Talk:Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant: Difference between revisions

By /

Former good article Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Current status: Delisted good article

I am not sure the full version of Grant and Sumner is being told. Sumner was for Alaska Annexation, that mainly was done by white people, Russians and Americans. Indians did not count. It is quite possible, Sumner did not want Santo Domingo (Dominica) to be annexed, because the population was mostly black. Sumner believed blacks were better suited to live independently in the Carribean. The Dominican population voted for annexation. Sumner said no way. Sumner did not vote for Grant’s anti-Klan legislation. Sumner was also angry at not being appointed Secretary of state. I don’t think the Santo Domingo annexation attempt should be called a scheme. Sumner may have turned into a moderate when it came to his racial views. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article length (184,960 bytes) is smaller than the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article length (199,718 bytes) . Where does the article need to be trimmed? Cmguy777 (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has commented on the length of this article. Grant served two consecutive terms. The last President to do so until Woodrow Wilson. The Eisenhower above article is longer, yet there is no tag on that article concerning length. Please state where this article can be trimmed whoever put in the tag. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article length is measured in readable prose size – see WP:ARTICLESIZE. By that metric this article is longer than the Eisenhower one. It would benefit from deferring background information to linked articles rather than trying to incorporate it all here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The background information was from “The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant” book by Paul Kahan (2018). Kahan includes background information on Grant. I could add linked articles, but that would look cumbersome, in my opinion. Why should the reader jump from article to article? It would help to know where to find the readable prose size of both presidency articles of Grant and Eisenhower. I am trying to use this Eisenhower presidency article as a size meter for the Grant Presidency article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using XTools, I found the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article prose has 94,435 bytes and 14,448 words. The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article prose has 100,940 bytes and 15,796 words. One can go through the article to reduce the number of words, maybe by 1,000. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Korea incident, Yellowstone and conservation, and Santo Domingo annexation sections can be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On linked articles: this is a higher-level overview of the presidency, whereas narrower articles can explore in more detail. See WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One section on Yellowstone stands out that needs reducing. Maybe information can be moved to other articles or put in the talk section. Possibly tomorrow, I can work on reducing that section. That section should be just one paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a signifigant amount of wording and information from the article. Can you please remove the article length tag? The current article bytes is 92,119 and current number of words is 14,438. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden’s Map of Yellowstone, 1871

An enduring hallmark of the Grant administration was the creation of Yellowstone, the world’s first national park. Organized exploration of the upper Yellowstone River began in fall 1869 when the Cook–Folsom–Peterson Expedition made a month-long journey up the Yellowstone River and into the geyser basins. In 1870, the somewhat more official Washburn–Langford–Doane Expedition explored the same regions of the upper Yellowstone and geyser basins, naming Old Faithful and many other park features. Official reports from Lieutenant Gustavus Cheyney Doane and Scribner’s Monthly accounts by Nathaniel P. Langford brought increased public awareness to the natural wonders of the region.[1] Influenced by Jay Cooke of the Northern Pacific Railroad and Langford’s public speeches about the Yellowstone on the East Coast, geologist Ferdinand Hayden sought funding from Congress for an expedition under the auspices of the U.S. Geological Survey. In March 1871 Grant signed into law Congressional legislation appropriating $40,000 to finance the Hayden Geological Survey of 1871. Hayden was given instructions by Grant’s Secretary of Interior, Columbus Delano. The expedition party was composed of 36 civilians, mostly scientists, and two military escorts. Among the survey party were an artist Thomas Moran and photographer William Henry Jackson.

Hayden’s published reports, magazine articles, along with paintings by Moran and photographs by Jackson convinced Congress to preserve the natural wonders of the upper Yellowstone.[2] On December 18, 1871, a bill was introduced simultaneously in the Senate, by Senator S.C. Pomeroy of Kansas, and in the House of Representatives, by Congressman William H. Clagett of the Montana Territory, for the establishment of a park at the headwaters of the Yellowstone River. Hayden’s influence on Congress is readily apparent when examining the detailed information contained in the report of the House Committee on Public Lands: “The bill now before Congress has for its objective the withdrawal from settlement, occupancy, or sale, under the laws of the United States a tract of land fifty-five by sixty-five miles, about the sources of the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers, and dedicates and sets apart as a great national park or pleasure-ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” When the bill was presented to Congress, the bill’s chief supporters, ably prepared by Langford, Hayden and Jay Cooke, convinced their colleagues that the region’s real value was as a park area, to be preserved in its natural state. The bill was approved by a comfortable margin in the Senate on January 30, 1872, and by the House on February 27.[3] Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Langford, Nathaniel P. (1904). “Preface to The Folsom Cook Exploration of the Upper Yellowstone, 1869 (1894)”. Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana. V: 354–355.
  2. ^ Merrill, Marlene Deahl, ed. (1999). Yellowstone and the Great West-Journals, Letters and Images from the 1871 Hayden Expedition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-3148-2.
  3. ^ Haines, Aubrey L. (1977). “Beyond the Ranges”. The Yellowstone Story – A History of Our First National Park Volume I. Yellowstone National Park, WY: Yellowstone Library and Museum Association. pp. 84–155. ISBN 0870813900.

Please do not remove. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

End of the buffalo herds

American bison or buffalo; their numbers collapsed in the 1870s forcing the Native Americans who hunted them to depend instead on government-issued food supplies on their reservations.

In 1872, around two thousand white buffalo hunters working between Kansas, and Arkansas were killing buffalo for their hides by the many thousands. The demand was for boots for European armies, or machine belts attached to steam engines. Acres of land were dedicated solely for drying the hides of the slaughtered buffalo. Native Americans protested at the “wanton destruction” of their food supply. Between 1872 in 1874, the buffalo herd south of the Platte River yielded 4.4 million kills by white hunters, and about 1 million animals killed by Indians.[1] Popular concern for the destruction of the buffalo mounted, and a bill in Congress was passed, HR 921, that would have made buffalo hunting illegal for whites. Taking advice from Secretary Delano, Grant chose to pocket-veto the bill, believing that the demise of the buffalo would reduce Indian wars and force tribes to stay on their respected reservations and to adopt an agricultural lifestyle rather than roaming the plains and hunting buffalo.[2] Ranchers wanted the buffalo gone to open pasture land for their cattle herds. With the buffalo food supply lowered, Native Americans were forced to stay on reservations. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Richard White, The Republic for which it Stands (2017) p 296.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference The Last Buffalo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Please do not remove from the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Korean incident

USS Colorado transported troops in Admiral John Rodgers‘ assault on the Korean forts.

A primary role of the United States Navy in the 19th century was to protect American commercial interests and open trade to Eastern markets, including Japan and China. Korea was a small independent country that excluded all foreign trade. Washington sought a treaty dealing with shipwrecked sailors after the crew of a stranded American commercial ship was executed. The long-term goal for the Grant Administration was to open Korea to Western markets in the same way Commodore Matthew Perry had opened Japan in 1854 by a Naval display of military force. On May 30, 1871, Rear Admiral John Rodgers with a fleet of five ships, part of the Asiatic Squadron, arrived at the mouth of the Salee River below Seoul. The fleet included the Colorado, one of the largest ships in the Navy with 47 guns, 47 officers, and a 571-man crew. While waiting for senior Korean officials to negotiate, Rogers sent ships out to make soundings of the Salee River for navigational purposes.[1]

A Korean fort fired upon the American fleet, but there was little damage. Rogers gave the Korean government ten days to apologize or begin talks, but the Royal Court kept silent. After ten days had passed, on June 10, Rogers began a series of amphibious assaults that destroyed 5 Korean forts. These military engagements were known as the Battle of Ganghwa. Several hundred Korean soldiers and three Americans were killed. Korea still refused to negotiate, and the American fleet sailed away. The Koreans refer to this 1871 U.S. military action as Shinmiyangyo. Grant defended Rogers in his third annual message to Congress in December 1871. After a change in regimes in Seoul in 1881, the U.S. negotiated a treaty – the first treaty between Korea and a Western nation.[1] Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove.

Background

Ulysses S. Grant by Balling (1865)

Ulysses S. Grant was a native of Ohio, born on April 27, 1822. After graduating from West Point in 1843, he served in the Mexican–American War. In 1848, Grant married Julia (née Dent) and had four children. He resigned from the Army in 1854. Upon the start of the American Civil War, Grant returned to the Army in 1861. As a successful Union general, Grant led the Union armies to defeat the Confederacy. After decisive Union victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga, President Abraham Lincoln promoted Grant as commanding general of the Union Army. Grant defeated Robert E. Lee, after hard-fought conflicts at the Wilderness and Petersburg. Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, and the war ended in 1865.

After the war, Grant served under President Andrew Johnson and oversaw the enforcement of Reconstruction. In addition, he managed conflicts that arose between the indigenous peoples and the settlers. Grant and Johnson came at odds with each other when Grant defended Congressional Reconstruction, which abolished slavery and granted African Americans citizenship, in contrast to Johnson’s Reconstruction, which bypassed Congress and was lenient to white Southerners. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove.

Unable constitutionally to go directly after Sen. Sumner, Grant immediately removed Sumner’s close and respected friend, Ambassador, John Lothrop Motley. With Grant’s prodding in the Senate, Sumner was finally deposed from the Foreign Relations Committee. Grant reshaped his coalition, known as “New Radicals”, working with enemies of Sumner such as Ben Butler of Massachusetts, Roscoe Conkling of New York, and Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, giving in to Fish’s demands that Cuba rebels be rejected, and moving his Southern patronage from the radical blacks and carpetbaggers who were allied with Sumner to more moderate Republicans. This set the stage for the Liberal Republican revolt of 1872 when Sumner and his allies publicly denounced Grant and supported Horace Greeley and the Liberal Republicans.

A Congressional investigation in June 1870 led by Senator Carl Schurz revealed that Babcock and Ingalls both had land interests in the Bay of Samaná that would increase in value if the Santo Domingo treaty were ratified.[citation needed] U.S. Navy ships, with Grant’s authorization, had been sent to protect Báez from an invasion by a Dominican rebel, Gregorio Luperón, while the treaty negotiations were taking place. The investigation had initially been called to settle a dispute between an American businessman Davis Hatch against the United States government. Báez had imprisoned Hatch without trial for his opposition to the Báez government. Hatch had claimed that the United States had failed to protect him from imprisonment. The majority Congressional report dismissed Hatch’s claim and exonerated both Babcock and Ingalls. The Hatch incident, however, kept certain Senators from being enthusiastic about ratifying the treaty. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove.

During the first two years of the Grant administration with George Boutwell at the Treasury helm expenditures had been reduced to $292 million in 1871 – down from $322 million in 1869. The cost of collecting taxes fell to 3.11% in 1871. Grant reduced the number of employees working in the government by 2,248 persons from 6,052 on March 1, 1869, to 3,804 on December 1, 1871. He had increased tax revenues by $108 million from 1869 to 1872. During his first administration, the national debt fell from $2.5 billion to $2.2 billion.[11]

In a rare case of preemptive reform during the Grant Administration, Brevet Major General Alfred Pleasonton was dismissed for being unqualified to hold the position of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In 1870, Pleasonton, a Grant appointment, approved an unauthorized $60,000 tax refund and was associated with an alleged unscrupulous Connecticut firm. Treasury Secretary George Boutwell promptly stopped the refund and personally informed Grant that Pleasonton was incompetent to hold office. Refusing to resign on Boutwell’s request, Pleasonton protested openly before Congress. Grant removed Pleasonton before any potential scandal broke out. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The New York Times 1872, “The Conduct of the Finances”.

The movement for Civil Service reform reflected two distinct objectives: to eliminate the corruption and inefficiencies in a non-professional bureaucracy and to check the power of President Johnson. Although many reformers after the Election of 1868 looked to Grant to ram Civil Service legislation through Congress, he refused, saying:

Civil Service Reform rests entirely with Congress. If members will give up claiming patronage, that will be a step gained. But there is an immense amount of human nature in the members of Congress, and it is human nature to seek power and use it to help friends. You cannot call it corruption – it is a condition of our representative form of Government.[1]

Cmguy777 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

  • There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs.
  • The article, at over 14,000 words, is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Can some of this information be moved to other articles, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed?

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: This has been open for 6 months and the discussion has ground to a halt. I see three bolded calls for a delist and no bolded declarations for a keep. Therefore, I see a consensus to delist the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed as too detailed. Many sources listed in “Bibliography” are not used as inline citations and should be moved to “Further reading”. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, this article has already been reduced in size, to allign with the Presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower article. Grant’s presidency was detailed, as it included 8 years of turbulent Reconstruction, Native American, Domestic, and Foreign Policy. Second, Grant’s presidency article, should not be a reduced format historical article format, when the Eisenhower article receives ample article size. This is Wikipedia. Articles should be detailed, supplied by reliable sources. Important issues such a civil rights, prosecution of the Klu Klux Klan, should have detail. Both Grant and Eisenhower, deserve equal importance and equal size. As far as sources, not used in the article, I have no issue with them being removed. Third, I think this article has already been improved, and deserves GA standing. I am not sure why Grant is getting this attention all of a sudden. The article appears to be written in a neutral format. Why now? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, and not all details will be included in an article. If the level of detail is important, the information can be spun out into a child-article. WP:DETAIL outlines examples of how much detail an article should have, and states that “Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles).” The last part, linking to separate articles, might be what is best for some aspects of this article. WP:TOOBIG outlines that articles should probably be less than 9,000 words: at 14,000, this article far exceeds that. In a GAR, the current article version is evaluated on its adherence to the GA criteria and does not consider how much work has been done to an article, or how much it has been improved. The Eisenhower article is not a GA, so it is hard to compare the qualities (and size) of those two articles for this GAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, articles can be spun out. You have not mentioned anything specifically you want changed. What is it exactly you want changed? Again, I have substantially reduced this article before. Is there an exact rule of how long articles should be such as 9,000 words or less. What does “should probably be less” mean ? Anymore reduction in this article would reduce the reliability and needed context of the article, imo. Grant has a lot of biographers and biographies. Renewed interest has been taken in Grant’s life, generalship, and presidency. Charles W. Calhouns (2017) book on Grant’s presidency has 593 pages. What specific areas of the article do you find too long? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many notable people and topics have books that are hundreds or thousands of pages long. WP:TOOBIG has useful rules of thumb for article size. I usually do not recommend specifics at the beginning because I want to give a chance for subject-matter experts to make recommendations first. Since I have been asked, here are some suggestions:

  • In general, I recommend that a subject-matter expert do a copy edit of the entire article and remove redundant text, off-topic information about others, and sumarise text more effectively when possible.
  • First Presidency:
    • “Financial policy” Suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION. I suggest these paragraphs be merged and extra/too detailed information be placed in the appropriate article.
    • “Failed annexation of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)” could be too detailed and possibly trimmed.
    • “Native American policy” also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and, if the paragraphs are merged together, information can be spun out to the appropriate articles.
    • “Domestic policy” also suffers from OVERSECTION and not as much detail is needed for all of these individual aspects (especially the “Holidays law”)
  • Second Presidency:
    • “Vicksburg riots” and “South Carolina 1876” spend at least a paragraph explaining the conflict before mentioning Grant. While a brief introduction is appropriate, too much space is given to this off-topic information and this article should focus on Grant’s actions and policies.
    • “Foreign policy” suffers from OVERSECTION with the last three paragraphs: these should be merged and summarised.
    • “Reforms and scandals” Lots of oversection, it is better to merge the information and give a wikilink than have a whole paragraph explaining each topic.
    • “States admitted to the Union”, “Vetoes” and “Government agencies instituted” can be moved to the part of the article most appropriate to his presidency. “Memorials and monuments” can be moved to Grant’s main article.

This is not an exhaustive list, and there can of course be disagreement. None of this negates the uncited paragraphs in the article, which also need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those spin off articles have not been created. The Presidency of Barack Obama article 13,915 words. I found that on XTools. Is this correct? You can verify that. The Holidays Laws is important. They are national holidays created by Grant and congress. This article can be improved. You are free to make edits to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cmguy777: Yes, Presidency of Barack Obama is 13,000 long. No, it is also not a GA. This process is to evaluate an article against the GA criteria. If the article topic is notable, any editor can make a new article and place information there. I will not be making edits to this article as I am busy with many on-and-off wiki tasks. I am happy to support those who do want to make those edits and will re-review if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article passed GA in the past. Yes. There is room for improvement, and thanks for the specifics. I just don’t think it necessary to take away the GA status, when in the past it was given GA status, by whatever standard(s) was(were used) at the time. Improvements can be made to the article without removing the GA, imo. I have made past reductions to the article, found in the talk page, to improve the article. Grant’s Native American policy, reforms and scandals, have been made into spinoff articles. Probably, the next spin off article should be Grant’s Foreign policy. Grant’s presidency was different. He was elected and served two consecutive terms in office, that would not be repeated until the election of Woodrow Wilson. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed. My concerns are listed above. The GAR will assess the article against the current criteria, not the criteria that was in place when it was passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been significantly been reduced in size, before. Your concerns are noted. What about editor concensus? These objections seem to be only your objections focused specifically on Grant, not other Presidents. You also seem to be requiring other spin off articles to be made on Grant’s domestic and financial policies. The Santo Domingo annexation was very important to Grant. It was also a drama between Grant and Charles Sumner, who would control the Republican Party. Some leeway should be allowed in that section on article length, since this article focuses on Grant’s Presidency. When you say “delisted”, are you saying removal of the article from Wikipedia? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: I am sorry that I did not respond sooner. AJ29 is correct: pinging me is a better way to ensure that I respond. I have done a deep read of the first paragraph of “Foreign policy” and the “Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo” sections. They have improved from where they were before, and the comments below are what I think need to happen next to bring them to GA quality.

  • “Grant was a man of peace” I don’t know what this means because I don’t know much about him. I think this should be removed, and instead the paragraph can describe what this means later on.
  • “Besides Grant himself, the main players in foreign affairs…” This is an instance where the article starts going off-topic. Later in the paragraph, it starts describing Fish’s work. I think this parargaph should focus on what Grant did and what he did with foreign policy. If Grant was hands-off and let Fish run everything, then that should be explained. If Grant focused on specific issues, that should be explained in this paragraph. Describing the major players of Grant’s administration is important, but their contributions should to be connected to Grant’s presidency more explicitly.
  • “He tried to annex the Caribbean country of the Dominican Republic as a safety valve for them.” Safety valve feels like an idiom to me, and I don’t know what that means in this context. Is Grant buying DR to bring Black people to the location? Was he trying to have DR become part of the USA? This should be explained.
  • “Republican Senator Charles Sumner opposed Grant, believing he sided with men of financial interest.” Why is this important to state in this article? I think it can be deleted.
  • In the second paragraph, there is information about the annexation of DR. This makes the first paragraph redundant, and I think it can be removed.
  • I made lots of cuts as I was reading. Feel free to take a look and reverse any changes. However, with the length of the article I think some of these changes were helpful to reduce the word count, and I would continue having cuts like this in other parts of the article.

I hope the above helps editors with ideas on how to improve other sections of the article. There are still uncited statements in other spots and I highly recommend a thorough copy-edit and trimming of off-topic information before a re-review is requested, and I think this article needs some more work before I could recommend that it keeps its GA status. Feel free to ping me with questions or comments. Z1720 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am for reducing article narration, but not at the expense of loosing valued content. Also, I am for going by what the sources say. As far as Santo Domingo goes, Grant was the main leader behind annexation. I readded information that Grant appointed Frederick Douglas. Apparently, Grant wanted both to make Santo Domingo a state and to serve as a refuge for blacks. Douglas supported the annexation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: The content doesn’t need to be lost: it can be moved to other articles whose scope is narrower. Too much prose stops readers from finding the most important information and discourages them from reading any part of the article. Prose cannot include everything that the sources say as articles are written in summary style. The information described above cannot be explained here: it needs to be explained in the article.
Regarding Frederick Douglass: the article does not describe who he is or why he is important until “Election of 1872”. If Douglass is to be included in the “Attempted annexation of Santo Domingo” section, the importance of his appointment needs to be explained there. Otherwise, it is just WP:TRIVIA: a miscellaneous fact that the reader does not need to know to understand the importance of this event in Grant’s presidency. My preference is to remove this sentence, and trivia prose similar to this in other places in the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The importance? Frederick Douglas was a leading spokes person for black rights. Historian Jean Edward Smith, Grant, on page 505, mentioned Grant appointing Douglas secretary of the Santo Domingo commission. Do you have that book?. I do. I don’t feel appreciated in this article. I should not have to defend every edit made on this article. I am only going by what Smith said. Removing important content will affect the neautrality of the article. I also feel there may be underlying hostility toward Grant, or people don’t believe his presidency was that important. I just go by what the sources say. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: If Douglass is to be included in this section of the Wikipedia article, the Wikipedia article needs to explain who this person is and why he is important to mention here. In other words, if the information is important, the Wikipedia article needs to explain its importance. A reader should not have to go to the source to get that information. Z1720 (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link that explains Douglas and Santo Domingo. His appointment by Grant represented black progress, that was part of the “new” for blacks. [1] Cmguy777 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: The source looks good to add. The information needs to be explained and added to the Wikipedia article, not this page. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would best to add in a add in a note that Douglas was a prominent African Amercian, who was primarily known for work as an abolitionist. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The current format of giving every little detail its own level-4 section is definitely excessive. For one example, there are 224 words dedicated to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Half of that paragraph has nothing to do with Grant. The parts that do pertain to Grant include a quotation that could be replaced with a concise statement, as well as a line straight up telling the reader the paragraph is not that relevant: “Grant had no role in writing the Civil Rights Act of 1875 but he did sign it a few days before the Republicans lost control of Congress.” Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ground breaking. The first in U.S. History. And yes, Grant signed it into law. Grant was the president and deserves credit for signing the legislation into law. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This article has been open for over a month and a half, and there are still significant paragraphs without citations. The length concerns also still remain. Work seems to have stalled, and it might be better if the article is worked on without the pressure of GAR, and nominated at GAN when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt I have been the only one who has working on this article. Wikipedia is suppose to be a group editor editing. It’s not one editor giving orders. I don’t agree GA should be removed. I felt I have been doing allot of the editing, trying to comply with “suggested” changes. Also, no one ever told me whether my changes were good enough. I hope there is no personal bias against Grant in any delisting process. I stopped editing because there was no positive feed back on my previous edits. That is not my fault. I believe the article is a good article too. It should not be delisted. This article well referenced. There needs to be more editors working on the article. Reducing article size should not reduce content. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did the Santo Domingo section clean up meet your approval? I need that type of feed back. I have the Grant biographies by Chernow, Smith, and White. I have the two Grant presidential biographies by Calhoun and Kahan. I believe my sources are reliable and trustworthy. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cmguy777: Thanks for following up. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Some articles are written by a single editor and some are written by a group. We are all volunteers and can choose where to edit: I have neither the interest nor the time to fully commit to improving this article. However, I am willing to give feedback to ongoing work. The best way to ensure that I reply is to ping me. However, I do not have the time to give constant feedback, and it is easier for me to evaluate whole sections or the whole article at once. More information on the GA criteria can be found at WP:GA?.
Regarding the Santo Domingo section: I did a copyedit of the section and it seems fine. I would suggest a similar exercise happen throughout the entire article. Afterwards, editors can reevaluate the article’s length and determine if more needs to be spun out to other articles. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Hello. I am all for copy editing, as long a content is retained in the article. Are there any sections you find too long or specifically need improving ? Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: As stated above, the whole article needs a copyedit to remove redundancies and summarise the prose more effectively. For example, “Foreign policy” has its own section that gives more detail on this subject: much of this section’s inforamtion can be moved to that article, with this article focusing on the most important aspects. There are also lots of subsections that are quite short, like “Pratt & Boyd”, “Hawaiian free trade treaty” or “Liberian-Grebo war” (this is not an exhaustive list). In general, per MOS:OVERSECTION if a section is a paragraph long, it should be merged with other sections. This merging might also help with summarising information as information can be moved to other articles or redundancies can be trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How do my copy edits look in the article? Has the article narration improved? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Yes, the article has improved. No, I am not ready to re-review because there are uncited statements and the article is still too big. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you. I believe the article can be trimmed more. I think the beginning of the Article looks good and reads well. Can you please be more specific on the “uncited” parts of the article? There are references throughout. Are you saying every sentence needs to be referenced? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: I have added “citation needed” templates to the article, and there were already some in the article before I started tagging. At a minimum, there needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph (except in the lead, and some other exceptions). Resolving these tags is also a good opportunity to see if the text is needed in the article and if it can be summarised more effectively. The article also has MOS:OVERSECTION concerns, with numerous short, one-paragraph sections that make the article look like a list in some sections (such as in the “Financial policy” section). Consider merging sections like this and removing the level 3 headings. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you. I can look into adding citations. There are a lot more books, and Grant, I can find the right citation. I will look into the Financial Policy section for possible merging of sections. Does the Santo Domingo section look alright? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the Santo Domingo section looks fine. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you. Can you please be more specific which sections, by name, need to shorter? Cmguy777 (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: Below are suggestions, based on a quick skim of the article. I am going to let interested editors make the final decisions on what can be moved, spun out and summarised to get the article under 9,000 words per WP:TOOBIG. I also suggest removing headings per MOS:OVERSECTION. Section names are in quotation marks:

  • “Force Acts of 1870 and 1871”: Reduce the size
  • “Financial policy”: Remove level 3 headings, remove extra detail
  • “Foreign policy”: Reduce prose size
  • “Native American policy”: Remove level 3 headings, reduce prose size
  • “Domestic policy”: Remove all level 3 headings
  • “”Holidays law”: Cut this. I do not think this is one of the most important things to include about his presidency.
  • “Yellowstone created”: Cut most or all of this. Only the creation of the park needs to be mentioned: the rest is too much detail for this article.
  • “Reconstruction continued” Reduce prose
  • “Foreign policy” Remove level 3 headings, reduce text (especially in the former “Virginus incident” section
  • “Midterm election 1874”: Cut most of this: it is too much detail.
  • “Reforms and scandals” Anything that was not caused by Grant directly should be removed. Not every federal scandal needs to be explained in this article.
  • “Centennial Exposition” Cut this: too much detail.
  • “Election of 1876”: cut this. Does not directly concern his presidency.
  • “Third term attempt 1880” Cut this. It does not concern his presidency.

I will not be participating in improving the article, but am willing to review when the article is ready, everything is cited, and the article is under 9,000 words. Feel free to ping me when ready. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for the specific areas where the article should be reduced in size. The WP:TOOBIG section does say, “> 9,000 words || Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.” I will leave that as it is for now, but subjects such as Indian Policy and Reconstruction, may need higher levels of explanations. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article several times, and giving suggestions on how the prose can be reduced, I do not think that the articles extended length is justified for this article to remain a good article. I still recommend that this article be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yes, the article can be trimmed. I am not disagreeing with that. I think the article should not be delisted from the good articles. I don’t understand the rush and push to get this article delisted. Reducing the article takes time. I have adequate book sources to do so. You suggested the changes. I have added the references. I put a block quote into the note section. Another previous editor wanted to reduce the article. I did. I removed a lot of material. I seem to get no credit for the edits I have made. This article has gone through substantial reduction and revisions. 2600:6C52:69F0:B6E0:7CA5:E1AB:8055:41F2 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work that you have done with the article. Unfortunately, GAs do not keep their status because the article has gone through changes. Instead, an article gets their status by adhering to the GA criteria. This has been open for three months and it still has uncited statements and information that needs to be moved to other articles and removed here. Sometimes it is better to let the article be delisted so that editors can work without the added pressure that GAR brings. When it meets the GA criteria again, the article can be renominated to GAN. Z1720 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand the necessity to remove the article from GA status. Improvements can be made at any time in the article. I believe all the citations have been removed with added references. Yes. I agree that there should be a reduction in and improvement in wording. Grant’s presidency took place during Reconstruction, adding importance to the article. We seem to be repeating ourselves. I seem to be the only one making edits to the article. Wikipedia should be done with multiple editor edits. Not just one person. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)the article. r[reply]

The current word count in the article is 13,916. I am not sure whether that includes or excludes notes. Info from XTools. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The historical evalations section is too long, imo, and should be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current word count: 13,864 words. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The historical evaluations section can be reduced maybe to one or two paragraphs. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current article word count: 13,550 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current article word count: 13,462 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current page size: 167,409 bytes Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think an article size update is needed until a significant change is noted. Z1720 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I believe I have been making significant changes to the article since May, 2025. The Presidency of George Washington article is of simular size (13,947) with GA status. I don’t see anyone demanding that article be reduced. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid edit waring, I suggest reducing information from this article on a larger scale be postponed for now. Recently, information was ubruptly readded, and then removed from the article. Also, this article seems to be on par with the number of words in the Presidency of George Washington, another good article. Emphasis for now should focus on improving narration and readability in the article. Thank you. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the discussion above, it is clear that it entered a WP:FIXLOOP quite some time ago. This is a situation that is unfortunately not conducive to reaching consensus among participants (at least when there are only a few, as is the case here); nevertheless, the closest thing we have to a consensus here is in favour of delisting. I note that a significant amount of effort has been expended during the course of this GAR in order to improve the article and that further editing appears to be ongoing (even if not at a rapid pace). This GAR has now been open for almost six months and of the two main issues raised, I note that the word count is now slightly more than 13,000 words and that there is still some unsourced material. Based on this trajectory, I do not foresee the issues being resolved within a reasonable timeframe. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the project to keep this discussion open under these circumstances. Likewise, I do not believe a “no consensus, default to keep” close would be in the best interest of the project (if nothing else, we are bound to end up back here again with the same issues to address). I am inclined to agree with Z1720‘s assessment that it would likely be better to keep working on this article outside of the GAR process.

In other circumstances I would bite the bullet and close this as “delist” myself, but since this might be controversial I am instead going to weigh in on the discussion by saying delist and ask the coordinators. @GAR coordinators: might this be closed as “delist”, given the apparent (if non-unanimous) consensus here? TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to hear from other participants before doing a close here, especially since Z1720 said above An article will not be delisted if improvements are ongoing and concerns addressed though I acknowledge that was said in July and we are now in December. I will check back here tomorrow evening my time for any other comments, and if there’s no significant disagreement I will close this discussion as a delist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Moved paragraph from Historical Evaluations section to reduce wording in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant’s generous treatment of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox helped give him popularity in the South. Although he kept civil rights on the political agenda, the Republican Party at the end of Grant’s second term shifted to pursuing conservative fiscal policies. His weak response to the Panic of 1873 hurt the economy and seriously damaged his party, which lost heavily in 1874. Grant’s financial policies favored Wall Street, but his term ended with the nation mired in a deep economic depression that Grant could not comprehend or deal with. Revisionist historians during the first half of the twentieth century have tended to prop up a romantic view of the Confederacy and the Lost Cause at the expense of downgrading the Union cause and Grant’s presidency as a corrupt despot.[2] The 20th-century historical views of Grant were less favorable. Political analyst Michael Barone noted in 1998 that, “Ulysses S. Grant is universally ranked among the greatest American generals, and his Memoirs are widely considered to belong with the best military autobiographies ever written. But he is inevitably named, by conservatives as well as liberals, as one of the worst presidents in American history.”[3] Barone argues that: “This consensus, however, is being challenged by writers outside the professional historians’ guild.” Barone points to a lawyer Frank Scaturro, who led the movement to restore Grant’s Tomb while only a college student, and in 1998 wrote the first book of the modern era which portrays Grant’s presidency in a positive light.[4] Barone said that Scaturro’s work was a “convincing case that Grant was a strong and, in many important respects, successful president. It is an argument full of significance for how we see the course of American political history … Scaturro’s work … should prompt a reassessment of the entire Progressive-New Deal Tradition.”[3] Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved blocked quotes from the article to reduce article narration.
The proposed Blaine Amendment text was:

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Jonathan Sarna argues:

Eager to prove that he was above prejudice, Grant appointed more Jews to public office than had any of his predecessors and, in the name of human rights, he extended unprecedented support to persecuted Jews in Russia and Romania. Time and again, partly as a result of this enlarged vision of what it meant to be an American and partly in order to live down General Orders No. 11, Grant consciously worked to assist Jews and secure them equality. … Through his appointments and policies, Grant rejected calls for a ‘Christian nation’ and embraced Jews as insiders in America, part of ‘we the people.’ During his administration, Jews achieved heightened status on the national scene, anti-Jewish prejudice declined, and Jews looked forward optimistically to a liberal epoch characterized by sensitivity to human rights and interreligious cooperation.[5]

Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced article narration moved to talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Sumner spoke up before Congress; publicly denounced Queen Victoria; demanded a huge reparation; and opened the possibility of Canada ceded to the United States as payment. The speech angered the British government, and talks had to be put off until matters cooled down. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Amos Elwood Corning noted that the Treaty of Washington and arbitration “bequeathed to the world a priceless legacy”.[6] In addition to the $15.5 million arbitration award, the treaty resolved some disputes over borders and fishing rights. On October 21, 1872, William I, Emperor of Germany, settled a boundary dispute in favor of the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved photo to talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Bull (Great Britain) is dwarfed by a gigantic inflated American “Alabama Claim” cartoon by Joseph Swain in Punch – or the London Charivari 22 Jan 1872.

Written by Representative Benjamin Butler, the Act specifically went after local units of the Ku Klux Klan. Although sensitive to charges of establishing a military dictatorship, Grant signed the bill into law on April 20, 1871, after being convinced by Secretary of Treasury, George Boutwell, that federal protection was warranted, having cited documented atrocities against the Freedmen. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved information from the article to reduce narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reform of the spoils system of political patronage entered the national agenda under the Grant presidency and would take on the fervor of a religious revival. The distribution of federal jobs by Congressional legislators was considered vital for their reelection to Congress. Grant required that all applicants to federal jobs apply directly to the Department heads, rather than the president. Two of Grant’s appointments, Secretary of the Interior Jacob D. Cox and Secretary of the Treasury George S. Boutwell, put in place examinations in their respective departments, advocated by reformers. Grant and all reformers agreed that the prevailing system of appointments was unsound, for it maximized party advantage and minimized efficiency and the nonpartisan interest of good government. Historian John Simon says his efforts at civil service reform were honest, but that they were met with criticism from all sides and were a failure.[14] Cmguy777 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved section from the article to reduce article size. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formal photographic portrait of bearded man
Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State, 1869–1877

Grant’s first term foreign policy primarily focused on annexation and expansion, the opening of trade with Korea, and the settlement of the Alabama Claims with Great Britain. Besides Grant himself, the main players in foreign affairs were the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Charles Sumner. Historians hold high regard for Secretary Fish’s diplomatic professionalism, independence, and good judgment. Worldwide, it was a peaceful era, with no major wars directly affecting the United States.[15] Secretary Fish was known to be a spokesman for caution and stability.[16] Fish served as Secretary of State for nearly the entire two terms. Historians emphasize his judiciousness and efforts towards reform and diplomatic moderation.[17] President Grant said he trusted Fish the most for political advice.[a] Cmguy777 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Grant appointed Frederick Douglass secretary to the 1871 Santo Domingo commission.
Warren 1879

Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Skidmore 2005, pp. 150–151
  2. ^ a b Michael Barone, “A Better President Than They Think”[dead link], The Weekly Standard (August 3, 1998).
  3. ^ Scaturro, Frank (1998). President Grant Reconsidered. Lanham: Madison Books. ISBN 1-56833-132-0.
  4. ^ Sarna, When General Grant Expelled the Jews (2012), Introduction
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Corning 1918 59–84 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ John Y. Simon, “Ulysses S. Grant and Civil Service Reform,” Hayes Historical Journal (1984) 4#3 pp. 8–15.
  7. ^ The main scholarly history remains Allan Nevins, Hamilton Fish: The inner history of the Grant administration (two volumes 1937, 932 pages), winner of the Pulitzer Prize. The most recent scholarly survey is Charles W Calhoun, The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (2017), pp. 151–261, 329–361 426–432. The recent one-volume biographies summarize the main topics.
  8. ^ a b American Heritage (December 1981), The Ten Best Secretaries Of States, volume 33, issue 1,
  9. ^ American Heritage Editors (December, 1981), The Ten Best Secretaries Of State….

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top