This is an archive of past discussions about Ulysses S. Grant. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a suggestion but I believe mentioning Cuban beligerency should be mentioned in the first paragraph...I would rewrite the first paragraph...This would increase the neutrality of the article by mentioning Cuban beligerency first before introducing the failed Santo Domingo annexation...also I am not sure why there needs to be so much background information concerning the Johnson Administration since this is a Grant article...In the interest of the article and FA status I am going be editor consensus...I hope this suggestion is helpful and is made in good faith...I supplied Bradford (1980) references...any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
"The most pressing foriegn policy crisis when Grant assumed office in 1869 was recognition of Cuban biligerency. [1] In October 1868 anti-Spanish insurgents started a Revolution to obtain independence from Spain and end slavery. Grant was pressured by Secretary of War Rawlins to recognize Cuban independence and beligerency, but Secretary of State Hamilton Fish was opposed. [2] After Rawlins death, Fish convinced Grant to oppose a House Resolution to recognized the Cuban Revolution and the United States adopted a policy of neutrality in the Caribbean. [3] Also in 1869 Grant renewed negotiations previously under President Johnson to annex the Dominican Republic, led by Orville E. Babcock, a wartime confidant.[4] Grant was initially skeptical, but at the urging of Admiral Porter, who wanted a naval base at Samaná Bay, and Joseph W. Fabens, a New England businessman employed by the Dominican government, Grant examined the matter and became convinced of its wisdom.[5] He sent Babcock to consult with Buenaventura Báez, the pro-annexation Dominican president, to see if the proposal was practical; Babcock returned with a draft treaty of annexation in December 1869.[5]" Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
^McFeely 1981, pp. 336–338. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcFeely_1981 (help)
^ abSmith, pp. 500–502. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSmith (help)
We already discuss Cuba a great deal in that section. I'm not against adding a line or two somewhat resembling what you suggest, with spelling corrections, etc. I don't think we need a new source, this material is in the existing sources. What I don't understand is why you felt the need to leave this exact comment at the FA review. What are you trying to do? As an involved editor, you're clearly not reviewing the article, right? Are you trying to get it to fail? This is very confusing and extremely frustrating. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely not trying to get the article to fail rather the opposite to pass...The top of the talk page has a link to Leave comments so I did...I appreciate adding a line or two on Cuban belligerency...my reason for adding has not changed...that would help because Grant's main concern was not initially Santo Domingo...rather would Grant go to war with Spain...Fish prevented this...as for the FA review I can add a note this issue is being resolved in the talk page...thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest you retract your statement at the FA, and work it out here then. (Just delete it, if it has not been responded to there). As for your proposal, I presume you mean recognizing the rebels as "belligerents", giving them a kind of international status, but the reader is going to need some hint of explanation of what that is, as it's quite technical and obscure legal doctrine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
" When Grant assumed office in 1869 the most pressing diplomacy crisis was Cuban independence recognition. On October 10, 1868 anti-Spanish Cuban insurgents started a revolt to obtain independence from Spain and end slavery. Grant was pressured by Secretary of War Rawlins to recognize Cuban independence and insurrectionists, but Secretary of State Hamilton Fish was opposed. After Rawlins death, Secretary Fish convinced Grant to oppose a House Resolution to recognized the Cuban Revolution and the United States adopted a policy of neutrality in the Caribbean." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes...Smith (2001) page 493 goes into detail concerning the Cuban insurrection: For support were Rawlins, Cox, and Creswell...Against were Fish, Boutwell, Hoar, and Borie...The cabinet was divided...Rawlins was the one who pressured Grant to support and recognize the Cuban insurrection partly because he detested slavery and partly to get rich. Rawlins had purchased $28,000 in Cuban War Bonds...Smith (2001) covers the Cuban Insurrection from pages 491-499 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
So it does. I had forgotten that. It think you should add it to the Presidency article, to be sure. After re-reading Smith, I think the reason we left it out of the main article in the first place was that, although there's a lot of interesting discussion, Grant ultimately did nothing. Relations with Spain remained the same until the second term, when the Virginius incident happened. Given the space constraints, I think we should concentrate on the events where Grant actually did something. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Grant sent Congress a message of non intervention and calmed the nation from going to war...in some respects he stopped the Cuban War bonds corruption ...Smith (2001) even put in Grant's non intervention message to Congress on page 497...I would not say he did nothing...he offered Spain and Cuba an armistice and mediation rather then war...the other issue is that it all involves the Virgnius Incident...5 warships were scheduled to be built built...Secretary Robeson also launched the world's first propelled torpedo ship...I think space can be made to put in the information on the Cuban Revolt... Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some exaggerations here. Grant didn't stop the bonds corruption, he covered it up. Five warships "were scheduled to be built"; I notice you don't say when they were completed (it was, I believe, 1891.). I'm not sure which torpedo boat you're taking about. USS Alarm? It was commissioned during Grant's administration, but never saw action and was not involved in Cuba. Do you see how stringing together these facts of dubious value and presenting them in the most favorable way possible leads people to think you might be POV-pushing? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I gave Smith (2001), a reliable Grant biographer source, who dedicated eight pages 491 to 499 to the Cuban Insurrection even supplying Grant's non intervention letter to Congress...that alone is enough to edit into the article...rather then discussing the issue I am accused of POV pushing...Robeson did order five warships in 1876, although not all were completed due to lack of funding from Congress...but all were used during the Spanish American War...I answered why they were ordered, the Virgnius Incident, not when completed...Yes...I believe the USS Alarm, was the world's first torpedo warship...the U.S. Navy was experimenting with new technology to defend the United States...maybe Rjensen can settle the matter... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
True...Grant did keep Rawlins $28,000 Cuban war bonds a secret, but by not declaring war on Spain all the War Bonds were worthless... Cmguy777 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Jensen comment. Cuba was chronologically the first issue but 1) nothing much happened before Virginius; 2) #1 issue was Britain / Alabama 3) Cuba to 1873 belongs in Presidency...Fish handled Cuba Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen ! I will go be editor concensus. In light of the Virginius incident should not there be more clarifiation that Grant-Fish established a neutrality policy in the Caribbean? This could be mentioned in the Virginius incident paragraph...maybe a rewording...since the Cuba issue never completely resolved under the Grant Administration...keep the first paragraph as is... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
American foreign policy had been one of neutrality since George Washington's day. I don't think your sentence would add anything to the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Cmguy777 does a good job and that in fact he is correct that neutrality was the basic us Policy in the 19th century toward Caribbean. When pols tried to change that policy as in Ostend Manifesto they were hammered & quickly defeated. Rjensen (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen for your support...the only reason I thought that mentioning neutrality was important was because of the House Resolution to recognize the Cuban belligerents...additionally the Cuban War bonds were being sold encouraging war... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Gilded age corruption and reform section
I strengthened the first part of the Gilded Age corruption and reform section. I fixed the faulty Woodward link. Some sentences were reworded to accuratlely fit information found in Woodward...who never stated Grant was honest in money matters...I believe all the sentences in the section should have references. The Crédit Mobilier scandal was discussed in the Reelection section. I removed that information. Cmguy777 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to revert those changes, but I wanted to explain why first. I think you don't understand the Featured Article process. After this article made GA, it underwent extensive editing to improve its quality in anticipation of going for FA. We undertook a long A-class review in which Alanscottwalker and I improved the article still further and gained the arrival of half a dozen pretty demanding editors before it passed. The consensus arrived at there was what prompted two of them (Wehwalt and Dank) to support this article for FA soon after I nominated it. Everyone seemed in agreement that things were going in the right direction.
When you then insist on wholesale content changes in the middle of an FA review, you're editing against that consensus. What's more, you've now changed the terms of the reviewers' support for the article. They agreed to support based on the previous consensus version of things. When you changed that, you put their support in doubt. Perhaps I'm too sensitive, but if someone pulled those kind of shenanigans on an article I reviewed and changed it (for the worse) against consensus, I'd suspect bad faith. I'd demand it be fixed, or else withdraw my support.
I don't think you're acting in bad faith, just out of a lack of understanding. I don't understand why now, after years of editing this thing together, you push for major changes in the midst of a review. I believe you want this thing to be the best article it can be, and that you want it to get featured on the Main Page, so that millions of people will read it and learn a little about Grant, whom I know you admire. So let's work together to make that happen.
I understand that the rules around here can be confusing. I'd encourage you to read the FA criteria and the NPOV rules, if you haven't already. And please, please, please, don't do any more to endanger this article's chances at FA. If new scholarship emerges on Grant in the coming years, I've no doubt we'll want to include it, and we may disagree on how to do so. That's all fine. But for the next month or so, can we both agree to live with the article as it is so that it can pass the review? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Coemegnus, here. The change to "humble beginnings" etc. was just not improved encyclopedic writing. as for the crdit story: "In 1872, the Credit Mobilier scandal was exposed. Although the bulk of the charges predated Grant's presidency, it involved railroad companies overcharging millions of dollars for government contracts. Previously, when Congress was about to launch an investigation into the overcharging in 1867, the company's directors bribed various government officials with company shares to prevent it. When Congress finished a subsequent investigation in 1873, it had a negative impact on the Grant administration." [1] So that is why it is mentioned in our corruption section it was the sine qua non of the times - it seems late in the day to change it all now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Responding to ping. Just from a copyeditor's POV and not commenting on content, none of Cmguy's changes were awful, but the prose was a little better before the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Where in the Woodward article does it say Grant was personally honest in money matters ? I read the article and could find no such cite...I also gave the exact page number on the web site...The current article states a general pages 53-108 is sloppy...there is one Woodward cite now without a page number...Wikipedia should not be spreading misinformation to the readers... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe I was making wholesale changes only the first part of the section...I had to correct a faulty link to the Woodward article...Grant did come from humble beginnings just like Lincoln and Johnson and was vulnerable to flattery and wild schemes...I want this to go to FA just as much as anyone...there is no mention of first term scandals in the scandal section...that would mean the Grant scandals started in the second term...The article looks great but any mistatements from Woodward need to be changed... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
We agree he was from humble beginnings . . . it's just that, that sentence seemed more purple prose than encyclopedia writing, also it seemed too opinionated to me. He won in a landslide in '72, so it was not at that point, that scandal really hurt his reputation -- redoing the flow/emphasis of the article now is . . . problematic (and its been a long time that we have had to hash out this stuff). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion the section seems to be promoting an 1867 Congressional scandal during the Johnson Administration that Grant directly had nothing to do with but was more of a Republican Party scandal. Republicans retained control of both the House and Senate in 1872. The scandal that really hurt the Republicans in effect Grant was the Salary Grab. The Republicans lost control of the House. The scandal that Grant was actually involved in was at the Port of New York Collectors of Customs House but nothing is mentioned. Seems like there is some picking and choosing as to what information goes into the section. Woodward never stated in his article that Grant was personally honest in money matters so why is Woodward given credit for making this statement in the article ? Some other source reference is need to state Grant was personally honest in money matters. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The section does not have a host of problems...If this article is going to FA I want the article to be as reliabe and neutral as possible...No one has yet answer where Woodward (1957) stated Grant was personally honest in his own money matters...or why no first term corruption has been mentioned in the section... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes...I can and I appreciate citing another source Coemgenus...maybe I am a little shy after getting most of my edits overturned... I am not sure Woodward (1957) is being interpreted correctly...Grant loved flattery and listening to wild schemes...I thought that was Woodwards main point...I won't push that though...I believe every sentence should have a cite since this has to do with corruption and reform... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The section looks good and has stablized...all sentences have references...thanks for the discussion and any cleanup work on the article...I made a few minor tweaks...from what I have read the Civil Service Commission was Grant's creation...the initial law was a rider on an appropriations bill that allowed President Grant to implement reform as he saw fit... Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Photos
This is a suggestion but why not have two photos of one Cabinet reformer ie Bristow and one corrupt Cabinet member ie Belknap...and replace the current Whiskey Ring cartoon... Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The main reason would be that were in the middle of an image review at FAC and I'm reluctant to further delay it by changing things up. As to style, I think the Whiskey Ring cartoon is more representative of what went on, and tells the story better than a simple portrait would. Having multiple photos in one section also often causes crowding on wide screen monitors and cell phones -- I try to avoid it, though there are a few examples already in the article. But I'm not married to it. If others want to change, I'll go with consensus. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Reasonable. But I prefer the cartoon because we have plenty of portraits in the article already. It's better to vary the media. (I preferred the Hawaiian reception, too but I understand there was a copyright/provenance concern) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the Salary Grab cartoon by Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper ...I think adding the Salary Grab would be good to the article. Grant got a pay raise but the act was embarrassing for Congressmen who took a $5,000 bonus in addition to their own pay raise. The discovery of the pay raise apparently took place after the Panic of 1873 thwarting Congressional Republicans from being elected the next year. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Politicians accusing each other for taking the Salary Grab. The caption reads: That salary grab--"You took it" Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper December 27, 1873Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Grant was only marginally involved in the Salary Grab. I don't recall his biographers troubling much with it, though I'll double check that when I get home tonight. I'd say this makes more sense in the Presidency article, but even that's kind of a stretch. Good cartoon, though. I might use it in a more relevant article. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Smith (2001) page 553 talks about the Salary Grab or "pay-back grab". Grant signed the bill into law giving him a $25,000 pay raise...the salary of the President had not changed since Washington...I would state that the law strengthed the Presidency, especially in a time when there was no presidential retirement. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I found this to be an interesting note. James Noble Tyner did not receive the Republican Congressional nomination in 1874 because he voted for the Salary Grab...Tyner was later appointed Postmaster-General by Grant after Jewell was forced to resign in 1876... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Does one of the authors we cite say that the Salary Grab strengthened the presidency. That doesn't make any sense to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Grant had lost his military pay and pension when he entered the Presidency. Geoffrey C. Ward A Disposition to Be Rich: Ferdinand Ward, the Greatest Swindler of the Gilded Age page 165-166 Democrats repeatedly blocked attempts to restore him to the military roster so he could receive retirement pay. The 1873 salary boost gave Grant an extra $100,000 (4 x $25,000) to live off. Each President until Taft in 1909 thereafter would recieve the $50,000 a year. Salary History for the President of the United States That is what I am refering too. There is no specific site that stated the salary grab strengthened the Presidency, but Grant's pay raise was not repealed by Congress. In my opinion I would state that is more power to the Presidency. Presidents would not have a retirement pay until the Truman Administration, Truman receiving retirement pay in 1953. Grant did get federal military retirement in 1885. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rjensen for your support...I thought this was a discussion page...I am not advancing any personal or novel theory to be put in the article...My point was that after 80 years of the presidential office Grant doubled the president's salary in a time when Presidents had no retirement pay...that is signifigant in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I meant that your idea that the Salary Grab Act increased presidential power was novel. That the salary itself increased is, as you say, a fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
As to adding the Salary Grab to the article: I think Gwillhickers's statement below applies here, too. There's really no reason to introduce changes in the middle of an FA review except (1) in response to a reviewer's comment, (2) if there is pressing new scholarship, or (3) there is an actual error of fact that needs to be corrected. Absent those circumstances, I'm going to resist nearly everything that will cause this article to fail. After we finish the review, I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion. Since you have said you want this article to pass FA, I'm sure you'll understand my reluctance to make it unstable. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I added the Salary Grab cartoon to the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article in the Salary Grab section...I am not pushing that the Salary Grab be put into the main article...I mentioned that Congress sustained Grant's $50,000 salary increase...I did not put anything concerning increasing his presidential power...the next doubling of Presidential pay came 96 years later in 1969. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is Brands 2012b being used as a reference for the last sentence ? Brands specifically states " Historians have long underated Grant's performance as President...Yet he deserves credit—and indeed respect—for the bold action he took at a perilous juncture in postwar Reconstruction to expand federal guarantees of racial equality and to protect freed slaves and their supporters from the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan..." That means that historians have under estimated Grant's presidency and that he deserves credit for Civil Rights. The current sentence only states he is well below average in historical surveys without mentioning equality or civil rights...In my opinion this does not accurately represent Brands 2012b statements and could be misleading to the readers...any opinions ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We've already had this discussion here, here, and here. We've been talking about this for more than a year now, and the current language is the result of the consensus arrived at the last time. If you want to delete the cite, go for it, but let's not change the text any more. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not make the cite more accurate keeping Brands (2012b) a reference...as far as I know Brands does not defend corruption and the terrible economic deppression caused by the Panic of 1873...a few tweaks might work:
Before:
"Throughout the 20th century, historians ranked his presidency near the bottom. Today his military reputation has recovered, while experts rank his presidential achievements well below average."
After:
" Multiple administration scandals caused by his appointments of corrupt associates and the Panic of 1873 severely damaged Grant's presidential reputation among 20th Century historians ranking him near the bottom. One 21 Century historian, H.W. Brands, viewed Grant deserved more credit for his protection of former slaves from the Ku Klux Klan." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The existing language was already the result of consensus among the editors of this page and the A-class reviewers. Let's just leave it how it is. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Is the article on editing lock down ? I did not participate in the A-class review. Brands 2012b stated Grant deserves more credit as President. That has been mentioned in the lede or something to that effect. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not closed to editing, but I do wonder why you'd seek to disturb the month-old consensus in the middle of an FA review? You say you want the article to pass, but everything you've been doing over the last few days is likely to have the opposite effect. I'm sorry you chose not to participate in the A-class review, but you must have seen the edits taking place as it went on. If you had concerns, why not raise them then? --Coemgenus (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the link to the A-class review was hidden...I knew there was editing but I could not find where the A-class review was posted...regardless the article is in phenomenal condition...and I appreciate all your editing in the Ulysses S. Grant article. I have been meticulous because I want the article to be FA worthy...I thinked that helped the Gilded age corruption and reform section. I fixed the link to the Woodward (1957) source...I am not trying to be in any way an obstructionist to the article...My criteria for editing includes the following questions: Is the article balanced and neutral? Does the article represent the most current research on Grant? So no...I am not trying to keep the article from getting to FA...in fact I have been editing on Grant's cabinet, such as James N. Tyner...so when the article gets to FA, as expected, their repected biographies might get more notice...I try to think ahead...thanks... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cmguy777 and Coemgenus: Have to agree with Coemgenus here. The existing language is more than adequate, per consensus, and now is not the best time to pursue an issue that is really not that pressing, and which would only generate instability and likely torpedo FA efforts. If you still feel strongly about your proposed change I'd recommend pursuing this after the FA review. You might find other editors more agreeable then. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I removed the Brands 2012b source...Brands believed Grant deserves better rankings or credit from historians...one source in CSPAN gave Grant a 9 out of 44 Presidents in 2009...This issue has been discussed...Coemgenus put in a better source...the issue for now is closed...thanks for your editor opinion... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The Reelection section states Congress created the Civil Service Commission...this is not true...Congress passed a law that allowed the President to implement Civil Service as Grant saw fit...Grant then by executive order created the Civil Service Commission and appointed Curtis Commissioner...many of the recommendations of Curtis later became part of the 1883 Pendleton Act when Congress officially created the Civil Service Commission...The first Civil Service Commission was Grant's creation. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's kind of how legislating works, isn't it? Congress authorizes things and the executive carries out the law. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference...Congress authorized Grant to implement Civil Service as the President saw fit...in other words Grant did not have to implement Civil Service...the Pendleton Act of 1883 Civil Service Commission is created in the law and the President was to enforce the commission...Grant created the first Civil Service commission by executive order...the 1883 Civil Service Commission was created by Congress in the law borrowing from Grant's first Civil Service Commission. Grant's civil service was by Executive Order whereas the 1883 Pendleton Act Civil Service was congressional law. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Authorized by Congress, Grant implemented his appointed Civil Service Commission advisory board rules for Executive Departments on April 16, 1872.Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Alternative wording:
On April 16, 1872 Grant by executive order implemented his Civil Service Commission advisory board rules for Executive Departments.Cmguy777 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of changing the sentence as little as possible, how about tweaking it to read "To placate reformers, Congress authorized Grant to create the Civil Service Commission, which he did by executive order in 1871. The Commission, chaired by reformer George William Curtis, had the power to propose reforms." --Coemgenus (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes...That sounds great Coemgenus...I am in favor of tweaking the sentence as you stated... that would help the reader distinguish between the massive 1883 Pendelton Act Congressional reform legislation and put Grant in better context as a politician getting elected...thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
My tweak: "To placate reformers, Congress authorized Grant to create the Civil Service Commission, implementing its rules by executive order in April 1872. The Commission, chaired by reformer George William Curtis, had the power to propose reforms." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with that version is you have a squinting modifier; it reads like Congress implemented its own act. How about "In 1871, to placate reformers, Congress authorized Grant to create the Civil Service Commission, which he did by executive order the following year. The Commission, chaired by reformer George William Curtis, had the power to propose reforms." How's that sound? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I added it, though I changed the ending slightly because it overlapped with the sentence that followed. I think it still works. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes...it works...the main point is that Grant implemented the Civil Service Commission rules by Executive order rather then Congressional law... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Shiloh
Flood (2005) page 105 makes no mention of soldiers caught by surprise having a leisure breakfast at Shiloh...Flood states Union soldiers were jarred from thier sleep...also Colonel Peabody had discovered the Confederate Army on morning of April 6...there was no surprise...just terrible army management and planning by Grant, Sherman, and Halleck. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems like splitting hairs here. If you were "jarred from sleep" by an enemy army, would you not be surprised? I agree with Rjensen's reversion: "surprised" is more succinct than "not ready for battle" and tells the story of the first day's battle better. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Splitting hairs ? According to Catton (1963), Terrible Swift Sword, the Union soldiers were not ready for battle on January 6 (page 231). Halleck had stalled Grant's fighting initiative forcing him to wait for Buell reinforcements (page 228). Grant should have entrenched his army but he did not (page 232). Sherman was not concerned enough about Johnston and the Confederate Army attacking (page 229). Catton does state that Union soldiers were preparing meals, but did not have time to eat them. (page 233). Many or most Union soldiers were untrained to fight and had never fought in battle before Shiloh (page 233). Flood (2005) page 105 specifially states "jarred from sleep by the sounds of gunfire" Why not put the term "caught off gaurd" or "caught unprepared" rather then "surprised" ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an objective or agenda...the source given Flood (2005) page 105 does not use the word "surprised". Catton (1963) puts accountabilty on Grant, Sherman, and Halleck for the Union Army being unprepared for battle...also most of the Union troops were untrained. Repsectfully, in my opinon, "surprised" does not give the same sense of urgency as "jarred from sleep". Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Though the source doesn't say surprised (and we don't want to close paraphrase) you seem to be offering an alternative that makes little/no difference, so we should just let the current wording stand. Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The Conferderates were not out to "surprise" the Union Army, but rather to destroy the Union Army and Advance. I am not trying to push the issue. I will respect editor concensus on this. Here is another proposal. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Proposed edit 2 "The sudden ferocity of the Confederate onslaught forced the Union Army to quickly abandon camp Shiloh." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It looks like editor concensus is for the word "surprise". The Union troops suffered more from shock and awe then anything else in my opinion. The Confederates won Day I and the Union won on Day II. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
While the Grant biography is shaping up nicely there are some significant items still missing.
On Christmas Eve 1883 Grant slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk in front of his home in New York receiving a serious injury to his hip, from which he never fully recovered, requiring him to use a cane to walk for the remainder of his life.
In the World tour section there is no mention of the major celebration which preceded Grant's departure to Liverpool, involving dignitaries, decorated ships which escorted Grant down the Deleware, celebrations both on water and on the shore, with ships whistles blowing and church bells ringing. There is no mention of similar celebrations received by Grant in Europe, etc. No mention that Grant was given full citizenship and freedoms when he arrived in England. The widely celebrated tour is a major episode in Grant's life and mention of all the celebrations, honors, etc make this clear. As it is, all we have to this effect is that Grant dined with the Queen of England.
There is no mention of the great agony Grant was in from throat cancer and the fact that he could not speak in the final days of his life -- and no mention that he worked on his memoirs all the way up to just four days before his death.
There is no mention of the actual marriage/date of Grant to Julia Grant, where and how they met, etc. In fact the word marriage doesn't even occur in the biography. While there are several pictures of people like Ely Parker, Hamilton Fish, King Kalākaua and others with relatively brief associations with Grant, there is no picture of Julia, his beloved wife.
@ Gwillhickers...I believe a picture of Julia Grant would be good and a mention that Grant and Julia were married. As for the other issues, although good material, the information may not be required for Grant to get to FA status... Cmguy777 (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The Grants' courtship and marriage, including the actual date, is well-covered in the "Military career and family, 1843–54" section already. I'm not opposed to a new picture, if a suitable one could be found, but I agree with Cmguy777 about the timing. I'm reluctant to ask our reviewers to conduct a second image review at FAC. It might be worth considering at some point.
We also must consider length concerns. We've gotten pushback from reviewers at every stage because of this article's epic length, and have made many difficult choices in cutting down even to this size. The bit about falling on ice is fairly trivial, to my mind. I don't recall his biographers making much of it. Adding more about his agony while suffering from cancer sounds, frankly, unnecessary—everyone knows cancer is unpleasant. And the world tour is adequately covered as it is, I believe. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Cmguy777 and Coemgenus: We could simply 'ping' the editors who did the image review and ask if adding a picture of Grant's wife would create issues. Leaving her picture out while incluiding ones like 'King Kalākaua' seems a little odd. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I missed that in my cursory inspection. Should have also scanned for the word 'married'. In any case it's sort of unfortunate that we must remove or leave out information simply because of page length concerns -- which is one of the reasons I've never bothered to nominate the articles I've written or rewritten. I'm hoping someday sensible improvements to page length guidelines will be made when it comes to very famous people and major topics, like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, the Civil War, WWii, etc. As it is, we have a 'one size suits all' guideline for 'all' articles. -- The same yardstick is used for 'Bart Simpson' as is for Thomas Jefferson. Not very wise. Enough said. Still feel we should mention Grant's hip injury and consequential reliance on a crutch to walk for the remainder of his life. Though it's of little political consequence, it was a major episode in Grant's personal life. We should also mention that his cancer left him unable to speak in his final days, and that he worked on his memoirs all the way up to just four days before his death. These are sizable gaps, imo, and one of the requirements of a FA is that it is comprehensive for the various topics, offering more than just a passing and generalized statement. Last, our main objective should always be the readers, not simply trying to get a FA star, something that only amuses us editors. In any case, I am not going to press these issues. I believe the article is great as it is, and is about ready for FA, but am hoping we can include a couple of these items anyways. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: The above subjects you mentioned would be good in seperate articles...especially one on Grant's world tour...there also could be an article on Grant's later life from after the return of his world tour to his death...there also could be an article on the legacy of Ulysses S. Grant as President and Soldier...seperate articles might be the best alternatives to adding the information in the main article... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Names for sections
It seems a little odd that topics like 'Military career' and 'Family' would be lumped together under one section. Should not Family or Family life get its own section, as should Military career? These are both general and distinct topics. Even if lumped together, shouldn't 'Family' come before 'Military career'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe Grant's military career and family overlap so much it would be hard to seperate the two subjects in the main article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there was a period of civilian life during Grant's military career, but that didn't involve his family to the degree that you seem to be suggesting i.e Items covering Grant's mother, father, siblings, (grandparents and ancestry, not mentioned), home life, etc. The content at present is overall okay, albeit missing a few lesser items, but it seems it would be better if we renamed the Early life section as Family and early life moving the related content currently under Military career and family to this section. Under military career, all we need do is mention the period of civilian life without going into details about the family, which would be already covered above. Also, shouldn't Civil War be a subsection to Military Career -- and while we're at it, shouldn't there be a subsection for Mexican-American War? Again, we have the content, sourced. All that needs to be done is move it to different more appropriately renamed sections. e.g.We can mention that Grant married in 1848 after the Mex'Am war, but the details of his marriage, family, children should be covered under a Family and early life section, not mixed in with the content covering the military career. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, there are many different ways it could have been done, but this is the way it was done through all the various reviews over the last several years -- unless we should just withdraw the FAC nomination and overhaul the entire organization (which means we will not have a chance of meeting the goal of having it on the main page in April for the 150th anniversary of the surrender at Appomattox) -- we should leave as is. The current organization makes good sense, also, following a chronological narrative (in part, his post West Point career sputtered to an end because of the young man's separation from his family) and has the approval of many that have reviewed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
We have more than a month before April rolls around, and all that's involved here is a section renamed, one added and a few items of content moved. I'm not insisting, but I'm a little surprised none of the other reviewers didn't pick this up. We shouldn't shy away from improvements just for the same of getting that gold star buy a given deadline. Again, we have plenty of time and the proposed change is really simple, could be done in a matter of minutes, and I'm sure no one would take exception if the change were made. Covering family/marriage matters (while ignoring grandparents and ancestry) in the middle of the Military career content, even if chronologically placed, is not exactly something a FA should allow. There are dedicated articles for Grant and his military involvements -- none but this one for his personal and family life. This content needs its own section. Final changes/improvements are common during FA reviews. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it as improvement. I see it as a rearrangement of the narrative - either it is of little matter and therefore should not be done - at this point -- or it is of great matter and we will have to go back to the drawing board (eg. now, it is something about his ancestors) and ask for full re-review. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's absurd to show up here at the eleventh hour and insist on rearranging the whole thing in the middle of an FA review. We've worked for years on this. And "no one would take exception?" So far everyone has taken exception.
And I disagree that the editors who have worked so hard to get this article to FA status are doing it to amuse ourselves. The FA star means that the Wikipedia community believes the article is an example of our best work, worthy of being featured on the main page. We who are interested in Grant want the world to know his story. To do that, we've worked long and hard to improve his article to a state where the community agrees that we can proclaim it as top notch and put it on the main page, so millions of readers' eyes might fall across it. That's the point. The star is meaningless. The pursuit of excellence and the desire to share knowledge are what we've been striving toward. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Why not have the best of both worlds...Keep the article as is concering Grant and his family but make a seperate article on Grant's family that goes back to the 1600's...Grant's Memoir would be a great start for a Grant family article... Cmguy777 (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've got no problem with a separate article on Grant's family, though it's not something I'd be interested in working on, myself.--Coemgenus (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus: Please accept my apology for the remark about the gold star, it wasn't made to suggest you haven't worked hard or that it was your only concern. In any event the article is going to be read regardless of the FA. Yes, for the day the article is on the front page it gets many 'views', but only those interested in Grant are going to read most/all of the article, FA, or no FA. As concerns the "eleventh hour", April 9 is almost a month and a half away, and you're suggesting that no additions, improvements or changes can be made because of this FA review. Changes and additions are common during FA reviews.
The following additions/changes are recommended:
Grant's marriage, wife, children and home life needs to be covered better and not just mentioned in passing and lumped in with the military section. The marriage can still be mentioned under Military career for chronological reference. Currently the article only devotes two short sentences to these important topics, while Julia's picture is absent altogether -- yet we have a picture of King 'what's his name' and others far less important/associated to Grant. That is not comprehensive coverage of Grant's family and home life, per FA requirements. Sections: If the Military career and family are a major section, then Civil War needs to be a subsection as it comes under that heading, while there should also be a subsection for the Mexican American War -- an entire war, not a battle. Grant's hip injury, something that directly effected him, personally, needs to be mentioned, as it left him crippled and dependent on a crutch or cane for the rest of his life. One sentence would cover that. These things would not require that the article receive a "full review" all over again. Such edits could be made in minutes and can easily be evaluated on a per item basis. As military content goes, the article shines, but it's still greatly lacking in Grant's personal life and needs a bit of section work to truly come off as an FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Gwillhickers...Grant was out of the military when the Civil War started...At the beginning nobody really had any confidence in Grant except a Californian named John C. Frémont...Grant's military career ended in 1854 and restarted in 1861. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this is what the article contains on his nuclear family and it is more than two sentences, it maybe passim mention but it is not passing:
He spent some of his time in Missouri visiting the family of his West Point classmate, Frederick Tracy Dent; he became engaged to Dent's sister, Julia, in 1844.[14] . . . Four years after becoming engaged, he married Julia on August 22, 1848.[22]They had four children: Frederick, Ulysses Jr. ("Buck"), Ellen ("Nellie"), and Jesse.[23] Grant's first post-war assignments took him and Julia to Detroit and then to Sackets Harbor, New York.[24] In 1852, Grant's next assignment sent him west to Fort Vancouver in the Oregon Territory . . . Julia, who was eight months pregnant with Ulysses Jr., did not accompany him.[25] . . . He was unhappy being separated from his family, . . . on condition that Julia and the children stay with her parents in Missouri or with the Grants in Kentucky. Ulysses and Julia opposed another separation and declined the offer.[33] . . . Two years later, he and his family moved to land on his father-in-law's farm, and built a family home he called "Hardscrabble".[33] Julia hated the rustic house, which she described as an "unattractive cabin".[33] . . . Having met with no success farming, the Grants left . . . In 1860, Jesse offered him the tannery job in Galena without conditions . . . Grant and family moved . . . After settling Julia into a house in Georgetown . . . Lincoln invited him and his wife to Ford's Theater, but they declined . . . Grant told Julia that he dreaded the change in administrations . . .Grant secured a house for his family in Georgetown Heights . . . Further travels that summer took the Grants to Albany, back to Galena, and throughout Illinois and Ohio, with enthusiastic receptions.[117] . . .Grant confided to his wife that he thought the President's speeches were a "national disgrace" . . . Grant and his family vacationed for the first time in what became known as the "summer capital" and "the resort of presidents", Long Branch, New Jersey.[153] To ensure his family's privacy, Grant barred the general public from entering the White House grounds.[154] . . .Grant and his family stayed with friends [] before setting out on a tour of the world . . . The Grants dined with Queen Victoria . . . The Grants spent a few months with their daughter Nellie, who had married an Englishman . . . Grant and his wife journeyed on to France and Italy, spending Christmas 1877 aboard USS Vandalia . . .Grant's son Ulysses Jr. had opened a Wall Street brokerage house . . .Grant joined the firm . . .To restore his family's income, Grant wrote several articles . . .Grant's son Fred assisted with references and proofreading . . . Julia Grant received about $450,000, suggesting a royalty of about 30 percent.[293]
[moved after edit conflict] Cmguy is right. You should get familiar with some of the sources, it might help inform your opinions on the article (plus, they're just enjoyable to read). Brands and Smith should be easy enough to find in libraries, and McFeely is also widely available, if likely out of print. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Family content for consideration
Grant's ancestry extends back eight generations. In his memoirs grant wrote, "My family is American and has been for generations, in all its branches, direct and collateral." In 1630 Matthew Grant and wife Pricillia with an infant daughter sailed to the new world from Plymouth and landed in Nantasket and settled in Dorchester, south of Boston. They were part of a large Puritan migration to New England. The Grant's descendants fought in the French and Indian and Revolutionary wars. Ulysses' father, Jesse R. Grant, emigranted from Pensylvinia to Ohio and married Hannah Simpson on June 24, 1821, settling on the banks of the Ohio River at Point Pleasant. During Grant's presidency his father served as Postmaster in the town of Covington, Kentucky. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers...I think the lines "His ancestor Matthew Grant arrived at Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. Grant's great-grandfather fought in the French and Indian War, and his grandfather served in the American Revolution at Bunker Hill" are somewhat misleading. Matthew Grant did indeed settle at Dorchester, but he was part of the Dorchester party that settled in Windsor CT in 1635. Matthew Grant was the original keeper of the "Old Church Record" of Windsor, and his descendants were important personages in the early history of many of the towns of North Central CT, and those who served in the French and Indian Wars and at Bunker Hill did so as Connecticut natives before Jesse Root Grant's father Noah removed to Pennsylvania. The article as written suggests the family was based in Massachusetts before relocating to Ohio. Ianuaditis (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Gwillhickers...Brands (2012), The Man Who Saved the Union Ulysses S Grant In War and Peace covers this information...in my opinion Brands (2012) would be a great starting source for a Grant family article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is much to tell regarding Grant the boy, Grant the man and the father. This article should at least offer a bit more in that area. "Grant developed an unusual ability to work with and control horses."? Is that all we can say here?? Grant held several jobs in his youth with horses, for openers. We need more than a few generic statements about Grant's early life and family. See below for more examples. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Proposed section title change
@Gwillhickers: There may be a chronology issue in the Military Career and family 1843-54 You may have already brought this up...the title sounds like Grant's family ended in 1854 and there is no mention of marriage...Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Grant's military career ended in 1854 but his family and marriage did not end in 1854. His marriage and family did not end with his military career. This is confusing to the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Respectfully, there is no mention of his marriage in the title. If the title read "Military career, marriage, and family 1843-54" that would mean Grant's marriage and family ended with his military career. That makes no sense. The dates create the confusion... Cmguy777 (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Here the start of his young family, and early career are interwoven, and have been for a longtime. This article does not compartmentalize, so much as generally follow a life chronology. Coemgenus is correct that the sub-title suggests periodization (especially coming after "Early life") so is unlikely to confuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
But then why is Grant refused the rightthe benefit to have marriage in his article title section when Lincoln and Hayes have marriage in their title sections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Right? There is no such right. (Both the articles you point to actually have quite different organizations, with Hayes having Second level and third level sections) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Now we're accused of violating the rights of Grant, a man who died in the nineteenth century. Even for this talk page, this discussion is absurd. Are you serious? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I am going by editor consensus...all I intended to bring up was that the end date 1854 implies that Grant's family ended in 1854 coinciding his military career. In my opinion that is akward wording...so then why not get rid of the 1843-54 date and add marriage. If other editors want to keep the section as is...that is fine with me...I am more concerned Grant get's a FA status...I don't have to agree with every edit that has been made... Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, personally I do not care about FA (I did agree awhile ago to help if that is what others wanted). But what some recent comments seem to be missing is that if you start pulling threads, things have a tendency to unravel (and in the reviewer sense, that is called instability). Add a discrete fact fine, correct a small error fine, delete a discrete fact fine (they had better be discrete and minor, at this stage) but if there are large errors of fact or presentation, the whole thing should be re-reviewed - that kind of wrongness should not pass, and it makes one wonder what else is really wrong. What I also know is that every change of phrase, words, emphasis, new source, or structure can well lead to months of discussion. (The structure that has been here a longtime has been early life, to early career/family, to civilian life, to life as a General, to presidential life, to post presidential life, to historical assessment - if that has left a gaping hole, the article is truly troubled because the pedia has already literally spent years identifying the key sources and events -against the almost constant refrain of "too long, too much'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine, Cmguy, delete the dates. But can we please leave it at that? This constant nit-picking only takes up editors' time, time that might be better spent improving the encyclopedia in a meaningful way. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologize if I was knit picking...I also apologize about the above "the right to have marriage" comment. I struck that from the conversation. I had no intention of changing anything in the section just editing the title...I should have made that more clearer. I will look at other Presidential articles particularly the "general" presidents and see how their marriage/family and career sections are set up...I am all for the career/family format...thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There is not enough content about Grant's family to warrant that the Military career ... section title have family in it. Again, Family and early life would be more appropriate, which comes before Military career.... That's not to say he got married before he entered the military. Again, we can mention the marriage date under Military career for chronological reference but his marriage and family need more coverage under their own section. Since this is the only article appropriate for coverage of Grant's family and early life we need to include more content there if this article expects to come off as comprehensive on those topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll agree to Cmguy's formulation, "Military career, marriage, and family" if we can all agree to stop with the title changes after that. Deal? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Here are some sample section titles covering marriage and family from "General" Presidents
Looks like each article is different. Mentioning personal life would be good but there would be three "life" mentions in three consecutive sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Choices:
1. Military career and family 1843-54
2. Military career and personal life
3. Military career, marriage, and family
4. Early life and family
5. Military career 1843-54
His marriage and family information should be kept in the Military career section not early life. There may be no perfect solution...Maybe the best is to leave as is...Option 1. 3. and 5. would work for me. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If no one objects to having the word "life" in three consecutive sections I would change B to Military and personal lifeCmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the first and second level respectfully would look cumbersome... Early lifeshould be seperate from Grant's military career in my opinion. 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Final draft
I think that Military career and personal life' is the best alternative. Personal life covers marriage and family while military career covers his West Point training, his service during the Mexican-American War, and service until his resignation in 1854. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Grant and religion
According to two older sources sources (1, 2) Grant was baptized and attended a Methodist church. The article currently says he wasn't and didn't. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll look again. Here's another source. As I don't have any contemporary hard texts for Grant specifically I'm obviously looking into older sources in the PD, which are just as reliable, perhaps more so, as many of these writers lived during the same general time period and had better access to primary sources than writers of the 21st century do. In any event, Grant's mother, a Methodist and very religious, it would seem, had her first born child baptized, and why wouldn't she? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Gwillhickers makes a good case that grant was Probably baptized as a baby, for he had a religious Methodist mother. However that does not speak to the question whether Grant himself was at all religious. However, biographer Waugh states explicitly, "Ulysses was never baptized and felt no pressure to become a church member." Waugh adds that USG's son said that he was "a pure agnostic." Waugh (July 2010). U. S. Grant. p. 10. Susan Jacoby (2013) says USG "not only refused to join a church but also suggested that it might be a good idea to eliminate property tax exemptions for religious institutions." Jones (2004) notes that "Grant did not openly display his religious belief, and some observers thought him to be an atheist or an agnostic." but adds that some of Grants letters to his family suggest that he believed in God and the afterlife. As president, he did attend Methodist services, but that seems to been a formality. Wilmer L. Jones (2004). Generals in Blue and Gray: Lincoln's generals. p. 177. I think we should go with the recent scholarly biography by Waugh. Rjensen (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen on this. Grant did have a trusting nature to him. That some how coincides with Christianity concerning faith. Grant however did not have spritual discernment when it came to dishonest men. Apparently Grant did not view men as a "fallen race" in terms of Calvinism. That doctrine was commonly preached in the 19th Century. That was good for the Indians because Grant believed their culture was worth studying when it was a common view that Indians were inferior. Cmguy777 (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen: thanks for tracking down the Waugh citation. I'll add that footnote to the article, so that we needn't have this dispute again in the future. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Here is his son's recollection of his deathbed baptism. There are many sources that confirm this. Longacre, who omits the deathbed baptism, says he was never baptized as a child. Longacre is a major source for this article, but I don't find him highly reliable. Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
? Being baptized unconscious on his deathbed, in old age, would in the usual course demonstrate no baptism as a child. Also, Longacre is not a major source for this article (3 times he is double sourced with another) and has very few cites generally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, Alan, but we can't make that synthesis. I'm just saying Longacre omitted the deathbed baptism, which casts a tiny bit of doubt on his assertion that Grant wasn't baptized as an infant. Longacre is a prolific writer, but I can't find that he's an academic. Yopienso (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Longacre is cited 6 times and is listed in under biographical and political sources. But, yes, you're right--overall he's not a "major source."
Response to your most recent comment: Correct; but you first said we could assume he wasn't baptized as an infant since he was baptized in his old age. Please don't nit-pick. Yopienso (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I did not mean to nitpick - I was merely pointing out when you said 'Longacre says he was never baptized as a child' - that that is consistent with being baptized as an old man (especially for Methodists). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
On the deathbed baptism: no one would baptize grant if he thought USG had been baptized as a child. The deathbed baptism was the wife's decisions & clearly she thought he had never previously been baptized. But whether it was as a baby or as an unconscious dying man, the baptism tells zip about USG's beliefs. I would go with "agnostic" from the sources we have discussed here. Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, if the deathbed baptism tells us anything, it's that he wasn't baptized until then. "Agnostic" is sourced, as is the non-baptism as an infant. I'd say to leave it at that. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
For comprehensive coverage it would be nice to know why Grant's religious mother chose not to baptize him, while the other siblings were. In any case I found two older sources that mention baptism, so we might want to say there are conflicting accounts on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe for the "Early life" subarticle, but not here. The article already gets flack for overlength, I'll not agree to add minor details without a good reason. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Arrrgh, this page length guideline is really self defeating. What you're suggesting is that all the comprehensive content for Family and early life, and all the missing items regarding Grant's involvement in the Mexican American War, boarding school, etc, etc, should not be added. Again, page length is a guideline not a hard policy that must be followed with no exceptions -- and again, there are other FA's that exceed this 'guideline', so if there is a consensus to go beyond this 'one-size-suits-all' guideline, I'd recommend we do so. Otherwise we're going to have an article that reads like a police report. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Until you showed up, there was a consensus to abide by the rules. I don't think you changed anyone's mind, but if any other editors disagree, I hope they'll chime in. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Right. Hopefully they'll come to realize that a well written article with good coverage is more important to the readers than a guideline (i.e.not a policy) that is sometimes not always followed in cases that warrant it. -Gwillhickers (talk)
If there are conflicting sources whether Grant was Baptized the best thing is to keep the subject out of the article rather then state he was or was not Baptized. Grant confessed he rarely if at all studied the Bible. Baptism at that time had more to do with his parenting, not with Grant. At West Point Grant resented to be forced to go to church and pray each Sunday. Getting into a theological discussion on Baptism is beyond the scope for this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, Cmguy; the unscholarly approach to this issue is dismaying. We can't take leaps of faith (WP:SYN) that since Grant was baptized in his old age he wasn't baptized as an infant. Neither can we leap to the conclusion that because his mother was a religious Methodist he was baptized as an infant. (My mother, for example, was a religious Methodist who thought it was wrong/pointless to baptize a baby.) The Grant Library says, "Ulysses S. Grant (baptized Hiram Ulysses) . . ." Was he really baptized? or just christened? or just named? We don't know. A baptismal certificate would give evidence he was baptized, but lack of one wouldn't mean he wasn't baptized. Apparently he and Julia thought he wasn't, but given the lack of closeness with his parents, he may not have truly known himself. Best to drop this question, as you say. Yopienso (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, that is an inappropriate understanding of WP:SYN. SYN is when you say something new in an article sources do not say. That he was not baptized as a child is therefore not SYN - modern sources say that. It is not the Grant Library that makes the parenthetical "(baptized Hiram Ulysses)" it is an 1898 genealogy book. The question of whether the 1898 book raises a substantive conflict, such as it should be reflected in this article is a matter of editorial judgment. Hiram Ulysses was his given name, and the genealogy book does not say he was baptized as a child. You're the one who raised his late-in-life baptism as relevant to this discussion - quite rightly. To the extent it is relevant, you now say it shows neither he nor Julia believed he had been baptized, which is of course consistent with him not being baptized as a child (and does not contradict the modern sources). Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Boarding school
Grant's father sent Ulysses to boarding school just across the Ohio River in Kentucky when he was in his early teens. While there he was often ridiculed by some of the other classmates because his father was an abolitionist. At this school Grant participated in a debate club and held several 'liberal' views concerning Women in society, slavery etc. I'm at the public library now, but when I return home I'll provide the source for that one. In any case, seems the article would do well if we mentioned that, under Early life (hopefully soon to be renamed 'Family and early life'). Again, this is the only article suitable to go into any comprehensive coverage of Grant's early and family life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There would need to be sources supplied for that information...Grant as President did sign legislation that gave women the right to their own property after a divorce. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Mexican American War
The Mexican American war topic needs more content -- currently this war is inadequetly covered, esp in terms of Grant's involvement. There is really no introductory statement for this War, which needs its own subsection to be consistent with the rest of the TOC. The existing opening statement is more like a detail that should follow an opening statement.
Proposed intro statement:
Grant served with distinction during the Mexican American war and quickly rose in rank for his bravery and distinguished service having fought many battles.
Also, mention is not given to the following:
Grant fought in every major battle of the Mexican-American War, save the Battle of Buena Vista. <Edmonds, 1915, p.60>
At Resaca Grant assumed command of his company when his captain was called away on another assignment where he took several prisoners after the battle. <Edmonds, 1915, pp. 56-57>
There is mention that Grant at Monterey rode on horseback delivering a dispatch, hanging off the side of his horse avoiding sniper fire, but we should also mention that he volunteered for the assignment. <Edmonds, 1915, p.58>
In August under General Taylor, Grant was appointed quartermaster and commissary of his regiment resulting in his being removed from battle for which he protested on several occasions. <Edmonds, 1915, p.58>
On Sept. 8 Grant was breveted first Lieutenant for gallant meritorious conduct at Molino-del-Rey. <Wister, 1900, p.xii>
On Sept. 13 Grant was brevetted captain for gallant conduct at Chapultepec and became a full Lieutenant on Sept. 16. <Wister, 1900, p.xii>
Sept 21-23 Cited again for gallant conduct at Monterey <Wister, 1900, p.xii>
There is much to say about Grant -- hundreds of books have been written about him, including the old-timey tomes you've found on the internet. If we include all of those details, the article will be much, much longer, and it's already criticized as being overlong. I know you don't agree with the length restrictions, but the rules are what they are. I suggest you try to build consensus to change the Manual of Style and the FA criteria, if that's what you want. For now, however, we must abide by the rules. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not a policy, it's a guideline, and allowances have been made for other FA's. If some reviewer makes a stink over page length at the cost of deleting or blocking comprehensive content, we should remind them of this. And since FA's must be comprehensive, not just a pile of generic cherry-picked statements, this should take priority over page length guidelines. Okay, that's all I'll say on the matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: All these additions could balloon the size of article out of control. I have been focusing on apparent inaccuracies and trying to fix them. We can't put in addition information because the article is at a readable size for the readers. This is not a book, but an internet article. In my opinion less narration allows focused content for the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus, Cmguy777, and Alanscottwalker: Reluctantly I have to agree. Because of this page length guideline, we are forced to leave a lot of important details out of the article. Yet at the same time we're supposed to give the readers a well covered in depth account of Grant's life. i.e.at least two important chapters are woefully and poorly covered: Early life and marriage, and the Mexican American war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I really wish you would leave the argument on the talk page and not bring it to FAC. Either you're an involved editor—which means you've contributed to the article and talk page—or you're a reviewer, which means you give a disinterested evaluation at FAC. Doing both just confuses everyone. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You're not helping when you initiate yet another argument. There are many times where involved editors, past and present, offer their opinion both on the talk page and at FAC. If that's confusing to someone, they shouldn't be involved here at Wikipedia, where attention span and intellectual capacity are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Opening statement
There are two very important and definitive items absent in the coverage of the Mexican American War. Coverage of this topic says nothing about Grant serving in almost every major battle, and nothing about his fast advancement in rank. The opening statement is lacking while overall writing style is almost nonexistent.
proposed opening statement : Grant served with distinction during the Mexican American war, serving in almost every major battle and quickly rose in rank for his bravery and distinguished service.
We should also at least mention that Grant volunteered for the task of delivering a dispatch through sniper fire. This will give the readers a better idea about grant's overall involvement in this war, without all the details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be an article titled Ulysses S. Grant and the Mexican-American War. The above information and reference sources could be used for that potential article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I found out about Grant's volunteering for the assignment in an older PD source. If this can be found in a contemporary source I'd recommend we add this important fact as it sheds much light on Grant's character. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Editor volunteer detente
Maybe this article needs Hamilton Fish to negotiate an editor detente. Including myself, I propose minimal editing be done until FA status has been achieved. The focus should be on FA article rather then adding additional details. I would hope FA status could be achieved as soon as possible. Thanks Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Partial agreement. Cm' how do you maintain focus on FA when we can't offer the readers a well written article on a number of topics?? As much as I am indifferent to a 'one-size-suits-all' page length guideline I am still mindful of article length -- but I wouldn't go so far as to say we can't add anything. If I'm not mistaken, you can't have a consensus to block the edits of other editors. You can have a consensus about specific content, etc, but you just can't block everyone. Seems that effort all by itself could easily render the situation very unstable. As I've said to Coemgenus, I have no intentions of making edits and am here in an advisory capacity -- but I'd be a bit more careful about the approach you and the two other active editors have consented to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. No one is blocking you from making edits. The FA review is even stating that the article is too large...FA is important...why can't editors work together to get FA status? Cmguy777 (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You didn't come right out and say 'block' but you certainly suggested this when you said "minimal editing be done until FA status has been achieved". There are some important facts still missing, not mere and secondary details, while the Mexican American War, an entire War that Grant fought every major battle in, save one, continues to lack a sub section, all the while single battles have their own sub-sections. No picture of Grant's wife, still. Of course, since coverage of Grant's wife is token and stuck in the middle of the military career and family section it would look a little odd there. Grant's hip injury, leaving him crippled for the remainder of his life. Still no mention of that. Grant advanced quickly in rank during the M.A. war. Still no mention of that. During this war Grant 'volunteered' to deliver the dispatch on horseback. Another important fact, still missing. These things can easily be covered with just a few words with no threats to page length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone objected to the family photo, and I'm happy to see it added. As to substantial additions or subtractions from the text, it seems we're all in agreement (with one exception) that it should stay the length it is. It would be the longest FA of a president by about 1,000 words, but I think the subject easily justifies it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Great photo! Also, we can make some additions without any serious increase in page size, and concern about comprehensiveness has already been expressed by another reviewer/administrators on the FAC page. Comprehensiveness is number 1. Page length is number 4. Again, allowances have been made when the subject warrants it, as does Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
We've gotten some more comments about overlength at FAC just now. I trimmed one sentence very slightly in response, but I'm reluctant to do more, lest we cut something important (not to mention re-opening all the old arguments). The third paragraph in the Mexican War section (the part about Grant's memoirs) was singled out again. Consensus here had been to keep it when I proposed deleting it a while back, but do you think we could tighten it up, at least?
I think this is not a make-or-break issue for us--we've gotten considerable support for the article at its current length. I just wanted to keep you all informed about FAC. I'm inclined to leave it basically as it now is. What do you folks think? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
no--the article is not overly long. He was a very busy person who did a lot of very complicated things and deserves the attention he is getting. The Mexican war section is handled briefly & his memoirs are the most important war memoirs in American history Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Rjensen. Also, it seems that too much of the focus at this juncture is getting FA status, rather than offering the readers a well covered biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it as is. Just wanted to pass on the FAC feedback here and make sure it got a fair hearing. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should add things or subtract anything until the article gets FA status. I believe the accuracy of the article is more important then quantity of edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There's really nothing wrong with the 'accuracy' of the article, and while emphasis should not be placed on mere quantity of edits it should however be directed at their comprehensiveness. For example, under Johnson's impeachment it says Johnson wished to replace Secretary of War Stanton, a Lincoln appointee who sympathized with Congressional Reconstruction. but doesn't say why he wanted him replaced. The statement about Grant delivering a dispatch hanging from the side on horseback avoiding sniper fire doesn't say he volunteered for the assignment. These are definitive and important facts and are just a couple of examples of the things being ignored why your focus seems to be mostly fixed on page length and rushing this article through. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Why Johnson wanted to replace Stanton is not very germane for this article, and can easily be explored in other articles - there was a political fight going on between the executive and legislature (grant found himself in the middle of it), and that is made clear and what matters. Nor does the fact that he volunteered make the dramatic ride any less heroic or much more informative. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You can say that for just about any detail in the article. This is an important detail and historical content and comprehensiveness shouldn't be neglected. Rather than have the reader hop to another page just to put that in perspective, we should and could say why with just a few words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If the statement is important, then 'why' should be important, as it led to Johnson's choosing of Grant to fill the position, per comprehensiveness, depth of 'know(ledge)' and historical background. Again, there are other examples where definitive facts are being neglected. Since this can also be added with just a few words we should try to make the article as well covered as is practically possible.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find your limiting principle here. There's more that can be said about everything. That's why we have links, subarticles, etc. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, more details can always be added -- likewise almost all details found in this article, esp involving battles, can be found elsewhere. The question that remains and which seems to be skirted here is 'which' details should we include. Many articles have a healthy amount of contextual overlap, so if a another article covers a detail, it doesn't mean we can absolutely not mention it here. Again, there are some definitive details not being mentioned, possibly in other articles also -- esp the ones about Grant 'volunteering' to deliver a dispatch on horseback through sniper fire, Grant fighting almost every major battle in the M.A. War, as well as the one about him quickly advancing in rank during this war. This war is where Grant was first recognized as a promising solder and commander. For the sake of comprehensiveness about Grant, 'the man and soldier', the article needs to mention these things, which again, can be accomplished with a few words in each case. As I don't have any contemporary hard texts on Grant himself I'm hoping someone who does will pick up the ball here and go with it. Don't think anyone would object. Last, we still need to place content about the M.A. War (i.e.an entire war) in its own subsection. It's a major topic Grant is wholly involved with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. If you haven't read any of the sources we cite, how can you discuss what the consensus of modern Grant scholarship is? How can you give directions on what "needs" to be in the article to those of us who have done the research? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that Grant was very involved with this war it was simply a logical deduction. Pardon me. Seems if you had done the research yourself you would have something more to offer here. Does the modern scholarship treat the topic such that it shouldn't get its own subsection -- OR NOT?? Will someone who actually knows what the consensus of modern Grant scholarship regarding Grant and the M.A. War please give us a straight answer? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
IF I had done the research myself? I've read all the major books and articles cited here, and so have the other major contributors to the article. And we've all agreed on the current format, as you can see from the answers we've made since you dropped in to this talk page. Let me make it more explicit: NO. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Gwillhickers...as far as bravery goes I would state let the reader decide...the article does state that Grant rode through sniper fire delivering a message...bravery would be infered from this information...As for Johnson...this article is a bit kind to him...Johnson was trying to destroy Grant's political career...and he was using the Stanton and Secretary of War interim fiasco to make Grant look deceptive in addition causing Grant to commit a federal crime by keeping the office of the Secretary of War. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that some books only lend themselves to Grant's role in the Civil War, not covering his personal life, role in the Mexican-American War, and terms as president, modern scholarship covers Grant's role in the M.A.War (referred to in Grant's day simply as the Mexican War) in better proportion than this article does:
A sample taken from modern sources used in this article:
McFeely, William S. (1981). Grant: A Biography: (unavailable for viewing on line) Used as a source to cite Grant's role in the M.A. War.
Also, in his memoirs, Grant mentions the Mexican War more than 50 times, mentions Santa Anna by name 15 times and refers to him indirectly numerous times. No one is suggesting we have subsections for various battles in this war, but it would still be appropriate that this war be given one subsection and not just passed over in the Military career... section. There are two paragraphs of content for this war in this article -- but no subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Civilian life section title
In my opinion Civilian life is not the best description for Grant's economic hardships between his early military career and the Civil War.
Every modern biography I have read on Grant has stressed his struggles as a Civilian...Grant was going from job to job and had to sell a gold watch to pay for Christmas presents prior to the Civil War...he was bailed out by his father in getting a job as a clerk in his father's tannery business. Those are the reasons I brought up the suggested title change. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Not everything in Grant's civilian life was a struggle, and to name the section accordingly would limit it to only those sorts of topics. I would leave the existing section name as is. It's more than adequate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
McFeely (1981) page 61 "Grant struggled ineptly, even pathetically, with the economics of farming." 05:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
According to McFeely (1981) page 61 Grant wrote in 1856 letter that he did not even have "a few dollars to buy any little necessaries, sugar, coffee, etc." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
According to McFeely (1981) page 61 Grant wrote in an 1857 letter that between April 1856 to February 1857 he made "a fraction over 48 dollars per month" cutting and selling firewood in Saint Louis. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Education is a thing that happened during Grant's early life, as it does for most people. Let's leave it as is. But the Talmudic parsing of the section titles is a great use of everyone's time, thanks. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree. It's understood that basic education most often comes before marriage and career. While we're on the topic, we might want to at least mention that Grant's father sent him to boarding school in Kentucky, just across the Ohio River from their home in Ohio. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I can leave as is...In my opinion the section titles offer more clarification and match the context of the article sections...also these were not major changes to the article...making the Grant article better is a great use of time... Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The United States Military Academy was a military college...I would call this higher education especially for Grant's time...his enrollment was merely by chance circumstances when another chosen cadet decided not to attend the academy. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Coemgenus, only about keeping the section name the same. It's understood that basic education most often comes before marriage and career. While we're on the topic, we might want to at least mention that Grant's father sent him to boarding school in Kentucky, just across the Ohio River from their home in Ohio. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I would sharply disagree with this proposed statement: Grant served with distinction during the Mexican American war and quickly rose in rank for his bravery and distinguished service having fought many battles. He for the most part did not have a combat role in the Mexican war; his bravery was incidental (He worked in the back and once volunteered for brief duty in which he was at risk. He certainly was involved in many battles but he did not have a fighting role; he handled the supply system; and he did not rise rapidly, he was a lieutenant until he was finally promoted to captain in 1853. On the other hand, he kept his eyes open and learned an enormous amount about how to organize an army. That knowledge did not affect the Mexican war, but it certainly did affect the Civil War Rjensen (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Given the number of times Grant was brevetted it would seem that he did rise in rank quickly, but then this is not always a permanent advance in rank. Okay, fair enough. Whether he was actually firing a gun in every battle or not, it is said he fought or participated in every major battle, save one. Seems we should at least mention that. And since the article does mention he delivered a dispatch on horseback through sniper fire, it would seem we should at least mention that he volunteered for the assignment. What say you? Your thoughts about giving this war its own subsection would also be appreciated, as there is two paragraphs devoted to the topic. In any event, thanks for providing a rational reply. (Same goes for you Cm'). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is no 'dead set' determination among a couple(?) of contributing editors not to add anything else until the article passes FA it would seem that some sort of opening statement is still needed for coverage of the M.A.War.
Revised proposal: Grant served with distinction during the Mexican American war, was brevetted twice for gallantry, participated in every major battle except Battle of Buena Vista and soon rose to the rank of full Lieutenant.
This will let the reader know how extensive Grant's service was during this war, and imo renders coverage about Grant's overall involvement much more comprehensive. Currently the coverage says nothing about Grant being brevetted at least twice, doesn't mention he participated in every major battle, save one, or that he advanced to the rank of Lieutenant. Again, the section doesn't say he 'volunteered' to deliver a dispatch through sniper fire -- a definitive and telling detail. Ultimately this content needs its own subsection, as this war is covered well in modern scholarship as well as in older sources, including Grant's memoirs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
