Talk:Ulysses S. Grant/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Reputation section

I am not the one who changed the reputation section Gwillhickers. It has been hastily written with little thought and only one sentence has been referenced. Grant is too important of a man to have unreferenced sentences in his reputation section. Every sentence I have referenced. I think this can be fixed. There was no discussion as to a summary paragraph. I prefer the old section to the one now. I did not revert the section because I think it can be fixed. Maybe a little more discussion would have helped before such a major change in the reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like an edit war has been started. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

All the ideas were taken from the original section and the original sources were used. As it turns out one was wrong.i.e.Brands, p.45, since corrected. Don't know how that got in there, or by whom. We're trying to keep this a summary. We discussed the summary and at no time did you say you had intentions of adding all of these details, volumes of content, not touching on reputation that you piled into the section with not a word of discussion about it. There was a general statement that Grant's nomination was a given, but instead of leaving it tagged you removed that. The general statement about 100's of sources and historians was removed. Foner doesn't say this verbatim but he certainly demonstrated it with his discussion of all the historians. In a apparent fit of indignation you removed that too rather than tag it. All of this without discussion. You have provoked the edit war. Now you added things touching on reputation, finally, but please let's keep the section a summary as much as possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The section is about historical reputation and historians pov. You have the section starting of with a statement about the funeral, which has nothing to do with the historical assessment of Grant's performance. Is this statement which you tagged, then removed, not supported by Foner, 2012?

There are hundreds of historians and biographers for Grant whose accounts of his reputation and performance in military and presidential affairs have varied considerably over the years. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Foner says nothing about hundreds of historians. He says historians are intrigued by Grant's contradictions and paradoxes. The funeral is about Grant reputation, one and a half million people showed up in New York City. I have no way of verifying that number. Bauman was the source. You put in a paragraph and expect all editors to fall in line. It was your idea for this change Gwillhickers. I don't want an edit war, but by removing the previous version it opened up a pandoras box of opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Foner speaks of many historians with varied views. No, he doesn't say "hundreds", but one look at our bibliography would support that. I believe we're allowed to make general statements of obvious fact if supported by the text and there is consensus. The funeral has noting to do with historical assessment of Grant, but that's your choice for an opening statement. Neither did many of the statements you just stuck in there with no concern for chronology, or spelling. We discussed the summary in Talk. You wandered off elsewhere and among other things made the silly comment about the article not promoting pov -- in a section that covers historians assessments. (!) I'm sorry, but that was just complete nonsense. I made every attempt to discuss matters, first, and even said if there are no objections I'll add the proposed summary, which you had nothing to say about, so please don't hand us still more nonsesne about me expecting editors to fall in line. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't put words in Foners' statements that are not there Gwillhickers. "Hundreds" is not there. Chronology is not required in a reputation section. But, his funeral is a statement of his reputation at the time of his death. He was popular, then racist pro Southern Dunning School takes over in the 20th Century who hate Grant. Interesting on Foner, he always describes how others feel, but he himself fails to make direct statements on Grant. Foner in some ways complicates Grant's assessment. Honestly, I don't like the way you wrote on Grant military history using Brands. Bonekemper is a much better source on Grant's military history and reputation. A lot of Bonekemper was kept out of this assessment. I have attempted to keep the article chronological. First talking about his Western War Department experience and then his Eastern War Department Experience. Editors apparently want a war on Grant's reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My statements were general, so I don't quite know what you mean when you say you don't like the way I write using Brands, a source used in the original section. During the mediation we once participated in (re: Gen.Order#11) we spoke of historians in general, and used three sources to support the statement, yet none of the sources spoke of historians collectively, yet you agreed to the collective citation. In like manner, we can do so here, as there's obviously hundreds of sources for Grant. Your last statement is yet another false accusation. No one here has any content dispute over Grant's reputation. What's at issue is your dumping in all sorts of statements not directly connected with Grant's reputation, like his funeral, and other 'minutes' of the war, after a summary was proposed with no objection from you about its length or inclusiveness. You had plenty of opportunity to chime in, but waited until the change over was made. Now you've added all sorts of details, that are much better suited for the Historical reputation article, not a biography. The section was far too big to begin with, now you're inflating it all over again, regardless of the dedicated article, made up of text from the original section. You saw we were trying to reduce the size of the section here with a well rounded summary without a lot of specifics, and even tried to discuss it, which on that note you avoided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My edits using reliable and neutral sourced references were chopped to pieces. Statements made by Bonekemper and Simon were selectively edited from the article because these edits were neutral and positive toward Grant. That is POV from other editors and by removing these edits it created an edit war. Editor POV is being inserted into the article making Grant look like a second rate general and a third rate president. We don't really know what Foner's opinion is of Grant because he only talks about the works of other authors. You made the summary edit without any discussion of what you were going to put in the summary. You made sloppy edits in a presidential article with out references you said Foner said "hundred of editors", misreprenting what Foner actually said. Grant's reputation section is the most important part of the article for an underrated and battered President. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did discuss the summary, and posted it in Talk, and asked if there were any objections. The original summary was a simple paragraph that related both the negative and positive historical POVs in simple generic terms. It favored no pov from any historian, as you're doing now with Bauman and Bonkemper. Your current version, this time, starts off with two negatives. i.e.Grant criticized as a drunk, and Grant criticized for reconstruction by historians sympathetic of the Confederacy, as if none of his 20th century biographers were of the north. Grant was also hailed during the 20th century for both his military achievements and his attempts at reconstruction. Your two opening statements doesn't tell you that. And we are not supposed to paraphrase the sources. Foner speaks of many varied sources. I said hundreds, which is an obvious truth.

You said you didn't want to get into an author v author tug-a-war, but this is exactly what you've initiated, first with your stint about Foner v Brands and issues with Simon v McFeely, and now you're complaining that we don't use Bonekemper enough, but fail to point out what exactly he says that none of the others haven't. You also complained that Simon was not a biographer, then just now complain that his view has been "selectively edited from the article", but typically you fail to say how. You have turned this whole affair, which started with a simple summary, into a convoluted ordeal. None of this came out during talk before the summary was added to the section, even after I asked if there were any objections. Then you used the article to make numerous statements having nothing to do with reputation, and when they're removed you come back again and add more. Now we have a section that's more than a page long with lopsided opening statements. Please don't speak to me about sloppy edits in a presidential article, esp with habitual and continuous misspelling, which you've been reminded of by several editors many times.

Your first paragraph is sourced almost entirely by Bauman, a source with no page numbers. The second is almost entirely sourced by Bonekemper, yet above you speak to us about author pov. Empty talk. There are no sources from White, Smith and only one by McFeely and one by Brands, sources used extensively throughout the biography. This section needs another rewriting. I've tagged this section. It is skewed and doesn't reflect positive assessment in the 20th century, and concentrates too much on Grant's presidency in the opening paragraph, and elsewhere. Since you and I are 'best friends', all over again, we should let Coemgenus and perhaps ASW come up with a summary we all can live with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

New summary needed for section

I propose we let a neutral editor come up with a more neutral summary, esp in the opening paragraph. It needs to be sourced proportionately with sources used the most in the biography. i.e.White, Smith, Brands, McFeely, Simpson and Bonekemper. Others sources are welcomed in corroboration of the main sources. We need to stay away from repetitive citations that that don't provide page numbers. Since this has been turned into a controversial and peckish matter the summary should not be long winded and speak in simple overall terms, with details left to the dedicated article, where it can be balanced out with more details if needed, which was much of the intention for the dedicated article in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Cmguy777: The two opening sentences need to be addressed immediately. Would you please balance them out and mention that Grant was also favorably viewed in the 20th century, esp for his military record? If you would also mention that many historians, like McFeely and Waugh, claim Grant's alleged excessive drinking is largely unfounded, consistent with your edit of May 18, then I'd have no issues if you removed the pov tag. Perhaps from there we can move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It was your idea to have a summary in the first place. It is not my responsibility. You know that Gwillhickers. I have been trying to make the best of it. Catton viewed Grant favorably in his works on the Civil War. We are not suppose to mention historians in the summary, as you requested. This summary can be worked on and fixed. It was the lack of discussion, and in my opinion, the lack of cohesion of your original summary that is needed to be being cleaned up. More editors could help such as Coemgenus and Rjensen if available to edit. I am not against a summary edit if it is done right. It should be done without mentioning biographers or other authors. That is what the article is for on Grant's reputation. Let's end the edit war and have a truce. This can be worked out. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest keeping Simon in tact because he gave a good summary of Grant's presidential reputation. We can work on his military career reputation and his general historical reputation overall. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

My other suggestion is to work on one paragraph at a time starting with the beginning paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested summary outline:

1 ¶ General reputation

2 ¶ Military reputation

3 ¶ Presidential reputation

4 ¶ World Tour reputation

5 ¶ Closing statements Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe appealing to Rjensen is the way to go. Meanwhile we at least need to square the opening statements. They give the impression that Grant was regarded as something of a boggy-man throughout the 20th century. The opening statements should reflect the basic premise of the edit you made May 18, while mentioning Grant's 20th century favorable Civil War assessments. After this is done, and the POV tag removed, we can appeal to Rjensen to look at my summary and your presentation and have him write up a summary for the section we all can live with. Meanwhile let's bring 'some' stability back to the section. A plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I gave an outline plan. I don't want an edit war. Either Rjensen and/or Coemgenus is fine. I have already edited the first and second paragraphs to give a better assessement of Grant's multiple reputations. I have not mentioned biographers or other authors by name. Stability is good. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to come up with a summary for you guys today and see what you think of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine with me. We have adopted a format not to mention historians or biographers by name, saving that for Grant's historical reputation article, in an effort for neutrality. I made an outline of what the summary should cover. I have made edits to the summary. Since 2001 there have been three major Grant biographies, Smith, Brands, White. A new biography by Chernow is expected in October 2017, so that would make four in the last 16 years, or three in the last five years. There is renewed interest in Grant, that could be mentioned in the closing. My own impression is that scholars and biographers, except McFeely and Foner, are praising Grant, and the historians who participate in Presidential polls, are still somewhat resistant to give the Hero of Appomatox a better presidential rating. I think a certain Grant negativity still lingers out there, but the ice is certainly breaking. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. The section, though longer than it should be, imo, looks better. Coemgenus at this point should write the summary, ideally taking Cm's, mine and his own ideas into consideration. I've never had any issues about covering the downside on any individual, so long as none of the major facts and important context have not been distorted or ignored. Yes, for a summary it's best not to mention any particular historian for reasons mentioned above. I'll remove the tag. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note on general statements. Even though there are indeed hundreds of sources for Grant, ironically, I'm hard pressed to find a source that spells this out, in what ever wording. I do know editors are allowed to make general and common knowledge statements without requiring a source, so long as the statement is supported by the text, has consensus, and is not likely to be challenged by another editor. With this in mind I'm hoping we can relate the idea that there are very many and varied sources on Grant in the opening sentences of the summary, as this is indeed a summary/section covering Grant's reputation and the many sources that cover it. e.g.The are 100's of sources..., or, There are a great many sources... We dealt with a similar situation once before during the meditation Coemgenus, Cmguy777, ASW and myself partook in back in 2015. We were trying to source the statement "Historians' opinions on Grant's motives vary." Though we couldn't find one source that spelled this out, we were in possession of a number of sources whose accounts did vary, so we simply made the statement in Wikipedia's voice and cited several sources whose assessments did vary to support it. Our mediator, Kiethbob, allowed it also. In like manner, it seems we should be able to make a similar obvious statement, supported by the text, not to mention Grant's bibliography, in regards to a general statement about the many sources that exist for Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It is appropriate to use the wording, historians or scholars. The article on Grant's reputation will name the specific scholars and historians giving the reader their actual names. I think every article on Wikipedia needs to allow a certain amount of editor liscense, not original research or point of view, but rather words that fill in the gap and create interest for the reader. For the interest of compromise, I apolgize for anything mentioned during the edit war that was said in haste or carelessly on my part. The 1960's reference of Grant the general making a come back is refering to Catton's Civil War Centennial works that cover Grant and for his book Grant Takes Command. I used Bonekemper over Brands because Bonekemper specifically addresses Grant's reputation as a general compared to Robert E. Lee's repuation as a general. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Historians is the best term to use, and of course biographer, where it's appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Here it is. I think this is a fair summary of what we had before:

Proposed summary for Historical reputation section

General Grant National Memorial, known as "Grant's Tomb", is the largest mausoleum in North America, and one of the largest in the world.

Main article: Ulysses S. Grant historical reputation

Hundreds of historians and biographers have written assessments of Grant's performance in military and presidential affairs, and very few presidential reputations have shifted as dramatically as his. Hailed across the North as the winning general in a great war, Grant's nomination as president seemed inevitable. His popularity declined with congressional investigations into corruption in his administration and Custer's defeat at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. After leaving office, Grant's reputation soared during his well-publicized world tour. At his death, he was seen as "a symbol of the American national identity and memory", when millions turned out for his funeral procession in 1885.

Later, commentators and scholars portrayed his administration as corrupt; as the popularity of the pro-Confederate Lost Cause movement increased early in the 20th century, a more negative view of Grant became increasingly common. Bruce Catton and T. Harry Williams began the reassessment of Grant's military career in the 1960s, shifting the analysis of Grant as victor by brute force to that of successful and skillful strategist and commander. William S. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for his critical 1981 biography that credited Grant's initial efforts on civil rights, but lamented his failure to carry out lasting progress. In the years since, historians' opinions of Grant's presidency have improved considerably, appreciating Grant's protection of African Americans and his peace policy towards Indians, even where those policies fell short. By the 21st century, Grant's legacy has become more widely appreciated. Most recently, Ronald C. White continued this trend with a biography that historian T. J. Stiles said, "solidifies the positive image amassed in recent decades, blotting out the caricature of a military butcher and political incompetent engraved in national memory by Jim Crow era historians." --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

End summary

This is way too general of a summary for Grant. I like the outline format I gave. I also thought no names were going to be mentioned. Again we need to focus on Grant, not his biographers. Grant's popularity did not decline from the scandals. That is a myth. Let's promote history. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, given your response, I'm assuming Coemgenus presented this unsigned summary. While I prefer that no names be mentioned, I see no pov at issue. However, this is the Historical reputation section, and 'Reputation' is indeed the central theme here, so biographers and historians are naturally in the forefront of the narrative, which is not to say the focus is not on Grant. At least we have a good variety of sources mentioned. A general summary is what we want, since we have a dedicated article now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to discuss the man's historical reputation without naming any historians. Catton and McFeely, especially, shifted the way their entire profession looks at Grant. Talking of White, too, made sense to me as a representation of the most recent scholar to write a major Grant work. And yes, it's a summary, not the entire historiography. The whole thing is in the new sub-article and this section follows the summary style guidelines. Would it make you feel better if I mentioned Smith, Simpson, and Brands among the historians whose opinions of Grant have been more positive? I think it could be done without adding more than a few words. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Foner does not say "Hundreds of historians" in his book review on Brands. He says historians are intrigued by Grant but does not give specific numbers. The names of the historians are given in the references. It is not about "feeling better". That is not history. McFeely is obviously anti-Grant and does not think much of him. He is more in line with Lost Cause assessement of Grant. Does Wikipedia or its editors support the Lost Cause ? I don't. The article on Grant's reputatation actually names the biograpahers and authors. I attempted to edit a summary that is neutral on Grant. Once you start naming names of scholars it becomes a trial of Grant. Historians serve as "witnesses" and "judges" "prosecutors" or "defenders" of Grant. I wanted to avoid this type of summary. The modern assessment of Grant is much more positive then the above section. Historians are abandoning the Lost Cause view of Grant. Why can't the Wikipedia article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you doubt that there are hundreds of books about Grant? We don't need a citation for something that is obviously true. As to McFeely being a neo-confederate, I don't know how anyone could possibly believe that and we've explained to you many, many times why this is not so. It is tiresome to continue to explain how a liberal who thinks Grant didn't fo far enough on civil rights is not somehow the same as Lost Cause anti-civil rights historians. They are literally opposites. It takes a startling lack of reading comprehension to still believe this. Do you have any source that suggests that interpretation of McFeely, or is it your own fringe POV? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not made a count of how many books have been published on Grant. If Foner said "hundreds of historians" then I am for putting that in the article. He did not. The sentence is being referenced by Foner. That is why I use the generic term "historians" rather then state how many historians. Foner did not state how many historians. As for McFeely, it is not my POV. It is White (2016) who links McFeely to the Lost Cause in his prologue the last paragraph on page xxiii and the first paragraph on page xxiv. The Lost Cause says Grant is a drunk butcher. McFeely says "I am convinced that Ulysses Grant had no organic, artistic, or intellectual specialness." That view is in line with the Lost Cause view of Grant being a loser. White (2016) on page xxiv prologue said he believed Grant was an exceptional person and leader. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Believing Grant to be mediocre, as McFeely did, is not even close to making McFeely a member of the Dunning school/Lost Cause group. He dislikes Grant for completely opposite reasons! Read the definition of the Lost Cause from our own article on the subject: "a set of beliefs, common in the white American South, that describes the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. The beliefs endorse the virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the American Civil War as an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life, while minimizing or denying the central role of slavery." Does that sound like McFeely? No. Which is why you couldn't find a source to back up your assertion. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to argue McFeely's view on Grant. I gave a sourced reference above White (2016). Did you read the paragraphs ? McFeely did not say "mediocre" in the quote I gave. If McFeely is so concerned about Civil Rights, there is not one ounce of criticism concerning Andrew Johnson in his book on Grant. Johnson did everything he could, legally and illegally, to defeat Congressional Reconstruction. He says Grant did not do enough, but no criticism of Johnson. There is no cause of slavery mentioned of the Civil War in McFeely's book. I suggest we forget McFeely for now and concentrate on getting a compromise summary of Grant's reputation. I think we should stick to the format I gave, but feel free to read through the current version and make changes. I have tightend the narration to three paragraphs and issues in the outline I gave are addressed. Bonekemper is a strong source for Grant's reputation as a general. Most of Grant and Lee refutes the Lost Cause myth of Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Catton and McFeely wrote ground-breaking works that changed the way we look at Grant's life and legacy. I happen to agree with you about McFeely being overly harsh on Grant, but to leave him out because we personally disagree is to ignore the major events in Grant historiography in favor of our own feelings. There's no way we can justify a historiography section that ignores the most influential (and Pulitzer Prize-winning) book on Grant. It is the epitome of POV-pushing. You say Bonekemper is a "strong source." Why? Because you agree with him, not because his schaolarship is especially influencial (it's not). I'll await other editors' comments on the draft before saying any more on the subject. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought it best if no historians were mentioned, but in light of Coemgenus' reasoning it now seems best we should. He has used the names in a chronological and factual manner, has employed a good variety of sources, has not advanced any pov, and has done so in a concise and summary capacity. The opening statement is also fine. Once again, there doesn't seem to be a source that spells out the idea of 'many historians over the years' but this idea is supported very well in the sourced text of this summary, so that should not be an issue. Support the latest summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The above summary mentions nothing of Grant's Presidency, his reputation as a general, nor his world tour. And now Gwillhickers is flip flopping on using names of biographers. McFeely's view on Grant is outdated and negatively biased. McFeely's work was response to Catton's positive view of Grant as a general, a no no, if you hold to the Lost Cause view. Nothing groundbreaking there. Winning the Pulitzer only sells more books. Bonekemper demolishes the Lost Cause in his work on Grant and Lee but it is ignored. I have to give a Do Not Support to Coemgenus's summary as written above. I don't want another edit war either. Can't some compromise be reached ? Grant's reputation as soldier, president, and world diplomat are a must for his reputation section. Bonekemper is a strong source because unlike McFeely his research and analysis verify his findings and conclusions. I suggest more input on Grant as soldier, president, and world diplomat. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to restate the whole article. It was far too long before out of an attempt to satisfy every constituency. I'm glad Gwillhickers brought up the idea of spinning off a sub-article, it's something we should have done long ago. I'd be glad to hear criticism from other editors who have worked here, too, including User:Alanscottwalker, User:Yopienso, or anyone else who happens by here. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Cmguy777's claim that the summary says "nothing of Grant's Presidency, his reputation as a general" is ridiculous. The above summary mentions Grant's nomination to the Presidency, and refers to his administration, three times!! The summary also refers to Grant as the winning general, and a skillful strategist and commander, and "the reassessment of Grant's military career in the 1960s" (!!??) so I don't how in the world these claims are made. I originally opposed using names because of the author v author Cm objected to, but then turned around and perpetuated, several times. But as I explained, given Coemgenus valid points about ground breaking accounts, etc, it seems like a good idea, esp since he has not advanced a lopsided pov. Coemgenus' summary is well written and is a good compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I use White (2016) and Campbell (2016) in my summary, current modern research. None of those authors are reflected in Comegenus's version. 1981 is a long time ago. I remember it very well. There was no internet. People used line phones for the most part, probably a few rotary phones too. High tech back then was using a modem or fax machine. Atari was popular. Need I go on. McFeely was groundbreaking for 1981. The summary should reflect modern research and not be stuck in the past. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Cmguy777's claim that the summary says "nothing of Grant's Presidency, his reputation as a general" is not true. Now we're seeing even more digressive, argumentative and endless talk. McFeely "outdated"? We're supposed to cover reputation, past and present! The above summary mentions Grant's nomination to the Presidency, and refers to his administration, three times!! The summary also refers to Grant as the winning general, and a skillful strategist and commander, and "the reassessment of Grant's military career in the 1960s". It also mentions Grant's reputation regarding "his well-publicized world tour", (!!??) so I don't how in the world these claims are made. I originally opposed using names because of the author v author Cm objected to, but then turned around and perpetuated, several times. But as I explained, given Coemgenus valid points about ground breaking accounts, etc, it seems like a good idea, esp since he has not advanced a lopsided pov. Coemgenus' summary is well written and is a good compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• I would also invite @Rjensen and TheVirginiaHistorian: to evaluate Coemgenus' above summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to help --let me know when you're all ready. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, RJ. -- Some back ground: The original section was very long, some three pages (+ -) so we moved it to a newly created dedicated article with the idea of replacing it with a summary. After much disagreement between Cmguy and myself over a replacement summary we finally agreed to let Coemgenus come up with the summary, posted above, and simply need a few more opinions before we add it to the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What I want is modern research in the article White (2016) and Campbell (2016). The summary in the article now was mostly written by myself. I also think McFeely (1981) is outdated. McFeely himself said he did not think much of Grant. That raises a whole bunch of questions why he wrote his biography on Grant. The Lost Cause did not think much of Grant either. I think there is room for compromise if other editors are willing. Any input Rjensen is welcome on the matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

As anyone can see, almost, the above summary covers historical assessment of the distant past, past and present. Jim Crow historians are "outdated". Shall we not mention them either? Shall we rename the section Modern opinion on Grant? Five of the above sources in the summary are dated after 2007. White is also mentioned by name. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What good if White is mentioned by name but what he says in his book is ignored ? I thought we were going let Rjensen put input into the summary. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

McFeeley is the $#1 choice in citations by scholars==356 books and articles since 2001. (and 75 since 2013) https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mcfeely+grant&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C27&as_ylo=2001&as_yhi=2017 versus 24 for Brands, 124 & 97 for the two books by Simpson, 137 by Smith, 58 by Waugh, 20 for Bonekemper. Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Dr. Jensen. I didn't realize Google Scholar could be used that way, but it confirms what I was getting at before about McFeely's massive influence on Grant scholarship. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. I am not sure that is a good thing. Why are scholars neglecting modern research on Grant ? Three of the last biographies (Smith, Brands, and White) on Grant have been either pro or neutral towards Grant. There is new research on Grant being an ambassador to the world during his world tour and Campbell wrote a whole book on Grant's world tour. The next biography is by Chernow due out in October 2017. Whether that is pro or anti-Grant I don't know. But I think the summary should reflect new research of White and Campbell. I don't think we should ignore the comprehensive analysis of Bonekemper. McFeely still has a lot of sway among scholars. Maybe its the Pulitzer. Maybe there is an inherent bias against Grant in scholarship. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to Rjensen. He has confirmed what most of us know to one degree or another, that McFeely has impacted modern research greatly. Coemgenus was right to mention McFeely in the summary, which also offers a good representation of other sources, while covering past and present assessments on Grant, for both his military and presidential life, and his world tour and death, and in a general summary fashion. Now that there's a dedicated article, editors are free to write at length about the lesser details there. We should wait for at least one more assessment from editors before deciding to add the above summary to the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Have then White and Campbell, two distinguished historians, been relagated to the sidelines ? No one has even addressed this issue. This is an optimal time for a compromise summary. Should editors only read McFeely as the end all source of Grant ? No. Wikipedia rules is that reliable sources can be used in the article. Relying only on McFeely creates neutrality issues particulary concerning Grant's reputation. Historians who are breaking away from the Lost Cause are giving Grant better ratings. Both Simon and White question and/or confront McFeely's negative view of Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence in the draft is about White's book. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There are no references used from White's or Campbell's books in your summary Coemgenus. That what the summary needs and I included them in the summary now in the article. It's an empty sentence. White talks about McFeely and the Lost Cause. Why is there such resitance to using modern reliabe sources and research on Grant ? That is very perplexing. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

White talks about the Lost Cause myth and he talks about McFeely, but he does not say that McFeely is a Lost Cause man. As far as I know, no historian makes that claim. Probably because it is ridiculous to equate neo-abolitionism with neo-Confederatism. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What's also ridiculous is the claim that there is "resistance to modern reliable sources", when most of your references are from 2007 and after, as was already mentioned, with a definitive statement about White, 2016, sourced with yet another reliable modern source, Stiles, 2016. The summary is fine. i.e.Inclusive of historical assessment, past and present. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. Let me cut to the chase. There certainly is resistance to modern sources who are pro Grant. I would call that editor bias. A simple request for White and Campbell to be included in the summary as references is being ignored. White talks about the Lost Cause and then his next paragraph is on McFeely. One can interpret the two to be linked in that both McFeely and the Lost Cause are negative toward Grant. White is Grant's biographer, not Stiles, and White is excluded. McFeely a so called "liberal" does a very light touch on Andrew Johnson, who did everything he could to defeat Reconstruction, then McFeely makes Grant the villian because he did not do enough to complete Reconstruction. That promted Simon's retort then who could ? Campbell devotes a whole modern book on Grant's world tour, not even mentioned in the summary. Editors have been free to edit on the summary currently in the article. I don't want to keep repeating myself. It would not take much effort to add Campbell and White as actual refernences in the Grant reputation section as a compromise. Will there be a compromise ? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And Sarna wrote a whole book on an Order Grant gave. People are going to write whole books on aspects, so your point with Campbell makes little sense. As for White, he is discussed in the proposal, which looks like a "compromise" to me. Will you compromise? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Campbell's book on the world tour is interesting, but not especially influential in Grant scholarship. I understand that you like Campbell and Bonekemper's books but it should not surprise you that, as non-academics, they do not have a ton of influence on the scholarship generally. As to compromise, I offered to mention Smith, Brands, and Simpson as among those who contributed to improving Grant's image more recently, but you ignored me and ranted about Andrew Johnson instead. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Coemgenus. This is editor control of an article. Editors can't pick and choose was references to use from scholarship influence. That is not wikipedia policy. That is POV. Wikipedia policy is to present neutral articles not censor reliable authors such as White, Campbell, and Bonekemper because these authors are pro Grant. I don't support making any article an outlet for the Lost Cause, a proven faulty theory of the Civil War. I ignored you ? I did not rant about Andrew Johnson. I said McFeely gives Johnson a light touch, who did all he could to destroy Reconstruction, while he attacks Grant for not doing enough for Reconstruction. My rant was against McFeely. You are excluding White and Campbell as references in your current summary. My compromise is to put these authors in as references, not just mentioning their names. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Add citation for White. I just did it so, done. No, on Campbell. Neither are we adding Sarna here, (who wrote a whole book on an Order), nor Perry (who wrote a whole book on Grant's memoir). Finally, your claims regarding the proposed text and NPOV are utter nonsense, and are completely rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought this discussion has gone relatively well. I appreciate the addition of White. I also appreciate that my edits are currently being allowed in the article. I am swimming upstream here. Maybe it is time to bail out. Go ahead and add the summary. I take nothing personal here and I hope any comments I made are not taken personally. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The drinker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It would be a real service for whomever will work on the reputation article, to deal in detail (NPOV, of course) with the "alcoholic" reputation. [1] [2]. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, one of the links you offered, the history net, has an article whose title seems a bit pov'ish, i.e."Ulysses S. Grant’s Lifelong Struggle With Alcohol", which more than suggests there was a problem. Most of the sources I've come across acknowledges that there were no bonafide instances of Grant staggering about drunk and disorderly, and that most of the rumors of excessive drinking came from jealous enemies, and disgruntled and/or enterprising reporters, while McFeely, the one who's supposed to have this overall negative view on Grant, says that he's been falsely stereotyped by modern media. I've no doubt Grant drank, and 'got mellow' from time to time, as did many soldiers of his time, esp with the weight of war and battles on their shoulders, or because of prolonged loneliness. We must remember that anyone 'at the top' automatically gets a bull's eye painted on their back. Having said that, I've no problem with outlining the facts, such that they are, and how they've been received by historians, past and present. However, we should do it with reliable published sources, ones used extensively in the biography, and stay away from high profile media sources aimed at People magazine and National Enquire readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

the cites by Alanscottwalker are a good start--the standard study is Dorsett, Lyle W. "The Problem of Ulysses S. Grant's Drinking During the Civil War." Hayes Historical Journal 4 (1983): 37+ online at http://thebeerbarrel.net/threads/the-problem-of-ulysses-s-grants-drinking-during-the-civil-war.18145/ Dorsett is a leading scholar. he states: "It is my thesis that Ulysses S. Grant was an alcoholic. Furthermore, his alcoholism had a profound effect upon his generalship. " Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Profound? In what way? Grant was primarily responsible for winning the war. Bear in mind, given some of the modern mindset, even gambling is a "disease". Asking a woman for a date in the work place is "sexual harassment" in the eyes of some individuals. Subjective speculations aside, was McFeely wrong to say Grant was wrongfully stereotyped? It would seem assessment of Grant's drinking is indeed largely the product of speculation, even among scholars who possess no crystal ball at this late date, and esp since there are no accounts of Grant walking around pie-faced. This of course is not to say Grant never in his life tied-one-on to the point of ineffectiveness -- but at the brink of battle? There are just too many witnesses that say otherwise, e.g. at the battle of Shiloh. Given Grant's well established character, it doesn't seem likely that drinking impacted Grant's generalship, his decision making, at least to me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Dorsett makes a very good case. Grant took risks because he had nothing to lose. Rjensen (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to lose? Like the Union he loved dearly? No concern for the fate of family and fellow officers and soldiers? A heartless drunk? Generals have always made sacrifices. Remember, Grant put his life in harm's way, in spades, during the Mexican war when he volunteered to ride through sniper filled streets to get help, stopping to assist the wounded. This assessment just doesn't add up, imo.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledging that the drinker reputation is a very real strand of scholarship, regardless if any Wikipedia editor likes it, is still the issue. It would therefore be a service to cover it directly in depth in the reputation article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

yes: no status to lose personally. Instead of imagining the article's contents and trying to refute it, I recommend people here read the article--it's really quite good. Rjensen (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the drunkenness angle is certainly one that people have talked and written about for a long time now, and should be explored in depth in the sub-article. Let's approach it with an open mind and try to summarize the sources. (We should probably continue this conversation on that article's talk page.) --Coemgenus (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gilded Age

Is there a specific date when the Gilded Age began ? I think that that article needs more clarifiation on the time line and definition of the Gilded Age. Did low moral values in the American people cause the Gilded Age ? Was Grant the only Gilded Age president ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I redefined the Gilded Age and added historians debate on how much Grant could have stopped the corruption. Used White (2016) as references. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

See the Gilded Age article, the first sentence of which suggests "from the 1870s to about 1900" as a timeframe. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The term was not used until 1873. It must refer to events that took place before 1873, such at Black Friday in 1869. Mark Twain was not a historian. It is a literary term he invented. I used White (2016) to redefine the term emphasizing extravagance and unethical behavior. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I see some books which give the date as 1877, which is the year Reconstruction ended. But it's possible to have two eras going on at the same time. It's usually not possible in history to pinpoint an exact date in which one era ends and another begins. One of the characteristics of the Gilded Age was corruption in politics, and that was definitely a feature in Grant's administration. So I'd certainly say it was part of American life before 1877. Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Questionable source about drinking

The new source and citation [66] recently added to a statement, one already sourced by White, 2016, is sort of second rate, compared to other reliable and recognized sources. Lyle W. Dorsette has not written any books about the Civil War, much less one on Grant. His specialty is urban history. For some reason, he has zeroed in on Grant over a speculative controversy that most other sources have not made any conclusions over, including McFeely and White. They, and as far as I know, no other sources, goes as far as to call Grant an "alcoholic", much less claiming that drinking had a "profound effect" on Grant's military capacity. Dorsette's article, upon close scrutiny, is actually an opinion piece. It presents no facts in support of a "problem" or of being an "alcoholic", and is filled with a lot of tangential conjecture about what alcoholics are, how they were viewed in the 19th and 20th centuries, etc. Dorsette makes several conclusive statements, but not once has he qualified them. Example. Dorsette claims :

"Furthermore, his alcoholism had a profound effect upon his generalship.".

Where is this profound effect evident? Dorsette offers no example. We know rumors of drinking at Fort Humboldt caused Commander Buchanan, a rival of Grant, to give him an ultimatum of resigning or face court martial. But how did drinking have a "profound effect" on Grant's generalship? Dorsette fails to say. Grant won the first major victory for the Union by taking forts Henry and Donelson. Could someone, even half drunk, have seen those campaigns through to conclusion? Grant then went on to Shiloh and won that major battle, after facing a serious setback on the first day of the battle. He then went on to win the Vicksburg campaign, which lasted six months. Again, could a drunk have saw that long and grueling campaign through to conclusion? There was also other major battles Grant saw through, not to mention Appomattox. Where was this "profound effect"? Dorsette actually torpedoes his own article with this statement:

"Grant did not have a drink the moment he put his feet on the floor each morning, and inasmuch as he could go
for weeks, even months, without taking a drink, his admirers could not really believe that he was an alcoholic."

If Grant was truly an alcoholic, he would have needed to drink every day, and more than just once a day. There are many people who drink everyday, esp in countries like France, Ireland and Germany, where wine, beer and spirits are part of their culture. And how easy would it be to single one of them out and spin stories about their drinking, esp if they were in the public eye and had many jealous rivals ready to perpetuate the rumor? That was actually Grant's only "problem". I've no doubt Grant drank to excess on one occasion or another, like many non alcoholics, but to call him an alcoholic is not only a leap to a conclusion but a distortion. Grant was never seen drunk, i.e. incapacitated or disorderly. Dorsette may have a Phd, but that by itself doesn't cut it. We should not use sources that link to website opinion pieces, esp when they don't offer any facts to support subjective conclusions. With all due respect to Rjensen, I'm not sure why he felt the need to use an opinion piece as a citation, when there are many other recognized sources on Grant to use. Imo, this is not a reliable source for Grant. If we 'must' corroborate White, 2016, we should do it with McFeely or Brands or Smith, etc.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: this is not a continuation about reputation, but a discussion about reliable sources used in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't argue with the RS. Our job is to report what they say. Dorsett is a leading scholar on American culture in the era and wrote a major scholarly article in a major scholarly journal. It's not an "opinion piece" see Dorsett, Lyle W. "The Problem of Ulysses S. Grant’s Drinking During the Civil War," Hayes Historical Journal vol. 4, no.2 (1983): 37-49. online He gives far more in-depth attention to the issue than anyone else. Dorsett puts Grant in the category not of "drunkard" but of "alcoholic" and uses 20th century scholarship on how alcoholism affects people. Gwillhickers thinks that "alcoholism:" means doing a lot of drinking and often being drunk. Not true. It means a person who is pulled toward alcohol but cannot handle it well. The point is that Grant had a strong urge to drink and could not handle liquor very well when he did drink. all RS agree on that point. Dorsett explores how Grant knew he had a major problem and made serious efforts to overcome it. For example he joined & became an officer of the Sons of Temperance, a group like today's AA. Grant made solemn pledges to stay dry: that's what alcoholics do then and now to overcome their problem. Dorsett focuses on Grant's enormous efforts to overcome alcoholism and shows the intense drive helped shape his determination in military decisions. Dorsett's credibility is verified by other scholars citing his work such as E Longacre, Farina and Rafuse and Simpson. Rjensen (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Dorsette may know about 19th century culture, etc, but he is not an expert on Grant. If Grant could not handle drinking well, and if he had drank as frequently as some would have us believe, it would have panned out somewhere along the line and there would be at least one bonafide example of Grant acting drunk and disorderly. There's not one such account, and he was always surrounded by military people. Remember, editors decide what RS's to use. There is no official list of reliable sources that we must blindly use without question, and having a Phd doesn't automatically qualify one as such. If Grant did drink as much as they say, given his record, I'd say he handled it very well. However RJensen, since you have not added a statement to the narrative, calling Grant an alcoholic, I can live with the added citation if others can. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should apply 20th Century or 21st Century standards of alchoholic drinking on Grant. Dorsett maybe correct in his assumption on Grant and Alchoholism, but we are applying his standard of alcholism on Grant. White suggests that Grant inherited alchoholism from his grandfather Noah as does Dorsett. That it did not take much alchohol to get Grant drunk. He also says alchohol did not affect Grant while he was on duty. Grant may have had a few drinks off duty, how impaired he was is speculation. He may have fallen off his horse a few times. Could those incidents been alchohol been related? Potentially. But they did not have sobriety tests for drunken horse riding, as far as I know, in Grant's time. A few times alchohol may have affected Grant during the war, but it did not have anything to do with the actual battle of Shiloh. He was sober enough to rally his troops. Shiloh turned out to be a victory on the second day. That would be the closest incident where alchohol may have affected Grant's judgement. But again that is all speculation. His drinking at Fort Humbolt forced his resignation from Buchannan. That is talked already about in the article. Grant was the most successful general of the American Civil War. Was he drunk when he out foxed Robert E. Lee at Cold Harbor, slipped accross the James, and laid seige to Petersburg ? It is not that Dorsett's assessment is incorrect, it is applying alchoholic standards that did not exist during Grant's times. The Dorsett article was written in the Fall of 1983 in a Rutherford B. Hayes website. Is Dorsett biased towards Hayes and anti-Grant ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree on some points. There are cases where a sobriety test is given and a person is found to be "drunk". It doesn't matter if that person can hop around on one foot, do cart-wheels and recite the Magna Carta, the person is still 'considered' to be "drunk". With that in mind, we may indeed be using 20-21st century views when we try to assess Grant's so called "problem" with drinking. Imo, given his military performance, Grant had no "problem" and handled any drinking he did very well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers said Grant had no "problem." I think the historians are agreed he had a major problem and overcame it. 21st century moral standards are not at issue. Dorsett says Grant's 19th century body reacted exactly the same way 20th century bodies react. There is a very good collection of excerpts by historians online at https://web.archive.org/web/20060113172733/http://www.mscomm.com:80/~ulysses/page51.html and a good collection of quotes from 19th century contemporaries at https://web.archive.org/web/20060113175234/http://www.mscomm.com/~ulysses/page47.html Here's a leading scholar: McPherson: But even when the myths have been stripped away, a hard substratum of truth about Grant's drinking remains. He may have been an alcoholic in the medical meaning of that term. He was a binge drinker. For months he could go without liquor, but if once he imbibed it was hard for him to stop. His wife and his chief of staff, Rawlins were his best protectors. With their help, Grant stayed on the wagon nearly all the time during the war. If he did get drunk (and this is much disputed by historians) it never happened at a time crucial to military operations." (McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom. 1988, pages 588-590). I am also struck by the analysis by H W Brands (p 73): Army practice allowed for officers who drank, but not for those who couldn't hold their liquor." I think Grant realized that his career depended on his ability to overcome his intense craving for liquor; Dorsett says his overcoming of his alcoholism made him a much better general. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That's another discrepancy with Dorsette's account. He says drinking had a "profound effect" on Grant's gereralship, but then turns around and says Grant overcame it and became a great general. Grant was several times accused of drinking, while a general. i.e.Accused by Hallack during Fort Donelson, and by others during the battle of Shiloh. It would be easier to accept Dorsett's account if there wasn't a contradiction here and he explained this "profound effect" drinking had on Grant's generalship. However, I can accept McPherson's account, that Grant was given to drinking here and there. Grant's wife Julia wrote memoirs also. Does she have anything to say on the matter? I'll check. Being protective of her husband, perhaps not. We'll see. In any case, as I said, Grant may have taken to drink, but to what extent, how often and to what effect, has largely been exaggerated by Grant's rivals, disgruntled reporters (e.g.at Shiloh), etc, which is where many of the accounts come from. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the problem: Dorsett wrote "Furthermore, his alcoholism had a profound effect upon his generalship" and Gwillhickers has twice mis-stated this as 'drinking had a "profound effect" on Grant's generalship." Wrong. Heavy "drinking" is one thing (and Grant never had more than a few drinks) and "alcoholism" is something else. We know far more about the difference in 2017 than people did in 1857. Alcoholism is a condition that involves a) he has a powerful urge to drink and b) he cannot hold his liquor--gets intoxicated quickly. Grant had alcoholism and that was a huge problem that would destroy him--he fought back hard over many years and thereby learned how lecles of self control that other generals did not have. Rjensen (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• From Julia's memoirs: 1, 2 -- Albeit a cursory search. Don't quite know at this point if this clarifies matters, or just adds another round of inconsistencies in the accounts on Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"All of us here are 21st century Wiki editors and our culture tells us that alcoholism is a medical condition--the 19th century standard was that a) alcoholism and frequent drunkenness were identical and b) they were caused by moral weakness and c) moral weaklings should not be generals. Wiki editors are NOT using those debunked ideas. The idea that Grant was a strong decision-maker because he fought so hard for so long against a serious condition that threaten to destroy him is not a fringe viewpoint. I strongly recommend people read Dorsett closely for his explanation, which has been accepted by Bonekemper, McPherson & others. Bonekemper p 252 asks "what made him such a successful general?" he answers himself: "Grant's battle against alcohol problems may have made him not only a better man but also a better general." Bonekemper p 252 quotes McPherson: G's "predisposition to alcoholism may have made him a better general. His struggle for self disciplined enabled him to understand and discipline others; the humiliation of prewar failures gave him a quiet humility that was conspicuously absent from so many other generals... Because Grant had nowhere to go but up, he could act with more boldness and decision and commanders who dared not risk failure." Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Grant was an alcholic in that he was genetically predisposed to alcholism from his grandfather Noah. Grant was a successful general and at times a successful twice elected president. How much did alchohol have an effect on his life as a whole is speculative. Buchannan did not have any way to test if Grant was drunk or depressed at Fort Humbolt in 1854. Field sobriety testing did not exist by police until 1981 in the United States. We can say Grant was drunk, but what was his blood alchohol level at Fort Humbolt. We don't know. Grant fell off horses a few times during the Civil War and injured himself twice. Was he drinking ? There was no scientific method to test Grant's drunkness. That is why I think Grant should not be judged by modern standards that did not exist until 1981. Dorsett was a Hayes historian. Is it unquestionable that Dorsett is biased against Grant and favorable of Hayes, who abstained from drinking ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

After two or three drinks Grant had all the slurred talk and other physical characteristics of drunkenness--same in 1817 as in 2017. Not being able to hold your liquor was "unmanly" and unacceptable in the U.S. Army. I think historians are unanimous that Grant was drinking often out in California, and every account says that he could not handle his liquor. Blood-alcohol tests are not the issue. The 2017 medical literature does not say much about people strongly disposed toward drinking who stay sober, who overcome that temptation and do not drink. They do not show up in the police arrests for drunken driving. But they do show up winning battles on the battlefield, because Grant mastered the art of self-control in a highly challenging environment. Grant was seldom drunk both because of the self-control, and because his wife and top aides were extremely vigilant. General William Farrar Smith, Grant's top engineer, wrote in his autobiography: "I found that Rawlins, aided by some of the staff, were unceasing in their watch of Gen. Grant and their efforts to keep him from being tempted to drink. His appetite was such that if he tasted a drop his desire became uncontrollable till he had sufficient to satisfy him.... it was perfectly understood that if anyone of us saw Gen. Grant walking in the streets we were to join him and stay with him until he went home or went to his office. This was to prevent him from diving into some low drinking places and getting imprudently filled with vile liquor. The first time I ever saw Grant intoxicated was on the night of Sherman's arrival at Chattanooga (Nov-14-1863) where he himself brought out an placed upon a table... a bottle of whiskey from which Gen. Grant drank... after a time, Gen. Grant came in very drunk. " (William Farrar Smith. Autobiography of Major General William F. Smith. (Morningside: 1990), pages 108-109.) Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

edit break

Grant earned his reputation for drinking at Fort Humboldt, and even then, it's largely the stuff of rumors, and those rumors, true or not, were perpetuated by rivals and others. As for any bias against Grant here, per Dorsette, it's difficult to ascertain this unless the writer comes right out and says he was e.g. a "monster", as Finkleman did regarding Jefferson. Doresset doesn't speak in that capacity, however, it appears to me he's reading more into matters than were actually there when he flat out refers to Grant as an "alcoholic". He qualifies it, yes, but in such a way that actually undermines the term "alcoholic", esp in the way the naive reader may chose to interpret that term. Bonekemper indeed says Grant's "predisposition to alcoholism 'may have' made him a better general", but I believe Grant already possessed the character that made him perform and act as he did. There's a lifetime of facts to support that. It would seem that character is what made Grant use alcohol in a measured and discretionary manner, and certainly not at the brink of battle. Grant sometimes drank, as Smith mentions in his autobiography, a singular account, but not in a way that was foremost in what shaped Grant's character and decision making. I have no doubt Grant was seen 'over the legal limit' at one time or another, but not in a frequency that's suggested by some accounts. Grant's military track record more than substantiates that idea. The modern definition of "alcoholism" aside, let's not forget the basic facts that surround Grant, coming and going. He was a competent general 99.99% of the time. Given that fact, how serious was Grant's "problem" after all? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

all historians agree it happened. the RS emphasize it was a "problem" that bedeviled him all his adult life and actually did destroy his military career when he was forced to resign in 1854--He was a miserable failure in civilian life for 99% of the next seven years. So how did he turn himself around? He overcame his terrific handicap by enormous effort, which the biographers say deserves our attention. Ignore his achievement? No real problem--anyone could have done that...It's like asking an athlete at the Special Olympics whether they really have much of a problem if they can compete in international competitions so well. Every biographer makes a big deal out of it-- Brands brings it up to 11 times in his biography Smith does so 20 times and Simpson under the heading "drinking (real and rumored)" has 30 different pages that consider the issue. I suggest we follow the reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What sources say Grant was had slurred speech ? Was Grant really unsuccessful as a "drunk"? He ran his father-in-laws plantation and supervised his slaves. He created business for his father's business. Grant was not rich, but he kept his marriage together. He never was homeless. He had enough resources to build a house. His "log cabin" home Hardscrabble was his Julia's father's idea, not Grants, who wanted to build a standard framed house. It's true Grant hit rock bottom selling his gold watch at Christmas, but it was to buy his children gifts. It is true drinking put Grant in a position of forced resignation at Fort Humbolt. Buchanan had every right to court martial Grant, but why did he give Grant a choice to resign? That has been addressed in the article. Apparently there was some turn around with Grant and drinking prior to the Civil War. We can't apply the modern standards of sobriety testing including breath analyzers to Grant. There were no modern treatments available for Grant's alchohol problem. Is there a proposed addition concerning Grant's drinking in the article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"two drinks of a couple small swallows each was as much as he ever ventured upon a sitting, and even this small quantity would slur his speech." Harrison Terrell, Grant's valet. (Charles Ellington. The Trial of U.S. Grant, 1852-54. Glendale: Arthur Clark, 1987, page 170); as for St Louis--the scene went from bad to worse: Smith p 95 "He looked desperately for work. He was behind his rent, could not meet the families daily living expenses, and was going deeply into debt to maintain a semblance of a normal lifestyle... Grant was disconsolate... He was shabbily dressed, his beard was unshorn, his face anxious, the whole exterior of the man denoting a profound discouragement at the results of his experiment to maintain himself in St. Louis." Bruce Catton writes: "desperate, he sold the farm, taking a cottage in St. Louis in part payment. There he went into a partnership in a real estate office. The event quickly showed that whatever US Grant might be fitted for, selling real estate and collecting rents did not belong on the list... In 1860 Grant was driven to unconditional surrender....Now he was 38, he had three children, debts, no income and no prospects; and he went to Jesse Grant and asked for a job." Catton US Grant in the American military tradition. Rjensen (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Grant wanted to leave Fort Humboldt and return to Julia and an infant son whom he had never seen yet -- his life was hardly destroyed. Buchannan in his report never mentioned anything about drinking. If it was something to speak of, something more than passed on (and embellished?) rumor he would have said so it seems. However, I have little doubt that Grant was part of the "drinking culture" among officers at the isolated Fort. I also don't recall any accounts that drinking is what made Grant a failure in business. They say he just wasn't business minded and had hard luck. This is nothing amazing and not uncommon among farmers and common folk. Grant was out in the fields tilling soil along side his slave. Hardly someone with an actual drinking problem. There are a number of accounts, about McClelland, Hallack, reporters etc, that spread the drinking rumor around in cases where Grant was surrounded by witness who say otherwise, and who rigorously defended him, as he was concerning the events before and during Shiloh. If Grant's "problem" was of any consequence, he would have been roundly opposed for promotion, at least on one occasion, and would have not been an outstanding general. Those are the facts -- all else seems to be speculation and supposition. I will say this -- the 'idea' of alcoholism was more of a problem for Grant than his actual drinking, such that it was. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Two drinks, I take that is whiskey, since that is a pretty strong drink. Then Grant had slurred speech. He can't hold his liquor. Maybe the article is not emphasizing Grant's poverty enough in St. Louis, but was his condition caused by drinking or the desperation that comes from poverty. Is all this boiling down to some addition to the article, such as a note that Grant by modern day standards was considerned and alcholic ? Apparently he was able to keep from drinking, but not all the time. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

our job is to report what the RS say and the recent biographers each give one or two dozen mentions in their biographies. I think the argument that he learned how to overcome adversity from overcoming his propensity to drink (& not hold his liquor) has been embraced by numerous RS and deserves full treatment. The key statement for me is Brands p 73: the Army tolerated drinking but it did NOT tolerate any officer who could not hold his liquor and Grant certainly fell in the "can't hold it" category. Rjensen (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Then how was it that they "tolerated" Grant?? Grant's performance, supported by the (very) many facts, seems to contradict that notion. Again, there are no accounts of Grant being intoxicated to the extent that it got in the way of his military performance, per his advancement in rank. However, we should acknowledge that Grant was found of drink, as were many officers in his day (and no doubt our day) and that he had to keep it in check at various points in his life, which he handled very well. I will leave it to your better judgement to come up with a statement that reflects Grant's drinking, but one that also reflects the idea that it was something that never got in the way of his military career -- the very same career that 'saved the Union' and got him elected president, twice. Rumors by rivals is also an idea that should not be glossed over. Sherman had to deal with the same sort of descending rumors. When he said that it was going to take 200,000 troops to fight the Confederates in the Western theater he was deemed by some individuals to be "insane", and thereafter many (esp in the press) 'piled on' to that rumor, which he, also, overcame with his performance. Preponderance of facts have this way of getting in the way of exceptions, speculations and assumptions from afar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

None of the RS I have seen tells what Washington knew about Grant's behavior in California. His achievements after the Mex war were pretty routine, and his promotion was perhaps "routine" in a day when lots of talented young officers were quitting the Army (like Sherman and McClellan did, also Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson and Henry Halleck )--they needed captains. The point I would like to make from the RS is that the "problem" helped shape his personality--no other serious explanation has been offered that I know of for what McFeeley calls his "remarkable degree of self-confidence" (p xiii). As for rumors, wiki editors have to trust in the RS to decide what to put in the article. the RS know all about rumors and nasty personality conflicts. Rjensen (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the RS authors all know more about Grant than we do--they spend years writing these books, which are then edited and reviewed by other experts. That's what makes them reliable in the first place. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Insert: Many of those reliable sources speak of rumors and jealous enemies and meddlesom reporters who had (have) a well established reputation for lies and exaggerations. Sherman and others were the victims of false reporting. Some reporters we arrested for it, or for tipping off the enemy. Some of those reliable sources offer varying accounts. As usual, we present the facts, per reliable sources, and mention the varied opinions. i.e.There's not one account of Grant actually being seen drunk, disorderly, or hung over before a battle, etc. What they do emphasize is promotions, one after the other, and a man who was largely responsible for ending the Civil War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a proposed addition for the article ? Harrison Terrell, Grant's valet said that it took two drinks for Grant to have slurred speech. That would mean that Grant was an alchoholic in the sense it did not take much for Grant to get drunk. We need to leave room for the reader to think. A neutral article allows readers to come to their own conclusions about Grant. Are there sources that say Grant overcame alchoholism ? We don't know how often Grant was "drunk", and as a whole, his drinking did not affect his ability to fight in the American Civil War. It did not affect his ability to serve as President for two terms. It did get him fired from the military at Fort Humbolt. It would help if there was a proposed addition to the article that has sources so editors can review. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, rumors of drinking are what got Grant fired, and by a commander who heard of the rumor second hand, and who was a rival of Grant who had past issues with him, and who, for some reason, didn't include allegations of drinking in his report. He probably didn't want to commit (perjure?) himself and simply had the record indicate that Grant resigned of his own accord. Allegations made by disgruntled or enterprising individuals, and copy cats like Halleck who piled on to give needed weight to their other complaints, seem to be the common denominator behind nearly all the rumors, which is the context we should include in any statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Gwillhickers, Grant admitted he was drinking at Fort Humbolt. He said his resignation had to do with his drinking, if I am interpreting his statement correctly. Buchanan would have court martialed Grant if Grant did not resign. That is why I said Grant got fired. Rumors and gossip might have some truth to them. Grant was second in command at Fort Humbolt. Maybe Buchanan saw Grant as a rival and wanted to get rid of him. I think it is better to say Grant was an alchoholic, rather then a drunk. He made efforts afterwards to abstain from alchohol. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The article already says Years later, he said, "the vice of intemperance (drunkenness) had not a little to do with my decision to resign.. No one seems to know to what extent Grant drank in terms of being drunk, and again, Buchanan didn't mention it in his report, which, for someone giving ultimatums to resign or face court martial, seems a bit odd. All we can do is speculate about that, along with everything else. Grant mentioned his drinking at Fort Humboldt in his memoirs, and it's the only mention. Evidently, rumors of Grant's drinking at Fort Humboldt are what dogged him for the rest of his military career by rivals who had to play on incidents in the distant past to get over on Grant in the present (Civil War). There is the case referred to by engineer William Smith, per his autobiography, but that was an exceptional event it seems. I'm sure Grant like many other officers had a few drinks, even one too many, from time to time while off duty. Is this the only basis to the idea of Grant being an incorrigible alcoholic? Again Grant's promotions and continued performance are ample evidence that any drinking he did was incidental and while off duty. McFeely says Grant was falsely stereotyped, and other sources say rumors were spread by jealous enemies and reporters. Let's be careful not to take 2+2 and try to present it as 100 as they did. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Buchanan gave the option of resigning with no mention by anyone, or a court martial that would go on his record and if found guilt would be a very bad public humiliation. Brands p 73 Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Court martials are designed to humiliate. Buchanan never said why he did not pursue a courtmartial, as far as I know. John C. Frémont was arrested in California 1847 and dragged accross the country to face a courtmartial by General Stephen W. Kearney for insubordination, probably unfairly, Frémont had formed the California Battalion during the Mexican American War and spurred on the California revolt in 1846. It was likely Kearny was jealous of Frémont. There was a dispute over who would be California governor, had nothing to do with alchohol. It would not be surprising of Buchanan was jealous of Grant, who was second in command at Fort Humbolt. Why Buchanan let Grant off the hook is unknown. Had Grant been courtmartialed he probably would have been marched accross the continent to face courtmartial in Washington D.C. Had Grant been convicted, he probably would not have been allowed in the Army when the American Civil War started. If Grant admitted to drinking at Fort Humbolt, then he did drink. That is a self confession. Maybe Buchanan did not have enough damaging evidence to convict Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Drinking/rumors

The discussion has been interesting but at this point I'm not sure why were going through all of this. The article already makes a good number of statements on this topic, and we have among the several sources, Dorsette:

• While serving at Fort Humbolt, Grant was bored with little to do and upset at being separated from his wife Julia, he began to drink heavily.<Dorsett essay><White, pp.118–120; Encyclopedia of the Mex'War, p. 271>

• Years after Grant's departure, gossip widely persisted among Army officers of Grant's drinking, however the idea was often exaggerated by jealous enemies, while the evidence remains elusive.<McFeely, p.; Catton, p.68> Years later, he said, "the vice of intemperance (drunkenness) had not a little to do with my decision to resign.<Smith, pp. 87–88; Lewis, pp.328–332>

• He made several efforts through his professional contacts, including Major General George B. McClellan, who refused to meet him, remembering Grant's earlier reputation for drinking.<Flood, p.43>

• Three days later Halleck followed up with a postscript claiming "word has just reached me that...Grant has resumed his bad habits (of drinking)".<Groom, pp.138, 143-144>  Lincoln, regardless, promoted Grant to major-general ...

• In response to allegations of Grant's drinking, his staff officer, William R. Rowley, maintained that "The man who fabricated that story is an infamous liar". Other witnesses claimed that Grant was sober on the morning of April 6.<White, pp.224-225>  Lincoln dismissed Grant's critics ...

Seems we've covered the topic well, with an acknowledgment by Grant himself of his drinking at Fort Humboldt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a new section on drinking

I have a suggestion on the drinking question. 1) we have a separate section on brand spanking, that includes the scattered information we now have. The resignation episode should also have a section on drinking has a cause of resignation. All the biographers give extensive attention to the question, from dealing with it from 10 to 30 times in their books, and we have a major scholarly study by Dorsett. The popular image of grant as a drunkard is quite strong, and I think many readers will expect coverage in Wikipedia. [“Ulysses Grant drunkard” turns up thousands of citations. I think the section should include the following points: 1) Grant at the time, and since has a reputation as a drunkard; and that reputation was often used by his political enemies during the Civil War. Longacre says “Many of the anecdotes on which his reputation as a drunkard were built are exaggerations or fabrications….That said, Grant became inebriated on too many occasions.” Longacre says it was “alcoholism.” 2) Grant was never a heavy drinker and cannot be called a drunkard. 4) Grant was never drunk in the course of making any military decision. 5) Grant was in modern terminology an alcoholic: his body had an incessant demand for alcohol. The drugs to overcome addiction that medicine uses today did not exist at the time. 6) “Definition - an alcoholic is a person, while alcoholism is the illness. An alcoholic suffers from alcoholism. Alcoholism is a long-term (or “chronic”) disease. Alcoholics are obsessed with alcohol and cannot control how much they consume, even if it is causing serious problems at home, work, and financially.” Cite http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/157163.php 7) grant’s wife Julia and close friends and especially his top wartime aide Rawlings realized the problem early on and tried to protect him; He apparently never had a binge episode while they were around. 8) Grant recognized that he had a problem, and said so. He explicitly mentioned in connection with his army resignation. White reports that Grant said "I have become convinced that there is no safety from ruined by liquor except by abstaining from it altogether" so he joined the Sons of Temperance. He pledged never to drink & organized a Sons Lodge at his barracks--White p 105. 9) he was a binge drinker – many drinks at one sitting-- and often drank alone. 10) he had no outside hobbies or activities even Congress and no conversational skills; he was extremely lonely when separated from Julia. Drinking was a solution for this. 11) Grant could not hold his liquor -- two or three drinks of whiskey made him intoxicated, with ruddy face and slurred speech. 12) the Army tolerated heavy drinking off-duty; drinking on duty was an offense; being intoxicated on duty was a court-martial issue. Army customs disparaged a man who could not hold his liquor. 13) a major point introduced by Dorsett and endorsed by Longacre, Bonekemper, McPherson, Farina and others: Grant work very hard his entire life to overcome his weakness. The argument is that his intense focus proved successful . There are no reported episodes while he was president or on the world tour-- when the news media was watching very closely. Biographers have noted “his remarkable degree of self-confidence enabled grant to make a very great Mark in the terrible American Civil War” (McFeeley p xiii), and Dorsett provides an explanation that is solidly based on the scholarship and will provide a fresh perspective for many of our readers. Rjensen (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I agree that it's a major issue that all Grant's biographers address, and I think it should have a larger section in the historiography sub-article, but I think we already do well here to address specific accusations and incidents within the flow of the narrative when they happened. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That section is inadequate and hagiographical. Which, I suppose, I should say there as well as here. YoPienso (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

it's very hard to split up the 13 main points in chronological order with a sentence or two here and there--for example the key point #13 (willpower rejection of liquor) took place over decades and apart from 1854 the drinking episodes were not especially important. Rjensen (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think there is too much speculation, possibly unintentional original research, involved in applying modern medical information on alchoholism to a 19th Century President. Grant was off duty when he was found "drunk" at Fort Humbolt. If it was okay for an officer to drink off duty, then why did Buchanan threaten Grant with a courtmartial or forced resignation ? Also, from Rjensen's information, Buchanan then was upset because Grant could not hold his liquor, not because he was drinking. It was being "drunk" that upset Buchanan, not that Grant was drinking. If there is a source that says Grant by modern standards was an alchohilic and that he abstained from drinking to keep from being intoxicated I don't have a problem with that being added to the article. I don't think a whole new section is necessary. Smith says Grant did not drink when he went to a bars with a friends in St. Louis. Grant knew he had a drinking problem. There is an inherant problem with the military protocol of allowing officers to drink, but don't get drunk. Grant was not a very big man, and alchohol would have more of an affect on him. Is there a source that says Grant was an alchoholic ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Dorsett says Grant was an alcoholic. Here is a one sentence note proposal: "Historian Lyle Dorsett in 1983 said that Grant was an alcoholic binge drinker, who could function amazingly well without drinking for extensive periods of time." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That makes it sound like one guy 35 years ago thought Grant was an alcoholic. Grant had a drinking problem, and this article should be unequivocal on the matter. YoPienso (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely right YoPienso, Dorsett "one guy" 35 years ago said Grant was an alcoholic binge drinker. Historians debate the extent of Grant's drinking or alcoholism and how it affected his life. That is the problem with this issue is that it is hard to sort out all the differing opinions on Grant and drinking intermixed with modern information on alcoholism and military policy that says drink but don't get drunk. The above sentence is accurate and reliable. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any historian who doesn't say Grant had a drinking problem? I didn't think this was actively debated. He did. He talked about it himself in his memoirs. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, but we see one or two editors here trying to obfuscate the issue and paper over the very real problem Grant struggled with. YoPienso (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Historians are not always clear like Dorsett, who just came out and said Grant was a binge drinking alcoholic. I was addressing Grant as an alcoholic, without the negativity associated of being a "drunk" or the Lost Cause. The extent of Grant's alcoholism is debatable and speculative. I am not against calling Grant an alcoholic in the article. I am not obfusating the issue or papering over Grant's alcoholism. If Grant is viewed as an alcoholic, without endorsing the Lost Cause view of the Civil War, Grant's presidency and Reconstruction, in the article, then I have nothing against that. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion: While most historians accept Grant was an alcoholic, the exent of how much his drinking problem affected his military and political careers, and public-private life, is debated. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideas for statements

Alternative suggestion: While most historians accept Grant was an alcoholic, the exent of how much his drinking problem affected his public, political, and military career is debated. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is no official designation for "alcoholic", which is a subjective term that has a wide variation of interpretations. It can mean, one drinks every day ,excessively; one has more than two drinks a day; one drinks occasionally on a binge, or that one is a falling down drunken slob. Best to refer to it as the biographers do. "Drinking". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• This seems to be getting blown way out of proportion. Most if not all biographers address Grant's drinking in passing, per other topics associated with it, like Fort Humboldt, rumors perpetuated by Halleck after the fall of Fort Donelson, and rumors at Shiloh, perpetuated by a disgruntled reporter who was expelled by Grant from the district after the battle and who retaliated by 'piling on' to the old stand-by rumor of drinking. None of them have committed a chapter to the incidents and resultant rumors. Likewise, we don't create an entire section based on the opinion of one or two sources -- who offer no new facts, but lots of conjecture, embellishments and opinions. We should do the same, mention drinking in context, per topic, which we already have. We are giving this topic way too much weight, and based on speculations from exceptional and inconclusive facts when Grant was in California, alone and away from wife Julia and a child he had yet to see. Grant had a problem with drinking in California, however, if Grant's "problem" was that much of a factor in later years the army would not tolerated him during the Civil War, they would not have given him commands, one after the other, and he would have been roundly opposed for promotion, which never happened. We already have at least five statements for Grant's drinking, and we now say it effected his performance while at the fort in California. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, can you offer any alternative to my proposed suggestion ? That would help. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

While most historians accept that Grant took to drinking during his early military career in California, the exent of how much his drinking affected his public, political, and military career is debated, as the evidence remains elusive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a start. A reference would be needed. One thing I would like to mention is that Grant is not on trial. We don't need to present this as a court case. Dorsett said Grant was an alcoholic. We can't ignore that. I think most historians accept Grant had a drinking problem. Dorsett says Grant was a binge drinker, meaning he drank occasionally, but it did not take much for Grant to become intoxicated. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

McFeely, Brands and Smith cover this. "Binge drinker" makes it sound as if Grant just up and went off and pickled himself, as if some awful calamity fell on his shoulders all at once. Grant had a "problem", alone in his room and apparently at the Paymaster's desk -- yet the account there doesn't say he messed up the pay meted out to soldiers. Keeping facts and figures and names in order requires a certain amount of sobriety. So how much drinking did Grant do at that juncture really? It seems that a scornful Buchanan, given a second hand account, seized the opportunity to get over on Grant who was longing to 'get out of Dodge' to begin with. Buchanan chose not to nail the allegations down in his report, apparently not wanting to commit in the face of Grant's fellow officers and others who said he (re)acted too harshly over a minor incident. However, there must of been an occasion where Grant indeed had 'one more for the road' when his duty wasn't on the line. That's not to say he ever fell over. As RJensen points out, per Dorsette, this entire trial caused Grant to face the music and helped him to strengthen an already innate sound character. When Grant returned home after resigning he was active in a church organization and lectured about the misgivings of drinking. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

re how much his drinking affected his public, political, and military career is debated,. Not much debate in 2017. I think historians are agreed: 1) he never made a major decision while under the influence. 2) his enemies (like Halleck) hurt him badly through repeated attacks on his "drunkenness." 2a) I added mention of its use in the 1868 election campaign. 3) his popular reputation into recent times = drunkard. (Ike said he thought so, for example. Perret biography 1997 p 432 says " Just as surely as the one thing that Americans know about Grant the soldier is that he was a hopeless drunkard") 4) we should add the argument of Dorsett -McPherson etc that his long-term battle against the powerful urge to drink built up a very strong personality charateristic that made him a much better general. Rjensen (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Now: can we get it down to one or two sentences? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

a couple of paragraphs will do the job. The article has lots of topics that people can read or skip. Rjensen (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems like overkill, considering how much we already discuss it. Or did you mean to cut all of the in-context discussion of drunkenness in favor of one section on the topic. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's try this: 470 words in one paragraph:

Grant's drinking Grant’s critics in the army, and in politics, repeatedly stressed that he was a drunkard and therefore unsuited for high command. The reputation continues to persist; biographer Geoffrey Perret noted in 1997 that “the one thing that Americans know about Grant the soldier is that he was a hopeless drunkard". Historians are agreed he was not a drunkard-- he was seldom drunk in public, and never made a major military or political decision while inebriated. However he could not hold his liquor-- a couple of drinks would slur his speech. Much more important, he could never shake a profound longing for alcohol, especially when he was lonely and separated from his family. It troubled him all his life, even though he knew it was damaging to his career. His wife Julia, and during the 1860s his top aide John Rawlins worked indefatigably to keep him away from the bottle. They succeeded – his binges happened when they were not around. Biographer Edward Longacre says “Many of the anecdotes on which his reputation as a drunkard were built are exaggerations or fabrications….That said, Grant became inebriated on too many occasions.” Longacre and numerous modern historians have concluded he was probably an alcoholic in terms of craving liquor. The issue was how well he could control himself. The Army tolerated heavy drinking off-duty, but it did not tolerate drinking on duty, and being inebriated on duty was a court-martial offense. American notions of maleness at the time said a person who could not hold his liquor was not a real man. Grant knew he had a problem, saying "I have become convinced that there is no safety from ruined by liquor except by abstaining from it altogether." He was joined the Sons of Temperance and pledged never to drink. Biographers have emphasized how “his remarkable degree of self-confidence enabled Grant to make a very great mark in the terrible American Civil War”. Historians led by Lyle Dorsett have argued that Grant worked very hard his entire life to overcome his weakness. There are no reported episodes while he was president or on the world tour, even though the media was well aware of the rumors and watched him closely. His intense dedication proved successful and it not only resolved the alcoholism threat it made him a better decision maker and general. McPherson states that Grant's::predisposition to alcoholism may have made him a better general. His struggle for self disciplined enabled him to understand and discipline others; the humiliation of prewar failures gave him a quiet humility that was conspicuously absent from so many other generals... Because Grant had nowhere to go but up, he could act with more boldness and decision and commanders who dared not risk failure." [end] Rjensen (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Coemgenus on this Rjensen. One or two sentences will work on the subject in the bio article. More information would add undo weight to Grant's drinking. Grant has a reputation article. This information could be put in that article. I added comments that historians debate the extent and affects Grant's drinking had on his career. I added Dorsett called him an alchoholic. Drinking was very common at the 4th Infantry in California at Fort Humbolt. Maybe Buchanan was trying to make Grant an example for other officers. I recommend the above paragraph be put in Grant's reputation article and have a serperate section on his drinking reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am amenable to something a bit more in this article (less than Rjensen and more than cmguy, perhaps), but I will let you all work out the details -as I won't be getting back to the library soon. But speaking of the library, I was in it several months ago, and one of the articles I pulled up on my screen was Wikipedia's US Grant, at that moment, an extremely well educated librarian friend of mine walked by, and made the comment "Grant? Sad example of someone who ruined things because of alcohol." I know it means nothing here, but just FYI - it's out there - that librarian is no Grant scholar but if educated people casually toss of things like that - it's out there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"Grant? Sad example of someone who ruined things because of alcohol." What things did Grant ruin ? Grant did defeat the Ku Klux Klan. Was he drunk then ? He was President for two terms. You think Queen Victoria and Bizmark would have dinner or conversation with a drunk. Was Grant drunk when Robert E. Lee signed Grant's surrender terms. If Grant was drunk how could he write down the terms of surrender. With all do respect to the librarian, it is difficult to say Grant's alcoholism destroyed Grant's life. Were Grant and Julia divorced ? No. Did Grant occasionally get drunk off of a few drinks. Yes. Andrew Johnson who was a drinker himself does not get this much scrutiny. Besides. This article is starting to look like an alcholics anonymous program. Is Wikipedia advocating to its readers to stop drinking ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, it should be clear from my comment that there is no point in picking apart that librarian's casual comment - I did not pursue it with her, it just was a striking reaction, to me, that is all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Grant was an alcoholic. In that sense the librarian was correct. The extent that it affected his personal, public, political, religious, and military life is subjective and speculative. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)