctant to sign the bill, while Smith stated he actively supported the bill. Any opinions on how to resolve this apparent inconsistency? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Reputation and Dunning school

According to Joan Waugh, Grant's Presidential reputation did not suffer immediately after he left office. Sean Wilentz states Grant's reputation suffered at the turn of the 20th Century as ex Confederates and the Dunning School conspired to distort Grant's reputation. Grant was not oppressive in his use of the military, in fact, he was critisized for not using the military enough, particularly in Mississippi. The Dunning School's unprecedented historical assault on Grant's Presidency needs to be addressed in the article, in my opinion. Why was mentioning the Dunning school deleted from the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

What did Waugh claim re presidency??? The views of people like Henry Adams (Boston) & Carl Schurtz (St Louis) were VERY hostile to Grant. By 1900 the Dunning school operated esp 1900-1920 and was indeed hostile to Grant. But by the 1920s-1960s "revisionism" (led by Charles Beard, Howard Beale, & C Vann Woodward) was also hostile. Dunning's view was the consensus view of most northern and southern scholars and was not especially regional. You see that in Rhodes (from Boston) and Schouler (Boston) & Oberholtzer (Philadelphia). Dunning school said that Grant operated corruptly to favor the his friends in the GOP and army veterans. Revisionists said he operated corruptly to favor big business. Rjensen (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the claryfication Rjensen. The hostility began with the Dunning school and then continued with hostile revisionism until the 1980's, I suppose, McFeely's works was the last hostile book against Grant himself and his Presidency. I believe that reader needs to know that from 1900 to the 1980's almost every historian had some sort of grudge against Grant, for some reason or another. McFeely cleary believed Grant was a brute as military leader and a half hearted Reconstructionist. Wilentz states this is untrue. Waugh's book covers the hostile "revisionism" from 1920 to the 1980's. Grant could not catch a break for nearly the entire 20th Century. I suppose that is what I believe the reader needs to understand. According to Waugh, Grant was extremely popular up until the 1900's. Of course there was corruption under Grant's Presidency, but how does this explain the hostility and conspiracy to undermine his Presidency and as General in Chief? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the intense anti-Grant hostility among intellectuals and future historians was in place by 1872 in the Liberal Republican movement, which vehemently attacked the corruption of his administration. It included many ex-abolitionists (like Sumner). "grudge" is not quite the term....they were dispassionate scholars. You're right about McFeeley and he certainly knows Grant better than Willentz (McFeeley has worked in the field for 40 years and has a Pulitzer prize for his bio of Grant) Willentz has not published any books or major articles on the Grant era.) Try to avoid "conspiracy" -- the scholars involved were very serious about their conclusions. You might entertain the thought that being strongly in favor of blacks leads historians to downplay Grant's corruption. That's a bias too. Rjensen (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles Sumner, told a bold face lie in 1872 when he stated Grant did nothing for Blacks when clearly he must have known Attorney General Amos T. Akerman and Grant's troops sent into the South to destroy the Ku Klux Klan. The American people clearly did not latch onto the Liberal Republican Anti-Corruption movement in 1872. However, I believe the accusations of Sumner and other Liberal Republicans have latched onto hostile historians of Grant since the 1900's. The Gilded age was full of corruption and yet no historian applies "moral relavitism" to Grant and his Cabinet. Smith, in my opinion, did not downplay Grant's corruption charges, although he was defensive concerning Babcock, calling the charges against him a "red herring". All historians can be biased and I do not believe that the academic world is free from political motivations. McFeely's book on Grant is extremely one sided and he even went against his mentor Woodward and made rash judgements against Grant. For a two term President historians have ignored Grant and in my opinon that is un American. Historians have failed to take Grant's Presidency as a whole, but rather just tidbits, here and there without any chronology. True Sec. Robeson and Sec. Belknap were profiteering, yet, historians do not see that they actually ran their departments effectively and were highly active in defensive technology research to defend the United States. Why can't there be an objective view concerning Grant, enveloping his accomplishments, failures, corruption charges, civil rights, and Indian policy? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Relied heavily on Military Associates

Did President Grant actually rely heavily on Military associates? His Indian Peace policy would seem to indicate otherwise. Grant's Secretary of War William W. Belknap, according to Smith, had minor control of Reconstruction policy. Babcock, yes, had influence over Grant, but he did not hold a Cabinet position. Sherman, through Belknap's War Department power structure change in 1870, had to move to St. Louis in 1874. Grant signed the bill, possibly to give the Presidency more power of the War Department through Sec. Belknap. I believe, the only generals he appointed to his Cabinet were Secretary Belknap and Sec. Cox. President Grant and Sec. Cox were at odds with each other, especially over Santo Domingo. Grant himself stated that Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, who had never served in the military, was his most trusted political advisor. How much is Grant relying heavily on his "military associates" more myth then truth? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Polaris expedition

I believe adding the United States' first attempt at reaching the North Pole, the Polaris Expedition would be good for the article. President Grant and Secretary of Navy were actively involved in the setup and operation. In light of how the North Pole is of increasing financil interest to modern countries, President Grant was ahead of his times. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 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) 19:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are Grant Cabinet members that need editing. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 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

Lacked judgement

As I have read more on Pierrepont, Bristow, Taft, Akerman, Jewell, Boutwell, Hoar, and Cox who were talented men, although Jewell did not have a college degree, he was a reformer, I am not sure that Grant lacked good judgement in appointing cabinet members. He seemed to know what he was doing. Two of his appointments, Williams and Delano, maybe considered his worst appointments. Robeson and Belkap had corruption charges that is true, however, each made signifigant contributions in industrializing the military. I believe Grant held on fast to those who had corruption charges, that is true, out of loyalty and trust. I am not sure that his judgement was bad, especially, when Sec. Fish stated that Grant was at his best when he made his own decisions without being influenced by his cabinet. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

His Secretary of War, his personal secretary, and high officials...

"His Secretary of War, his personal secretary, and high officials he named to the Treasury and Navy departments joined bribery or tax-cheating schemes."

I believe this sentence expanded to be more specific would improve the article. Only one of Grant's Cabinet was impeached. Babcock was indicted. Not one of his Cabinet was convicted of bribery, not even Secretary Belknap. His indictment in the House did not state bribery specifically. In terms of tax evasion schemes, Grant, Secretary Bristow, and Attorney General Pierreponte prosecuted and shut down the Whiskey Ring. Grant appointed McDonald as Internal Revenue Collector of St. Louis, but he also prosecuted and convicted him. Grant never pardoned McDonald. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

let's not try to deny the role of personal corruption. Historians' judgments are what we represent here. Did these people "joined bribery or tax-cheating schemes" -- yes most historians have decided that they did do so. Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not denying corruption in terms of profiteering or tax evasion, i.e. the Whiskey Ring, but Representative Hiester Clymer stated Secretary Belknap did "unlawfully and corruptly receive" payment money rather then the term "bribery". Belknap was charged "for high crimes and misdemeanors in office". The supreme court of the District of Columbia did refer to Belknap "accepting a bribe or bribes.". If if one allows the use of the term bribery, that needs, in my opinion, to be refered specifically to Belknap. The above sentence makes Grant sound as if all of his appointees were involved in corruption. Belknap was aquitted in both the Senate and District of Columbia court. Now, of course, this does not mean he was not guilty in accepting a "bribe or bribes". The point I am trying to make is to be more specific in detail, rather then make a general statement that could be misinterpreted by the reader. Does the above sentence convey that Grant prosecuted the tax evasion corruption under Secretary Benjamin Bristow and Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont? The tax evasion scheme on Whiskey had been going on since the Eighteenth Century and came to an ubrupt stop under the Grant Adminstration. There was tax evasion, but Grant prosecuted the tax evaders and profiteers. Grant also stopped corruption in the Interior and Post Office with his appointments of Postmaster Marshall Jewell and Secretary Zachariah Chandler. Secretary Columbus Delano was put on trial in the newspapers, and I am not sure that is fair to state that he accepted a bribe without any House impeachment. Delano may have accepted a bribe, but there appareently was no concrete evidence, such and in Belknap's case. Is there any objections to rephrasing the sentence that gives specific persons, rather then a general statement of persons? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

For example, "In March 1876, Grant's Secretary of War William W. Belknap ubruptly resigned before being impeached by the House for allegedly taking bribery payments from Caleb Marsh, a contractor at the Fort Sill tradership." This is very specific and to the point. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also the question of legality. Secretary Belknap while in office could be considered to have taken bribes from Caleb Marsh, the contractor at the Fort Sill tradership. Even if Belknap was guilty of accepting bribes, Wikipedia can not state legally that he accepted bribes because he was aquitted by the Senate and in the Federal Court of the District of Columbia. Babcock may have been guilty of money laundering and profiteering, but he was never convicted in St. Louis. Wikipedia, legally, can't state that Babcock was guilty, rather, can legally state Babcock was indicted. Wikipedia can state that these persons were involved in corruption charges, in my opinion, without stating they "joined bribery and tax evading schemes." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an alternative:

"Grant's Secretary of War William W. Belknap, Secretary of Navy George M. Robeson, and his Private Secretary Orville Babcock were involved in corruption charges that included money laundering, bribery, and federal contract profiteering." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the above sentence is a good sentence that captures Grant's corruption and at the same time specifies who was involved in the corruption. Bribery has been mentioned. Tax evasion can be mentioned with Secretary Bristow's investigation and raids and Grant's protection of Babcock. I could replace "money laundering" with "a whiskey tax evasion ring" Any objections into replacing "His Secretary of War..." sentence with the above sentence or potential modification? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

These sentences I believe add improved content. I added the word "allegedly", since none of these persons were legally convicted. I have attempted to keep the original content of the first sentence mentioned in this discussion currently in the article. I believe these sentences captures Grant's corruption charges and Grant's reform efforts while President. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Grant's Secretary of War William W. Belknap, Secretary of Navy George M. Robeson, and his Private Secretary Orville Babcock allegedly joined bribery, contract profiteering, and liquor tax evasion schemes. High officials in the Treasury who partook in liquor tax evasion and profiteering, appointed by Grant, were indicted and prosecuted by Grant under Secretary Benjamin Bristow, who raided and shut down the Whiskey Ring. After his Secretary William A. Richardson resigned over alleged involvement in the Sanborn contracts, Grant repealed the moiety system of private citizens collecting taxes. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change

From :

"His Secretary of War, his personal secretary, and high officials he named to the Treasury and Navy departments joined bribery or tax-cheating schemes. Instead of exposing the culprits, Grant defended them and attacked the accusers. At various times capable appointments were made by Grant; honest men who desired to save Grant and the nation from scandal. After a false start with weak selections, Grant named to his Cabinet leading reformers including Hamilton Fish, Benjamin Bristow, Alphonso Taft, and Amos T. Akerman. Fish, as Secretary of State, negotiated the Treaty of Washington and was successful at keeping the United States out of trouble with Britain and Spain. Bristow, as Secretary of Treasury, ended the corruption of the Whiskey Ring where distillers and corrupt officials made millions from tax evasion. Taft, a brilliant jurist as Attorney General, successfully negotiated for bipartisan panel to peacefully settle the controversial Election of 1876. Grant and Attorney General Akerman enforced civil rights legislation that protected African Americans and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan.

To:

"Grant's Secretary of War William W. Belknap, Secretary of Navy George M. Robeson, and his Private Secretary Orville Babcock allegedly joined bribery, contract monopoly, and tax evasion schemes. After a false start with weak selections, Grant named to his Cabinet leading reformers. Grant's Secretary of Treasury Benjamin Bristow ended the corruption of the Whiskey Ring where distillers and corrupt officials made millions from tax evasion. After his Secretary William A. Richardson resigned over alleged involvement in the Sanborn contracts, Grant repealed the moiety system of private citizens collecting taxes. Grant's Secretary of State Hamilton Fish negotiated the Treaty of Washington and was successful at keeping the United States out of trouble with Britain and Spain. Grant's Attorney General Alphonso Taft, a brilliant jurist, successfully negotiated for a bipartisan panel to peacefully settle the controversial Election of 1876. Grant's Attorney General Amos T. Akerman enforced civil rights legislation that protected African Americans and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan. President Grant, however, often defended his Cabinet members and high officials charged with corruption he believed to be innocent and attacked their accusers." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would keep the original. The fact that some cabinet members were good guys does not neutralize the negative leadership role of Grant in naming & protecting scoundels. Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to neutralize Grant's role, "negative leadership", in naming these "scoundrels" to his cabinet, but I don't believe that there is fairness in dragging down the good guys with them. I believe those persons could be considered "scoundrels" in the sense they betrayed the trust of President Grant and the nation. Why do historians forget that Grant prosecuted and shut down the Whiskey Ring under Secretary Benjamin Bristow, and only consentrate on Orville Babcock? There were actually four Grant appointees, five if Grant is included, who attacked the Whiskey Ring, Secretary Bristow, Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont, Postmaster Marshall Jewell, and Assistant to the Secretary of Treasury, Blueford Wilson. I would call that responsible leadership by Grant. I admit that Grant caved in when he appointed Columbus Delano, but he did make a huge comeback with Zachariah Chandler, who made massive reforms in the Department of Interior. I would call that responsible leadership. Pierrepont also made reforms in the Southern U.S. Marshall offices. Grant's Secretary George Boutwell made signifigant reforms in the Department of Treasury. Post Master Marshall Jewell also made reforms in the U.S. Postal system. Why not take a whole view of Grant's administration that includes corruption and reform? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiki editors should not make any such evaluations. Our job is to report what the scholars/RS have to say. Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What I have proposed makes the article neutral and neutrality is Wikipedia policy: Neutral Point of View. Historians H. Wayne Morgan, Ari Hoogenboom found that Grant's reputation for "unbridled corruption" has been exaggerated. Frank Scatturo's (1999) President Grant Reconsidered states that the corruption charges during the Grant adminstration are overblown. I am attempting to make the article neutral by seperating the "chaff" from the "wheat". I do not believe the lede reflects the article. I am not for downplaying the corruption that went on during Grant's administration. Secretary Bristow was not the first Cabinet member to stop corruption in the Whiskey Ring. Grant and Secretary Boutwell teamed up and thwarted the Gold Ring. I believe to be neutral both Grant Administration reforms and corruption need to be mentioned. Specifically identifying the "scoundrels" makes the article neutral. What needs to be understood in the lede is that both forces of corruption and reform worked in the Grant Administration. I was hoping for some sort of compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Social phychologist George R. Goethal stated the following: "I believe that a fair overall appraisal shows that official behavior during the Grant administration was no worse then in others, and for reasons that can only be understood in terms of political phychology, the negative aspects of that behavior have not only been exaggerated, but have inexplicably eclipsed most observers' consideration of any other aspect of Grant's administrations." Medhurst (2008), Before The Rhetorical Presidency, page 236. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

"Some historical analysts maintain that corruption in the Grant Administration has been over exaggerated and have noted that other presidential administrations have had similar corruption charges." Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

no--too vague. exactly who over-exaggerated it? Nevins? Commager? Woodward? Hofstadter? Hesseltine? Simpson? All presidents have been accused of corruption. The issue for historians is the truth of the matter. Rjensen (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I gave two sources and this is too vague? First I am told that I needed sources, so I found two. Now I am told I need to find the truth. That would be original research. The sources did not list specifics as to who specifically exaggerated, however, the historians you have mentioned such and Nevins and Woodward have gone after Grant and corruption. I believe that this is fundamentally unfair and a double standard among historians. Go after Grant, but leave every other President except Nixon and Harding alone. I was going by what the sources stated. I even used the book you recommended to me, Responses of the Presidents To Charges of Misconduct. I am not denying there were Grant scandals, I was the one who started Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals. Grant was unfairly charged with the Crédit Mobilier scandal. I recently made some modest edits that I believe give neutrality to the article's lede section. I can't change the mind of any elitist historians who are fixated on Virginia Presidents, but I believe Grant deserves a fair article just as every President of the United States deserves a fair article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit I made matches the information in the main Ulysses S. Grant article. If you want the truth according to research, the main scandal that had the most detrimental negative effect on Grant personally was Secretary William W. Belknap and the Fort Sill Trader post scandal. The most corrupt department was the Interior under Columbus Delano. The Cabinet member who profited the most from corruption was Secretary George M. Robeson. Belknap resigned and was replaced by reformer Alphonso Taft and then by a solid choice J. Donald Cameron. Grant replaced Secretary Delano with a reformer Zachariah Chandler who throrough cleaned up the Interior Department. My point is that reform did follow the corruption and I believe this information alluded to in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

the sources given are too vague-- they claim that X, Y and Z exaggerated while never naming X,Y and Z. Perhaps they are unable to name X,Y and Z. As for "fairness" that is in the professional judgment of the RS, not in the personal opinions of Wiki editors. As for "elitist historians who are fixated on Virginia Presidents" --I don't know we have any such people. Jefferson has been heavily bashed by the professional historians in the last 20 years. A better comparison would be two-term president like Jackson, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ and Nixon. Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I added more on corruption in the department of Interior. One of Grant's staunchest critics William S. McFeely stated that H. Wayne Morgan and Ari Hoogenboom believed Grant's reputation for "unbridled, unprecedented, and unsurpassed corruption" has been exaggerated. Hoogenboom suggests that there was so much talk on corruption because Grant wanted to do something about corruption. For example, profiting from not paying taxes on Whiskey had been going on since the Eighteenth Century. The corruption suddenly stopped when Grant appointed Benjamin Bristow. The Grant Administration stopped the Whiskey Ring, but all historians talk about is Orville Babcock. Although Grant defended Babcock, he had to go through a trial in St. Louis. Grant also prosecuted Babcock. Grant is credited for implementing Civil Service reform. Every history book I have read always dismisses Grant as having a corrupt administration. His low rankings as President were supposedly because Grant was corrupt. As for Jefferson, there are many protectionists and historians continue to rank Jefferson highly, while Grant has to walk a tight rope and is under severe scrutiny. The 2009 CSPAN poll ranked Jefferson at 7 while Grant was at 23. The sources do not contend x, y, z exaggerated, but rather claim Grant's reputation for corruption has been exaggerated. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to John Waugh's book: U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth that lists three text books and authors who degraded Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Waugh talks about the 1930s, using books that have been out of print for over 50 years. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight into this issue, Rjensen. These books, although from the 1930's and 1940's, only focus on Grant's corruption, rather then focus on that Grant and several of his Cabinet members implemented Civil Service reform. The exaggeration is that corruption was the only focus of the Grant administration, that Grant himself is implied to be corrupt, and that he was more of a MAFIA don then President. Waugh gives names of text books and various authors who were antagonistic to the Grant administration. The point being that Grant has been castigated for corruption since 1872's Charles Sumner's speech on Grantism. That term Grantism is symbolic of government corruption and is an exaggeration, since Grant implemented Civil Service reform as did many of his cabinet members. No President before Grant nor Cabinet members ever implemented Civil Service reform before the Grant administration. 74.38.11.78 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Statements against Grant

Hugh Brogan stated that the Grant Administration was "blatantly incompetent and dishonest." The Penguin History of the United States of America (1985), page 380. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Text book, the National Experience (1968), page 387, "as a public servant Grant was a fool and a failure...He appointed an undestinguished Cabinet, of which several members were knaves who duped him shamelessly...Truly pathetic in his inadequacies, he was also singularly obtuse about his choice of friends." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This book, Corruption and American Politics (2010), falsely states that Grant was involved with the Crédit Mobilier, "Perhaps the best known of the Grant Administration shortcomings is the Crédit Mobilier scandal." page 141. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't defend elderly British professor Brogan --the book was published in britain (but he does not refer to Grant himself). The National Experience was coauthored by C Vann Woodward, certainly a leading authority back in 1968 -- he's pretty rough on Grant but where is the "exaggeration"??? The "Corruption" book says Grant's Administration--it does not say Grant was guilty. note that Grant's VP Schuyler Colfax was guilty without doubt. How did Grant handle that Credit Mobilier scandal, which broke in 1872? He replaced Colfax with Henry Wilson who also took the bribes. Rjensen (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that the Crédit Mobilier was started by President Lincoln and the actural bribery took place in Congress under President Andrew Johnson, yet Grant unfairly gets all the blame. The Crédit Mobilier scandal was both a profiteering and bribery scandal. I believe President Lincoln signed the Crédit Mobilier into existance sometime around 1864. Neither President Johnson nor President Lincoln are linked with any responsibility for the Crédit Mobilier. Grant responded by getting rid of Colfax for having received stock in the Company. Wilson may have returned his company stock. James Garfield was also involved in the Crédit Mobilier scandal. Presdent Grant in fact prosecuted the Crédit Mobilier, although unsuccessfully, attempting to get money back to stock holders. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Woodward book, the National Experience, in my opinion was on the verge of libel going into personal attacks on Grant way beyond any meaningful political analysis. The sources stated there was an exaggertion of Grant administration corruption and I put that into the article to make the article lede neutral. I even added corruption in the Department of Interior. I am not denying there was corruption in the Grant administration nor that corruption was prevelant during the Gilded Age. I do not believe the additional edit on "exaggeration of corruption" deminishes the role of corruption during the Grant adminstration. A neutral assessment of Grant, in my opinion, is that there was both corruption and reform during the Grant administration. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Historians judgments on President Grant

This is what Frank Scaturro stated concerning President Grant:

"Although Ulysses S. Grant's contemporaries placed him in the highest echelon of great Americans along with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, the twentieth century has seen him fade into relative obscurity. His presidency has been almost universally condemned, and he is consistently ranked second to rock bottom Warren G. Harding in polls of historians to rate the presidents."

"Much of what has been passed down as an objective appraisal of Grant's presidency more closely resembles the partisan critiques that were produced by a relatively small group of performers during the 1870's-- in many ways the intellectual ancestors of the present historical profession. Although such a minority can sometimes be a source of enlightenment, in this case, it has contributed a monolithic picture of a complex era that is about as depressing as it is inaccurate. Little consideration is given the checkered nature of Grant's eight years of the Gilded Age. Michael Les Benedict observes that Grant "dominated his era, a stronger resident than most have recognized". "

"In both the domestic and foreign realms, President Grant could claim a wide range of achievements."

The source: Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiki's role is to represent the ideas of "the present historical profession". Obviously Frank Scaturro (an obscure amateur historian) does not like the pros. The main journals all ignored his little book--which he wrote after graduating college with a history major (he never attended graduate school but did later go to law school). Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Scaturro is a valid source, but I understand having reservations concerning his professional education. With that said, the Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family was written by Annette Gordon-Reed, an attorney. I believe Joan Waugh, H. Wayne Morgan, and Ari Hoogenboom are strong academic sources. Social phychologist George R. Goethal gives a valid phychological perspective on the Grant Adminstration that I believe is appropriate. Woodwards book, The National Experience may be professional, but to castigate Grant as a "fool and a failure", "truely pathetic", and "singularly obtuse" is inappropriate language for a supposedly academic history textbook, in my opinion. I suppose the real concern is the term "exaggerated corruption" sentence in the lede section. Since Morgan, Hoogenboom, and Goethal are valid sources then I believe the sentence needs to remain in the article. The "exaggerated corruption" sentence is in the main Ulysses S. Grant article. Can the "exaggerated corruption" sentence remain in the lede section? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I got the term "exaggerated corruption" from William S. McFeely in Woodwards book, Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Scaturro is not a valid source-- he wrote it fresh out of college and not a single journal deemed it worthy of review. Better include National Experience -- its authors were the top of the field in 1968; to exclude a major opinion based on an editor's own pov is not allowed.. Who's Goethal??? Joan Waugh (Joan, not John) is ok but she emphasizes military roles. She says that some--but not all--the damage to his prestige as president is deserved because of his cronyism, policy failures & abandonment of principles. p4) Unfortunately she says little about the historians of the last 50 years. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What about H. Wayne Morgan and Ari Hoogenboom? If these were good enough for McFeely I am sure they are good enough for the article. Here is more on Goethals: Dr. George R. Goethals. He gives a thorough analysis of President Grant's Administration in the book Before The Rhetorical Presidency (2008) edited by Martin J. Medhurst. Another book that is Grant friendly is Cengage Advantage Books: Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People (2012) whose authors include: John M. Murrin, Paul E. Johnson, James M. McPherson, Alice Fahs, Gary Gerstle, Emily S. Rosenburg, and Norman L. Rosenburg. Here is a quote: "Some of the apparent increase in corruption during the Gilded Age was more a matter of perception. Reformers focused a harsh light in the dark corners of corruption, hitherto unilluminated because of the nation's preoccupation with war and reconstruction. Thus reformers' publicity may have exaggerated the actual extent of corruption. In reality, during the Grant administration, several government agencies made real progress in eliminating abuses that had flourished in previous administrations." page 593. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Goethals sources include Josiah Bunting, Frank Scraturro, Jean Edwards Smith, reviews by James McPherson and Brooks Simpson. Goethals described Grant's presidency as controversial rather then an enigma, and stated that interest in Grant has increased, taking on a more postitive approach. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, H. Wayne Morgan and Ari Hoogenboom are excellent sources; they both spent many years reading the sources and debating with other scholars. Amateur historians like Bunting (an English major & novelist) and Scaturro (an undergrad history major) are not. Goethals is not a historian and but he does conclude that Grant was a failure both in his Indian policy and his efforts to protect the rights of blacks.(Medhurst p 234). As for scandals he says Grant was "no worse" than other presidents (p 238); I suppose he means Nixon and Harding but he has no citations and no research to back his one-line comment. Rjensen (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What about Cengage Advantage Books: Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People (2012)? Is that a reliable source? McFeely-Woodwards' own words state: "Historians H. Wayne Morgan, Ari Hoogenboom, and others reevaluating the Grant Administration find its reputation for unbridled, unprecedented, and unsurpassed corruption exaggerated." page 134, Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct. Goethals does contend that "negative aspects" of official behavior during the Grant Administration have been exaggerated, page 236, "I believe that a fair overall appraisal shows that official behavior during the Grant administration was no worse then in others, and for reasons that can only be understood in terms of political phychology, the negative aspects of that behavior have not only been exaggerated, but have inexplicably eclipsed most observers' consideration of any other aspect of Grant's administrations." Medhurst (2008), Before The Rhetorical Presidency. Can we use the term "exaggerated corruption" in the article? 06:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

the "exaggerations" talked about happened more that 40 years ago (Morgan's Gilded Age = 1970), and are no longer relevant. Goethals did not do much research --he never cited at the published Grant papers--& he relies mostly on the little Scaturro book, which is based on undergraduate level work. Hoogenbloom is a very good historian and he speaks of "President Ulysses S. Grant's scandal-ridden administration"Ari Arthur Hoogenboom (1988). The presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes. UP of Kansas. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As for Liberty – Equality – Power, consider its harsh judgment of the Grant administration: "A great military commander, Grant is usually branded a failure as president. That indictment is partially correct. Grant's inexperience and errors of judgment betrayed him into several unwise appointments of officials were later found guilty of corruption and his two administrations were plagued by scandals: his private secretary became involved in the infamous Whiskey Ring, a network of collusion among distillers and revenue agents that the private government of millions of tax dollars; the Secretary of War was impeached for selling appointments to army posts and Indian reservations; and his attorney general and secretary of the interior resigned under suspicion of malfeasance in 1875. Honest himself, Grant was too trusting of subordinates. He appointed many former members of his military family, as well several of his wife's relatives to offices for which they were scarcely qualified. But not all of the scandals were Grants fault." (Quote from 1996 edition pages 568-9 = 2007 edition p 641-2;John M. Murrin; et al. (2007). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Since 1863. Cengage Learning. pp. 641–2. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help) that chapter was written by James McPherson, another one of the Pulitzer Prize winning harsh critics of Grant) Rjensen (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that is standard Grant reputation bashing since the description fails to mention Grant prosecuted and shut down the Whiskey Ring and ended the moiety system. The book, Liberty – Equality – Power did state that "In reality, during the Grant administration, several government agencies made real progress in eliminating abuses that had flourished in previous administrations," (page 593) and "When Grant took office he seemed to share the sentiments of civil service reformers; several of his cabinet officers inaugurated examinations for certain appointments and promotions in their departments. Grant also named a civil service commission headed by George William Curtis, a leading reformer and editor of Harper's Weekly." (page 593-594) These assessments are in agreement with H. Wayne Morgan and Ari Hoogenboom that Grant implemented civil service reform. With this mentioned, can the term "exaggerated corruption" remain in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

More useful is summarizing the bottom-line conclusions the historians make. Here is H Wayne Morgan: "The secret of his early success at as president was not hard to define. He represented order, nonpartisanship, stability, and the dream of every man for fame. People sick of war and weary of reconstruction turned gladly to one whose philosophy seem to rest in a compelling sentence: "Let us have peace." The ideal faded quickly. The military hero had no place in everyday political life, and Grant betrayed a weakness for sycophants and bad advisors in this unfamiliar realm. Great scandals cast a dark pall over the man and his party: the Whiskey Ring, Indian frauds, salary grab, and the Credit Mobilier all thwarted the good he might have done. Grant had a weakness that hurt his Administration more than personal corruption – inability to disavow dishonest or incompetent men.... A personality insecure and thwarted for so many years could not abandon those who held him up to fame." H. Wayne Morgan, From Hayes to McKinley: National Party Politics 1877-1896 (1969) page 58. excerpt Rjensen (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No President in the History of the United States has been so unfairly castigated with personal attacks as Grant. Yes there were the scandals, but historians in conspiracy have failed to report that there was reform. Telling only half the truth is a lie, and anti Grant historians are good at lying, particularly starting with Charles Sumner. The Salary Grab was repealed. A terrible law, but Congress is not regulated on how they pay themselves. What about Congresses excesses today with their Washington D.C. underground sport clubs, their huge retirement packages, and all their traveling expenses and health care paid by tax payers. Why isn't that a scandal? Was the Whiskey Ring even a scandal, when Secretary Benjamin Bristow shut the whole process down within a years time, a tax scheme that had been going on since the 18th Century. Grant ordered Bristow to shut down the Ring. That is not a scandal. That is reform. Yes. He protect his buddy Babcock from going to prison. So did Sherman, who testified in Babcock's defense. How is this surprising knowing that all three were West Point graduates. Grant had to contend with one of the most racist groups of people prior to the Nazi’s, the KKK and White Supremacists groups. Grant was an excellent politician being elected two terms to office and his second election was a landslide. Rjensen, have you or I been elected President two times to the office of President? Not me. The nation needed Grant as President and any other would have let the Indians and Blacks be exterminated from the continent. Let us have peace was a highly successful policy both foreign and domestic. Grant represented equality for all, but he is only castigated for the scandals. I know I am on a soap box, but I am sick and tired of prideful, elitist historians, (Rjensen excluded) who may have never fought in any war, let alone defeated Robert E. Lee and the Ku Klux Klan. Not one, not one nation challenged Grant while he was President, because they knew the General was a fighter, and a good one. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As a professional historian I have often been a dissenter myself, and I respect Cmguy777 for his strongly held opinions. However the job of editors at Wikipedia is not to express personal opinions, but to report the consensus, and significant minority viewpoints, of the reliable sources. In this case the reliable sources are the professional historians who have spent years and decades studying and debating the primary sources. A number of those under discussion here have won Pulitzer prizes for their studies of this era, --such as Woodward, Nevins, McPherson, and McFeely. I think their opinions deserve much more respect than amateurs with little more than an undergraduate experience in history – and often not that much. As for Grant's military record, that has been well-established on highly favorable terms for the last half-century and longer. You have to go back to the 1920s and 1930s, when the nation was in an antiwar mood, to find serious exaggerations of Grant's record. Rjensen (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Nobody has a monopoly on history or historical research, in my opinion. I respect historians up to a point, knowing that they have biases and possibly an agenda when writing an autobiography on Grant. Let's take McFeely, a great writer, but he stated that Grant did nothing to stop hazing at West Point, a half truth. Gen. Ruger in 1871 was appointed superintendent and cut down dramatically on hazing that allowed Blacks to graduate from West Point in 1877. As Commander in Chief, I believe Grant approved of Ruger to run West Point. Was McFeely being purposely misleading in his account on Grant and West Point by not stating the hazing was cut down by 1873 while Grant was President? I believe he was. He wanted Grant to publically put a stop to hazing rather then someone else. I believe there were 20 historical mistakes made by McFeely in his biography on Grant. Richard Current heavily went after McFeely's biography on Grant. And we know why McFeely was hard on Grant, because Bruce Catton were making Grant look like a hero in the 1960's at the Centennial of the Civil War and McFeely would have none of that. McFeely viewed the Civil War from the southern perspective of state rights, rather then slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

McFeeley was indeed harsh on Grant especially on his high-casualty military tactics. However McFeeley was a neoabolitionist historian who strongly supported civil rights for blacks in the 1960s and 1860s, and denounced Grant for being too lenient on the South. McFeely had zero tolerance for the southern perspective on state rights. Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Did McFeely purposely make Grant look too lenient on the South with his crafty narration, when in fact Grant was the only person in the country, who gave a "damn" about the black race. Simpson believes Grant did all he could to have helped the blacks in the South. For someone who was suppose to be a neoabolitionist in his book on Grant, he does an extremely light touch on President Andrew Johnson and I believe he misleads the reader to believe Grant was not in favor of the Ku Klux Klan bill, when in fact Grant sent a message to Congress to support the bill, as Smith points out in his biography on Grant. In fact Grant was supporting Sheridan in 1875 to stop the white leagues in the South, but his Cabinet and the country castigated Sheridan. And was McFeely misleading that Grant did nothing to stop hazing at West Point? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I will stand corrected. The Koreans did stand up to Grant, however, at a high casualty ratio (200 Koreans : 3 Americans) in the Korean incident. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Santo Domingo fiasco

There are a few issues that make Santo Domingo complicated. The first is that I am not sure that this belongs to foriegn policy, rather Reconstruction, since Grant wanted to create a safe haven, a state to be represented in Congress, that would alleviate the the plight of African Americans. I do not believe Lincoln went through the state department when he was attempting to colonize African Americans. Grant went a step further and wanted to create a state where African Americans would have representation in Congress with the ability to oppose the Solid South. Rather then state Santo Domingo was a fiasco I would state that the Santo Domingo failed to pass the Senate. The other issue is accuracy. Fish created the Santo Domingo treaty that was submitted to Congress. Fish was not entirely out of the loop. The mistakes of secrecy, Babcock's unauthorized treaty, and Grant not fully utilizing Fish's talent were in part the cause of the defeat of the treaty in the Senate. However, Charles Sumner deserves credit for defeating the treaty. Rather then use the term fiasco I would state that the treaty was strongly defeated by Senator Charles Sumner. Grant successfully sent an investigation committee authorized by Congress, including Frederick Douglas, the fully approved of the annexation of Santo Domingo. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

that's what foreign policy looks like and historians have decided Grant totally failed in his objectives. Grant agreed: "Grant, in his later years, considered the failure to acquire Santo Domingo the greatest disappointment of his presidency." (says Jeffrey Coker, 2002); "Grant's Santo Domingo fiasco" (Kenneth Bourne 1967)."The failure of this endeavor echoed other setbacks of Grant's administration and ended Douglass's tenure as a Grant appointee....he was not invited to a White House dinner honoring the Santo Domingo Commission" (Finkelman, Encyclopedia of African American History (2006); "Santo Domingo fiasco"(Korda); "A foreign policy fiasco added to Grant's woes" (Liberty, Equality, Power (2010); " the diplomatic achievements of the Grant administration were shadowed by the Santo Domingo fiasco" (Graff, Presidents); etc etc Rjensen (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Sumner defeated the treaty along with Carl Schurz. Sumner did not want anything of Grant's to pass since he apparently opposed the money interest of the Republican Party and Schurz was against having a state with mixed race people. The Santo Domingo Commission was a success, however, I am not sure why Douglass was not invited to the White House dinner. Did the entire commission except Douglas attend the White House dinner? Douglass remained a Grant loyalist. So does this mean that Woodrow Wilson's treaty failure of the League of Nations was a fiasco also? Harding officially ended WWI. So with Grant, a treaty failure is a fiasco. McFeely stated that the annexation attempt was understandable do to the harsh conditions of blacks in the South. I don't recall Grant's biographers neither Smith, McFeely, nor Brands stating that Santo Domingo was a fiasco. In my opinion, not inviting Douglass to the White House dinner, if Finkleman is correct, is more of an embarrassement then Santo Domingo. Finkleman also stated the James Hemings killed himself because Jefferson did not set his family free. Is Finkleman a reliable source? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. This is Brands (2012) The Man Who Saved the Union account. Douglass was not shunned by Grant but "took comfort" that Douglass supported the Santo Domingo annexation. Douglass briefed Grant on the Santo Domingo annexation. Here is what Douglass stated concerning Sumner, "If Mr. Sumner after that shall persevere in his present policy, I shall consider his opposition fractious, and regard him as the worst foe the colored race has on this continent." page 462.

I found more on the Douglas not being invited to the White House from McFeely who stated that Douglas would have liked to have been invited to the White House, but that he was outwardly not offended at not being invited to the White House. Douglas stated, "There is something so ridiculous about this whole dinner affair". McFeely (1991) Frederick Douglas, page 277 I admit that Grant caved in on not inviting Douglass to the White House. However this does not negate that Douglas was in favor of annexing Santo Domingo, nor negate that Grant appointed a black man as Commissioner. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Douglass

I believe the Santo Domingo commission needs to be mentioned in the Annexation of the Dominican Republic section. The article needs to state that Grant did not invite Frederick Douglass, whom Grant appointed commissioner, to the White House dinner in celebration of the return of the commission. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of exposing the culprits, Grant defended them...

Is this sentence completely accurate?

"Instead of exposing the culprits, Grant defended them and attacked the accusers..."

Grant did defend Babcock during the Whiskey Ring. That is for certain. Grant did not defend McDonald nor anyone else in the Whiskey Ring, as far as I know. The culprits in the Whiskey Ring were very much exposed, even Babcock, through Secretary Bristow's investigations authorized by President Grant. There is also the Department of Interior. The culprits were exposed and fired under Secretary Chandler's investigation, again authorized by President Grant. The case of the Navy is different. Secretary Robeson "got away" with his alleged "profiteering" or "bribery" and Grant did not put in any reformer in that Department. Robeson apparently was not charged with any illegal activity. Is there anyway this sentence could be rewritten to accurately reflect reform versus corruption during the Grant Administration? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Grant did not defend William W. Belknap when he was impeached in the House and tried in the Senate. Grant also investigated Secretary Belknap by Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How about this sentence?

"Grant often defended the culprits he believed were innocent and attacked their accusers."

that assumes Grant thought they were innocent. As I read Grant he defended his friends and regarded the accusers as Grant's enemies. Innocence was not his consern. Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I agree that Grant defended "the culprits" and attacked their accusers. My point was that Grant exposed and prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. Backcock was indicted in the Whiskey Ring and put on trial. That is why I was excluding the "exposed" issue. What about this?

"Grant often defended the culprits, rather then good government service, and attacked their accusers."

Yes. Grant defended the "culprits" and attacked his accusers, yet, Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont, Secretary Benjamin Bristow, Secretary Hamilton Fish, Attorney General Ebenezer R. Hoar, Secretary Jacob D. Cox, Secretary Zachariah Chandler, Secretary Alphonso Taft, Post Master Marshall Jewell, and Secretary George Boutwell all were reformers. I believe Secretery Fish, Secretary Cox, and Attorney General Hoar, all implemented civil service reform in their departments, a first for any President. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

good idea = Grant often defended the culprits, rather then good government service, and attacked their accusers.. the American standard is 100% honesty among senior government officials, and the president is expected to be an aggressive opponent of corruption in all forms. Any indication that the president tolerates a corrupt official or looks the other way will besmirch the president's own reputation and lead to a downgrading of his administrative achievements. As the bank president might say, having most of the tellers honest is not good enough – it has to be 100%. People who do not live up to the standard are expected to resign-- as the recent CIA director David Petraeus did-- or be fired by the president. Rjensen (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

RJensen, you have high standards of government officials. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison protected James Wilkinson, one of the most corrupt military officers and government officials in American history. Should Jefferson and Madison have resigned office? Even Abraham Lincoln had to contend with corruption in the Army and Navy during the American Civil War. Look at Abraham Lincoln's predecessor James Buchanan who had one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. President Grant appointed many reformers Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont, Secretary Benjamin Bristow, Secretary Hamilton Fish, Attorney General Ebenezer R. Hoar, Secretary Jacob D. Cox, Secretary Zachariah Chandler, Secretary Alphonso Taft, Postmaster Marshall Jewell, and Secretary George Boutwell. The Presidency is more then a bank! You have to get elected to be in Congress and/or be President. You also have to make deals to get legislation passed. Grant's cabinet was the first cabinet in American History to establish civil service reform in their departments. I admit Grant could have done a better job at setting the tone in his administration and Washington D.C. My view is that Grant expected people to honest. I never lived in the 19th Century, but that was an age of Romance. Grant lived in different times then we do today. As for Petreaus he got off pretty easy, no pun intended. All he had to do was retire. He was not stripped of his military pention nor indicted for giving away information to the woman he had an affair with. He got a light touch interview with members of Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

actually we seem to be in full agreement on standards. Wilkinson was a very bad case but TJ and Madison did not know he was in the pay of the Spanish. No one knew until 1854 long after they were all dead.Rjensen (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, TJ and Madison did not want to know Wilkinson was "a very bad case", and denied any culpability, for political expediency. Wilkinson was investigated by Congress. Grant, in my opinion, denied Orville Babcock any culpability unless the evidence was overwhelming. Here is where the politics comes in. Babcock, Sherman, and Grant were West Point graduates. They were linked together through loyalty of West Point and the Civil War. In addition, Grant may have been saving his own Presidency because if Babcock went down, Grant may have been impeached by the House. Smith stated evidence against Babcock was circumstancial. I personally don't agree that Grant committed purgery as McFeely contended, although, his testimony protected Babcock and got his aquittal. The "rather then good government service" came from Smith. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally believe Grant needs to be presented in terms of both corruption and reform. This, in my opinion is neutral and gives balance to the article. I believe historians have unfairly only presented the corruption and forgot everything else under the Grant Presidency, including that Grant was determined to keep the Union victory, rather then surrender to Southerners who were attempting to overturn Reconconstruction. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

President Grant was a loner who never developed a cadre of trustworthy...

Is this sentence accurate?

"President Grant was a loner who never developed a cadre of trustworthy political advisers; he relied heavily on former Army associates who had a thin understanding of politics and a weak sense of civilian ethics."

Yes. President Grant was a loner. I believe that is obvious through his distance he had with his cabinet members. Grant did rely on Secretary George Boutwell, Attorney General Ebenezer R. Hoar, and Secretary Hamilton Fish. Grant even stated that the person he trusted most for political advice was Secretary Hamilton Fish. Grant went out of his way to keep Secretary Fish on the Cabinet. Secretary Belknap was the only military general who was on active duty fighting during the Civil War, who was on Grant's Cabinet. Grant did not rely on Secretary William W. Belknap and did not allow Secretary Belknap the freedom run the War Department as he gave to other Cabinet members to run their Departments. Grant did rely on his personal secretary Orville E. Babcock, however, he was not an official Cabinet member. Babcock had a good understanding of politics, since he apparently indirectly controlled Cabinet Departments, but he did lack civilian ethics. I believe this sentence needs to be modified. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Prosecution of Ku Klux Klan

Was the prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan by the Justice Department and the U.S. military progressive reform implemented by President Grant? Was the Ku Klux Klan a criminal organization? If so, would not that make Grant a reformer of the South on a massive scale? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yellowstone National Park

Here is a proposed edit. Please feel free to make any comments and/or improvements. Any objections?

"The American exploration into the Yellowstone River began during the summer of 1869 by the Folsom Party having heard rumors of natural wonders in the area. In 1870 the Washburn Expedition made extensive explorations and published records into the upper Yellowstone, recommending a route for the Northern Pacific Railroad. Then in 1871, Congress and President Grant authorized $40,000 the for the scientific Hayden Expedition. President Grant Secretary of State Columbus Delano wrote extensive instructions for the expedition that included 30 scientists. Hayden published his report to Congress recommending that the land be preserved. On March 1, 1872 President Grant signed into law Yellowstone National Park. This was the first National Park in United States history setting aside 2,000,000 acres for recreational use. The Park however was not funded and no money was appropriated to keep settlers out of the area."

Sources include:

• Lee H. Whittlesey, Elizabeth A. Watry (2008) Yellowstone National Park
• Discovering Yellowstone National Park in winter
• A Brief History of Science in Yellowstone

I was asked to comment on this proposed edit. Please clarify the context. I assume you mean to add this paragraph to the Grant article? If so, in its own new section or an existing section? I will have some factual and copyedit suggestions once the context is known. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Yes. Yellowstone Park. I meant to put this in the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article under his first term. This would be a seperate segment titled Yellowstone National Park. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten and sourced the paragraph as follows:

Organized exploration of the upper Yellowstone River began in the fall of 1869 when the Cook–Folsom–Peterson Expedition made a month long journey up the Yellowstone River and into the geyser basins. In 1870, the somewhat more official Washburn–Langford–Doane Expedition explored the same regions of the upper Yellowstone and geyser basins, naming Old Faithful and many other park features. Official reports from Lieutenant Gustavus Cheyney Doane and Scribner's Monthly accounts by Nathaniel P. Langford brought increased public awareness to the natural wonders of the region. Influenced by Jay Cooke of the Northern Pacific Railroad and Langford's public speeches about the Yellowstone on the East Coast, geologist Ferdinand Hayden sought funding from Congress for an expedition under the auspices of the U.S. Geological Survey. In March 1871 Congress appropriated $40,000 to finance the Hayden Geological Survey of 1871. The expedition party was comprised of 36 civilian members, mostly scientists, and two military escorts. Among the survey party were artist Thomas Moran and photographer William Henry Jackson. Hayden's published reports, magazine articles, along with paintings by Moran and photographs by Jackson convinced Congress to preserve the natural wonders of the upper Yellowstone. On December 18, 1871, a bill was introduced simultaneously in the Senate, by Senator S.C. Pomeroy of Kansas, and in the House of Representatives, by Congressman William H. Clagett of the Montana Territory, for the establishment of a park at the headwaters of the Yellowstone River. Hayden's influence on Congress is readily apparent when examining the detailed information contained in the report of the House Committee on Public Lands: "The bill now before Congress has for its objective the withdrawal from settlement, occupancy, or sale, under the laws of the United States a tract of land fifty-five by sixty-five miles, about the sources of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, and dedicates and sets apart as a great national park or pleasure-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." When the bill was presented to Congress, the bill's chief supporters, ably prepared by Langford, Hayden and Jay Cooke, convinced their colleagues that the region's real value was as a park area, to be preserved in its natural state. The bill was approved by a comfortable margin in the Senate on January 30, 1872, and by the House on February 27. On March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the "Act of Dedication" into law, establishing the Yellowstone region as the nation’s first national park, memorializing the results of three years of exploration by Cook-Folsom-Peterson (1869), Washburn-Langford-Doane (1870), and Hayden (1871).

Great edit Mike! Doesn't the President have to sign into law appropriations for Congress? That is why I put President Grant and Congress appropriated money for Hayden's Expedition. Maybe there is a Congressional Record of the $40,000 appropriation. Did Grant pick Hayden to lead the expedition? I am focusing on Grant since this is the Grant presidency article. Also Secreterary of Interior Delano, who was a Grant appointment, gave specific instructions to Hayden for the expedition. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

i suspect the $40K appropriation was just a line item in a Civil Sundry Appropriations bill. Indeed Grant would signed the bill, but the significance of that is routine. On the Delano instructions to Hayden, I'll have to do some research to see if there is relevance here. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

From what I have read Hayden was appropriated this money over a certain amount of time from 1867 to 1870. I could not find the text of the Civil Sundry Appropriations bill online. At this time stating that Congress appropriated the $40,000 is appropriate, rather then mentioning Grant. I believe mentioning Secretary Delano is primary importance since Delano gave specific instructions to Hayden who was under Delano's authority. This would show that there was Presidential directive to the Hayden Expedition. Here is the page for Secretary Delano's instruction in 1871: Yellowstone National Park: Its Exploration and Establishment. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yellowstone National Park: Its Exploration and Establishment Notes 221 Cmguy777 (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Although the fact that Delano signed a directive outlining steps for Hayden to take in executing the appropriation for the expedition is factual, I think you are drawing a conclusion not necessarily supported by sources. In fact, directives such as Delano issued are pretty perfunctory in that Congress passes a piece of legislation and cabinet departments then issue the necessary instructions to implement the legislation (Congress doesn’t do any implementing). The fact that Grant appointed Delano as Interior Secretary does not automatically connect Grant to the implementing instructions the Department of Interior issued. Presidents appoint all of the senior bureaucrats in cabinet level departments but they are not part of all the bureaucracy those departments put forth. The conclusion you are making is that Grant played a role in deciding what Hayden could or would do as the leader of the Geological expedition. I believe that conclusion to be unsupported by sources. In all my readings on the creation of Yellowstone, I don’t recall any historian giving Grant any role in the park’s creation other than his signing the Act of Dedication. If there had been such a role, I am confident that both Langford’s “The Discovery of Yellowstone” (1905) and Chittenden’s “Yellowstone National Park Historical and Descriptive” (1895) would have mentioned it. I don’t think Haines give Grant any credit in his “The Yellowstone Story” either. What would make the inclusion of the Delano instructions more compelling would be a source that specifically cited the conclusion that you make—ie. Grant directed Delano to issue specific instructions to Hayden (allegedly for some specific future purpose). Other than that, I have no objection to including a mention of the Delano directive in the paragraph, but care must be taken not to imply that Grant was behind those instructions without a source supporting that conclusion. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. The references I gave were from the National Park Service and credits the Secretary of Interior's instructions and in the notes states that the letter was in fact from Secretary Delano. I believe the NPS is a valid source on their own park system. With the exception of the military, Grant wanted his Cabinet to take care of their own departments. Secretary Delano, Grant's appointment, was Hayden's superior, and therefore was under President Grant's authority. No one is taking credit away from Hayden. Why take away credit from Secretary Delano? This article is on President Grant's Adminstration. I believe if Secretary Delano, a Grant appointment, wrote Hayden his instructions, confirmed by NPS, then that needs to be placed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, according to Delano's instructions, Hayden had been appointed U.S. Geologist. Only the President has the power to make appointments. I believe Hayden was appointed by President Grant and confirmed by Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am confident here that there is some confusion as to what the issue is. From my perspective the question is: Did President Grant play a direct role (either through statements, writings or actions) in the creation of Yellowstone National Park that resulted in-part from three expeditions in 1869, 1870 and 1871 other than signing the "Act of Dedication"? Indeed the source cited by the NPS website shows that Secretary of the Interior Delano issued a letter of instruction to Hayden in advance of the 1871 survey. At the time Hayden was already the U.S. Geologist in charge of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories established March 2, 1867 under the Johnson administration and the 1871 survey was not his first survey. As far as giving Delano credit, I question credit for what? Writing a prefunctory letter of instruction to implement a piece of legislation. There's nothing in that instruction about gathering evidence to promote the idea of a national park on the upper Yellowstone. Indeed Hayden, Langford, Jay Cooke, Moran and Jackson are the ones that promoted the park idea, not Delano or Grant. Again that said, there's nothing wrong with mentioning the Delano instruction, but I do think that attributing that instruction to the idea that Delano and Grant were explicitly involved (before the fact) in the creation of Yellowstone National Park isn't supported by sources.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Things may be starting to make sense. Hayden may have been appointed by President Andrew Johnson. Possibly Ulysses S. Grant appointed Hayden to run the expedition. Since there apparently is no written evidence who appointed Hayden, then mentioning Grant would not be neccessary in terms of Hayden's appointment. The first two expeditions were not federally funded. Mentioning Delano would in my opinion give the reader understanding that Hayden's expedition was federally sponsored. I am not stating the Secretary Delano had direct communications with Hayden's expedition, if that were possible by telegraph service. A brief mention of Delano's instruction would let the reader know that he was Hayden's supervisor of superior, next to President Grant. President Grant could have vetoed the legislation, but he did not. He signed Yellowstone into existance. That is a good thing, in my opinion. In your edit above, I would add that Hayden was under Secretary Delano's instructions and/or authority. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed sentence:

"Hayden was given instructions by Grant's Secretary of Interior, Columbus Delano." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable and consistent with sources. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. What may really help would be the transcript of the original Sundry Civil Act. Secretary Delano stated Hayden was appointed U.S. Geologist July 1, 1871. That would mean that President Grant appointed Hayden U.S. Geologist. Please feel free to add your edit and my sentence into the article. I appreciate your interest in this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Great edit and addition to the aritcle Mike! Thanks.

I think that article segment is good at pointing out that the Northern Pacific Railroad had interest in getting the bill passed. There did seem to be financial motivation for the establishment of the Yellowstone. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Notes

--Mike Cline (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Favored military associates

Did Grant favor military associates? There were thousands of Civil War veterans who needed employment after the war. Grant was bound to appoint some of them for their service. Why are military people in general considered to be corrupt in this article? Benjamin Bristow served in the military and he was one of Grant's strongest appointments. Jacob D. Cox served in the military and he was an exceptional Secretary of Interior. I believe Chester A. Arthur served in the military and he turned out to be a staunch Civil Service Reformer after he became President. Grant himself according to Brands had a high moral character. Is this article singling out military personal as being inherently corrupt? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Trusting of associates

Yes. Grant was trusting of associates to a fault. Yet he could fire people without any explanation as he did to Hoar, Cox, and Jewell. Grant did not trust all people. He really did not trust Sumner especially after Sumner stated he was an Administration man and then voted against the Santo Domingo treaty. I think for the article to be neutral there needs to be some perspective behind the statement he was trusting. At times Grant was jealous and he doubted peoples loyalty. Grant expected those around him to be loyal as well. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Grant the loner?

How can Grant be a loner when he was married and had children? He apparently was active in raising his children and was in love with his wife Julia. That does not sound like a loner to me. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Article size

I believe this article is approaching the limit in size for the scope of this article at currently 193,706 bytes. Efforts are needed in order to decrease the size of this article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed the article size and improved narration. Next, reducing the size of the lede would help. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede section rewrite

I believe the lede section needs to be trimmed or rewritten. Possibly using the material in the Grant main biography article would be good. Simon (2002), page 253, states that Grant's first term was better then his second. I believe this should be emphasized in the lede. Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Article size reduction

Since this article size is 191,512 bytes I suggest that the reformers section be moved to the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration reforms article. This would reduce article size. Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead too long

The lead of this article is far too long. Any ideas on how to rearrange things? Abductive (reasoning) 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. people who want a shorter story can find it in two other articles -- Ulysses S. Grant and History of the United States (1865–1918). This article is for people who want a very detailed history that is fully sourced & includes the historiographical debates. They want depth not brevity. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not proposing cutting much, just rearranging some material out of the lead. For pointers, see WP:Manual of Style/Lead section. It says "no more than four well-composed paragraphs". Abductive (reasoning) 01:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of researcher's name inline

I feel that it is generally unwise to put researchers' names inline in Wikipedia articles. Theoretically, every sentence on Wikipedia must be sourced. But if that is true, then does it follow that every sentence must be preceded by "According to John Expert..."? No, that would be unwieldy. Rather, mention of the expert's name is only useful to the reader if it somehow impacts their understanding to know it. So, for example, in the Ulysses S. Grant article, Historical reputation section there are a number of names mentioned inline. Some, such as John Y. Simon, can be mentioned since he is known for editing the papers of Grant, or William S. McFeely who won a Pulitzer for his writings on Grant, and so their opinions could be considered informed. But is it a good idea to say, "In 1931, Frederic Paxson and Christian Bach in the Dictionary of American Biography..."? Why should the readers care about the names of these guys? Similarly, in this article there is, "according to scholar David Sim...". Now, it seems to me that a person who is cited only 5 times on the issue doesn't really deserve this much "play" on Wikipedia, per WP:UNDUE. I'm not saying he can't be used as a source, just that his opinion had better represent the consensus view. If his opinion isn't at all the consensus, it shouldn't be in the article at all (since Wikipedia only reports the consensus and significant minority opnions, not every single little academic dispute), and if it is the consensus, then he is one of many scholars who holds the same opinion, and so it is unfair (WP:UNDUE) to name him inline as the expert. Abductive (reasoning) 23:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Serious students of history really do care about who said what--that is hammered home in advanced history classes. Amateurs don't much care and they can ignore names. Scholarly books are selected and edited to reflect the consensus view and NOT the personal opinion of one person--the book and reviews clearly state it if they are challenging the consensus, which is not the case here. Abductive has zero evidence that this is not a consensus view-- he makes assuptions without looking at the reviews. for example he is unaware that Frederic Paxson was a leading historian in his day )and Pulitzer prize winner) and the Dict of Am Biog" was for 50 years the leading source for scholarly biographies in American history. That indicates Abductive is unfamiliar with historiography and his comments about it carry little weight. Wikipedia rules make a big deal about the scholarly RS. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rule is clear and explicitly supports the usage that Abductive dislikes: wp:cite: "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact. " Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree Rjensen. Not every sentence of the article has to have an "According to..." clause. But mentioning the author name gives credibility to the article, reduces editor POV, and adds neutrality to the article. Sometimes the authors direct quote is best because it their exact words and interpretations by editors in good faith can loose the meaning and context of what was said by the author source. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Fred Douglas - Same Photo - Twice

It's unusual to have the same photograph repeated in an article. This is the case with the photo of Fred Douglas. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede

@Cmguy777, Coemgenus, Rjensen, Alanscottwalker, and Abductive: The lede in this article is unusually and very long and imo should have some of its very many details, covered in the text, removed. The present lede is almost an article unto itself. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the lede is too long and there are too many short one-paragraph sections. This article is quite poorly organized. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

OK I took the axe and chopped it down from 1200 words to 700 words. Footnotes are dropped (except for one quote) and lots of details left to main text. The references are now mostly to the Administration/Presidency rather than to Grant. What do editors think?? Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks much better. Works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. The reading of the lede narration is much smoother and context more understandable. Does this part need more clarification: "...when its work on behalf of civil rights for blacks became more prominent..." ? Who or what is the "its" ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

OK I changed the last line to "The reputation of the Presidency was very low among intellectuals and historians until the late 20th century, when its work on behalf of civil rights for blacks became better appreciated." Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good. My only reservation now is that the lede image has been changed to a drawing of Grant's second inauguration. This would be better placed in the Election of 1872 section. We should use perhaps this photo, taken in 1869, the year Grant assumed the presidency.
• Also, I generally agree with Coemgenus, the article is somewhat disorganized. What struck me right off is that in the Presidency 1869–1877 section there's no opening statement. The section just starts off with details, negative ones, about what historians think. In the Election of 1868 section, we have the same thing -- a section with no opening statement that just jumps right into details in the first sentence.
• The TOC is a mile long, with a huge amount of white space along side. Would recommend hiding the subsections. This can be remedied with {{TOC limit|2}}, which I went ahead and did, tentatively, to demonstrate the appearance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I like the opening artwork--it comes at half-way point and esp it shows this article is about what his team did. we have plenty of photos of Grant all alone. Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose. Is there a better image for this? The depiction of Grant hardly looks like him -- if it wasn't for the beard we would be wondering who this man is, imo, and the artwork is sort of second rate. If there are other images, or photos of this event, or of his first inauguration, showing him being sworn in we might want to use them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Outside opinion

At the Ulysses S. Grant main article two editors want to include mention of President Grant signing an act establishing national holidays and two editors oppose. Opinions for and against are numerous and can be found at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant. Outside opinions are needed and welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue is the same in that there needs to be a reliable source. I think the issue is important enough to be mentioned. Here Grant is creating Holidays and he also is giving women more rights by legislation, not just talk. Grant's presidency is understudied in my opinion. I don't want to rehash old arguements. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Making article better

Any suggestions on making this article better would be helpful. The article is fairly large. Any edits that make the article better is welcome too. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111123061817/http://www.artofthepossibleonline.com/2009/07/james-webster-smith-and-henry-o-flipper.html to http://www.artofthepossibleonline.com/2009/07/james-webster-smith-and-henry-o-flipper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109015509/http://www.icomos.org/studies/bridges.htm to http://www.icomos.org/studies/bridges.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719151209/http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/granthist4.html to http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/granthist4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael Barone

Barone is a notable pundit but he's also a leading leading writer on American politics and political history--for example his "Almanac" covers the political history of every state. His comments deal not with what Grant did but how some 21st century writers are dealing with Grant's memory. It puts in context the authors Wiki editors are using. I don't see anything controversial about his statements. Rjensen (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen Lets, for the sake of argument, pretend that Michael Barone (pundit) is not a pundit. First, his statement was made in 1998 – nearly twenty years ago – and did not refer to 21st century writers, but 20th century writers prior to his statement. Second, Grants standing among scholars has gone through a major resuscitation as shown in the "Scholar survey results" section of the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States article since 1998. Consequently, Barones' statement nolonger reflects current thinking. Thirdly, the "Biography" section was nearly dedicated to Barones' statement with authoritative works given an honorable mention (as if they were of lesser importance than the work by Scaturro, Frank (1998). President Grant Reconsidered) with no other context about those works.

The "Biography" section should have presented major works of biography of Grant from the end of the 19th century to present and demonstrated how his assessment has changed until the present time. There should also have been mention of the "Lost Cause" and "Tragic Era" literature and Andrew Johnson's reversal in historical ranking.

Barones' statement should have never made it to this article. Unless Barone has written a monograph, journal article, essay, or published conference paper within the past few years his remarks need to be removed. There is a sizeable body of historiography surrounding Grant examining his historical stature over time. Please refer to that body of literature to write this section. In fact, the entire "Historical evaluations" section needs to be rewritten. It is nothing more than a collection of assertions that do not present "Historical evaluations" by academia. Mitchumch (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

He identified & documented an event that happened in the 1990s regarding how non-academic historians took the lead in revisiting Grant. That's a major point that deserves attention. As for "pundit" that in this case simply means non-academic analyst. --his credentials as a serious political historian are solid. Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen You added that content on 24 April 2017. Why didn't you use more recent sources from actual authorities on the subject? There is a body of literature surrounding the topic of "Biography". Mitchumch (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"actual authority" is a red herring--I take it you have not read this piece or any of his work. Barone had very interesting points to make and he's a well-known expert on American politics. "everyone" for the lat 40 years has used his "Almanac of American Politics", and he has a major book on the history of presidential politics. Barone made the argument in 1998 that non-academics were leading the revisionism on Grant. He did the research and provided the evidence for this point, and I believe he was the first to make it. Has anyone challenged Barone on this point??--not to my knowledge. so what's the problem? Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen is correct. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106191307/http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1957/3/1957_3_52.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1957/3/1957_3_52.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119145138/http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/grant to http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/grant

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

valuable new review essay

DOI: 10.14296/RiH/2014/2270 I highly recommend it -- evaluates Chernow and Calhoun in depth. Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Article size reduce or transfer information

Since the article is currently 201,406 bytes certain sections should be reduced or transferred to other articles, unless duplicate information has already been added to existing articles. The evaluations of Grant's Indian policy could be its own article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

yes BUT the main points should stay here. It is essential to keep the evaluation section here. That is the #1 target for most readers. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I transferred two sections in tact to their repected articles that are linked in this article including section "Reforming cabinet members" removed to "Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration reforms" article and removed and transferred "Scandal cabinet and appointees" section and information to "Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals" article. I felt the article was ballooning and needed more room for potential editing. I have not touched any of the narration in the article, only removed and transferred sections to their repected articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Historical evaluations and Indian "Peace" policy sections have been kept in the article. I thought there was enough information on Grant's Indian "Peace" policy evalutations to have its own article, or possibly a Ulysses S. Grant's presidential Indian "Peace" policy article could be created. I think I have done enough article reduction for now. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

good moves. Rjensen (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is still at 107 kb. I think more reductions are in order. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have been editing the article to get under 100K. Right now the article is 105K. Trying to be selective and avoid removing context. Trying to get the article back into summary style, avoiding commentary. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Additions regarding the KKK

@Rjensen:: "Grandson in Army troops but..." -- should "Grandson" be "Grant sent"? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

oops--yes. Rjensen (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

New article

I created a new article Native American policy of the Ulysses S. Grant administration to reduce the information in this article. Information from this article has been moved to the new article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Rhodes

Rhodes is wrong about Grant and the nation not having confidence in him. Grant won the election of 1872 by a landslide. The Democrats believed Grant was aiming to run for a third term. Why would the Democrats be afraid of Grant running for a third term, had the public had "no confidence" in him ? The Republicans kept control of the presidency for eight years after Grant left office. Hayes, Garfield-Arthur. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhodes was trying to explain 1874--which all agree was a Dem landslide. "The next 8 years" involved a disputed election in 1876 and a 48.3% to 48.2% close one in 1880. Let's not argue with Rhodes, one of the leading experts on politics in that period. Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Calhoun (2017) page 463 seems to argue that the Democrats were afraid of Grant's popularity: "In large measure, the press's harping on the third term bogeyman revealed less about Grant's ambition than about his stature in the nation. His opponents' alarm illustrated his strength. Seemingly all he had to do was ask, and he could lead the country into imperial ruin." Grant's initial instincts to sign the greenback bill or to start federal work projects, clearly would have helped the economy. He failed to do so. He deserves criticism over that. Influenced by Fish and Bristow he did neither. I believe Grant campaigned for Hayes and Garfield. Yes. 1876 and 1880 were close. But all the same, the Republican Party controlled the presidency. Why Grant was so beholding to Northeastern Republicans, I have no idea. The GOP was divided over the currency issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Should this article rely soley on Rhodes 1920 source ? Is Rhodes neutral ? Did Rhodes favor Reconstruction ? Segregationist Wilson was in the White House. The Klan was on the rise while blacks were mired in Jim Crow. Also, this article is at 100 K. The elections of 1874, which Grant really had nothing to with, has alot of information. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

this article relies on dozens of RS. Rhodes is as neutral as anyone--BUT neutrality is NOT a criteria for RS. Rhodes makes the point that Grant took the blame for all the country's troubles in 1874 and I think that's a fair judgment.-- in 1920 Wilson was a helpless invalid and the KKK was a tiny group in part of Georgia so i don't see what they have to do with 1874 politics. Compare Richard White, The republic for which it stands, the US during Reconstruction in the Gilded Age, 1865-1896 (2017) p: 273--274 – The political ramifications of the Panic of 1873 the hardest on the Republican Party. The second Grant administration became synonymous with both scandal and economic failure.... The panic of 1873 brought the Republicans to their knees, but given party loyalties, they might have survived all of this except for their reaction to the Panic.... Rarely has an American political party suffered a defeat on the scale that the Republican Party did in the congressional elections of 1874....Republicans and not simply failed to meet the economic crisis, then raised hopes only to have Grant dash them. Democrats could and did attack the Republicans as tools of the rich northeastern bankers and merchants. In the South Democrats laid economic disaster at the feet of the Republicans." I think White (2017) is in basic agreement with Rhodes (1920) esp re Grant's failures but that Rhodes has more details and is more useful to the reader, and also includes women and religious factors that White ignores. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Racist Legacy of Woodrow Wilson This was before he was an invalid President. Wilson segregated federal offices. The reemergence of the KKK So none of this could have affected Rhodes opinion of Grant ? In 1920, Jim Crow was an instituion in the South. I think it is highly likely this environment affected Rhodes views on blacks. Was Grant really responsible for an anti-drinking campaign in Ohio. That might be a good thing for his reputation. Not sure why that is so bad. The other thing is Grant was not a Congressman. He really had nothing to do with getting Congress people elected, unless he campaigned for Congress people. I don't recall that he did. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

this is the Grant talk page. Rhodes published vol 6-7 covering 1869-1877 in the year 1906, not 1920 (it was reprinted without changes in 1920). The prohibition campaign in Ohio captured the enthusiasm of lots of local moralistic/religious activists who previously had supported the GOP, so there was a vacuum in GOP ranks and far fewer to defend it. German Republicans were really annoyed at the attacks on their quiet, peaceful beer gardens, and voted for wet Democrats. As head of the party the president gets the credit/blame when things go well (1872) or badly (1874). Rjensen (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Grant gets the blame for being a moralistic leader of an anti-drinking campaign ? Yet, Grant gets blamed for being a drunk. Grant was in charge of the economy and he should get blamed for that. I think it a bit much that Grant gets blamed for "moralistic/religious activists" in Ohio. Why would Grant, who was forced to resign from the army from drunkness, support German beer drinking parties in Ohio. The wet Dems then used alchohol to get elected to Congress. Okay Rhodes was published in 1906. That was 114 years ago. Jim Crow was a Southern institution in 1906. Jim Crow Era Segregation was ruled constitutional in 1898. "In Plessy v. Ferguson, the United States Supreme Court established the "Separate but Equal Doctrine," holding that legal racial segregation does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment." Rhodes would have to be influenced by segregation in 1906 and the racism of his times. I think the section should be written in summary style and that Grant should not get blamed for prohibition. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhodes in fact was part of the racism of his times. He was against giving blacks the right to vote. This is from the Wikipedia article: Reception. His work on Reconstruction was critisized for being inaccurate, unreliable, extremely biased, and partisan. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

the corruption inside the GOP high command led many thousands of the moralistic Republicans at the grass roots (including many of the women) to stop working for the GOP and instead turn to new reforms (esp prohibition and woman suffrage) -- it drained away much of the grass roots energy. Putting liquor/beer back into politics caused German Republicans to switch to Dems. Meanwhile GOP in South was tearing itself apart (in many states esp Arkansas where Grant made it worse.) Together with deep depression (Panic of 1873) the result = loss of lots of votes and lots of seats in Congress. The quotes at issue deal with 1874 nationwide and are not controversial and have nothing to do with anti-black policies that came after 1877. [On which see Rhodes vol 8 p 359 stating "since the restoration of home rule at the South, the negroes had been largely prevented from voting by intimidation and force or, when they did succeed in casting their votes, they failed through fraud on the part of the white judges of election to have them fairly counted." Rhodes agrees with an editorial he quotes: The elections in the South are farcical, and, if we are to have a free government there must be an end put to this sort of thing as far as the National elections are concerned. v 8 p 360. Rhodes explains in detail why the GOP failed to fix this in 1890] Rjensen (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not disputing Grant's conservative response to the depression did not work. Grant never gave up on Reconstruction. He said "Treat the negro as citizen and voter" in his sixth national message to Congress. The North gave up on Reconstruction. The Germans cared more about their drink than black rights apparently. Is that Grant's fault ? I don't see how Rhodes could not have been influenced by Jim Crow. I looked up White (2016) and could not find Rhodes listed in White's selected bibliography nor in his notes on the mid term election of 1874 on pages 550, 551, and 558. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

yes it's mostly Grant's fault--he never understood the presidential challenges her faced or how he kept making matters worse He tolerated corruption and alienated the GOP's large, powerful moralistic element--typified by multiple episodes of scandals and his deliberate destruction of Charles Sumner as well as his alienation of the Liberal Republicans. That cost the GOP their most enthusiastic former supporters. He never seemed to realize the damage he did the party: he believed he deserved a third term in 1876 and 1880. Rhodes was the first historian to be explicit in denouncing disfranchisement of blacks after 1877 and provides a very good explanation of why the GOP failed to do anything about it in 1890. Grant meddled in state GOP politics all across the South and in every case made it worse and left the status of blacks was worse in 1877 than when he became president in 1869. He opened a new chaptert by attacking Catholics as un-American in 1875. Grant worked very hard to control the GOP and the result was one of the worst disasters in GOP history--(1874 was the worst experience before the GOP collapse in 1930 & 1934.) Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your entitled to your opinion on Grant. So am I. The subject of Rhodes as scholar was the subject of this talk. The presidency was held by the Republicans for the next 8 years after Grant. Defeating the KKK was not a failure for Grant. The KKK was lawless, intimidating and killing black people. The nation survived the Long Depression. Bristow prosecuted the Whiskey Ring. Blacks were better off under Grant. They were elected to office on the federal and state level. Grant never attacked Catholics. Name one Catholic who was arrested by Grant. Sumner was am arrogant polititian who thought he was Prime Minister of the Senate. Sumner never even voted for the force bill that allowed Grant to prosecute the KKK. I don't think it is good to push the Democratic agenda on this article. The GOP failed to protect blacks because the Democratic party was racist and aligned with the KKK. We are just spinning wheels here. The Liberal Republicans and Sumner betrayed blacks and Grant and were in cahoots with the Democratic violent thuggery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Grant led the GOP attack on Catholics starting in 1875-- see the good coverage in White, TGhe Republic For Which it Stands pp 315-20. Nearly all Southern state governments in 1869 supported blacks and none did in 1877. Sumner was the hero of the anti-slavery forces, the moralizers and the anti-corruption Republicans--Grant thought he could destroy Sumner politically--and did so--at a terrible cost to Grant's reputation and the GOP. Keep in mind that Grant's reputation has climbed a bit but is still below average among all subgroups of scholars. Rjensen (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sumner was mad because Grant did not give him the State Department. The anti-Corruption Republicans wanted to be awarded federal jobs, either for them or their friends, the spoils system. Grant instituted the Civil Service Commission. Sumner betrayed the mixed black race of Santo Domingo and the blacks of the United States, while his support for Alaska was at the cost of Native Americans, turning Alaskan Indian people into prisoners of the United States. The Alaska Indians never surrendered their land to the Russians. So much for Civil Rights. Sumner and Grant could have teamed up, but don't just blame Grant. Sumner was stubborn too. Grant wanted to make Indians citizens of the United States. The racist whites did not want blacks to have citizenship. That is why Reconstruction failed. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality Midterm elections 1874 dispute

I put a neutrality tag on this section. Relies too heavily on Rhodes 1906. Should rely on modern research and edited in summary style rather than blocked quotes. Viewpoint should be from Grant perspective, not the Liberal Republicans, nor the Democratic Party. Unclear how Grant had anything to do with religious activists in Ohio who advocated a temerpence movement. White 2016 does not list Rhodes in selective Bibliography nor White 2016 pages 550, 551, 558 midterm elections of 1874. Hopefully some compromise can be reached for this section. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Information put in summary style. Calhoun 2017 used to replace Rhodes 1906. Information kept about temperance movement adding to defeat the Republicans. Neutrality tag removed. Hope this worked. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)