Talk:General Order No. 11 (1862)

Lincoln's action to rescind

I suggest that Lincoln's order revoking Grant's should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. I wish that one could say Grant's order was an extraordinary aberration, which alas it clearly was not. Still, it does seem important to note that it was firmly renounced by the president. I am tentatively editing the article to reflect this; hope it is satisfactory to all. Wwheaton (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What must be remembered was that in 1863 people felt free to express their prejudices. People are just as prejudiced today, but generally mask their views.JohnC (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering what exactly the hell that meant, or what that comment had to do with this article. I looked up "JohnC" and discovered that three years later he was "blocked indefinitely" from editing articles on Wikipedia. I can guess why. Profhum (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Split?

I suggest the two General Order No. 11's be split up into two separate articles as they seem to not have any relevance to each other outside of taking place in the Civil War. It took me a second reading to understand this, and others may be easily confused. Thoughts? Comments? - Hinotori 11:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree. They are different orders that happen to have similar names. Best idea is to split them and make this article a disambiguation page. 168.12.253.82 15:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see someone's taken care of that. Thanks! I was going to do it myself, barring objections, but nice to see it done already. :) Hinotori 01:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Standardizing the Text Format

The two different orders are presented in their original text but in slightly different format. Regardless of whether or not the article is split in two (see other suggestion), I think consistency would be good. Which format is better or more used? - Hinotori 11:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Exact text

Some of the text in this article is the exact text from one source. Should this be rephrased or quoted...? --Hazelorb

Do you mean the text of the order or some commentary on the order? Either way, an exact quote should be marked off to indicate its origin. -Willmcw 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A fine example of Wikipedia's strengths

I had absolutely no idea about this brief chapter in American history --its this "repository of human history" effect that so many like me find appealing about this site. Good work, all.--A Good Anon 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A very interesting article. I've read a lot about the Civil War and also a recent Grant biography, but never encountered this subject before. Here's to hoping that Wikipedia's strengths can win out over its weaknesses. 207.69.139.6 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually as it was when you wrote that, it was a fine example of its failings, as it breached Wikipedia:neutrality by omitting the rather notable fact that the order was promptly revoked from the intro. Thus it appears to have been used to attempt to over-represent the level of antisemitism in the Union government. However another user fixed this just as I was about to do so. Wimstead (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Prompt revocation on orders of the president doesn't nuillity the views behind the original order. Nor does Grant's rather feeble later attempts to distance himself from his own actions. Incidentally the army isn't the government.JohnC (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting article but would benefit from additional sources and information. For instance, at the outset of the war, half of New York City's exports were related to cotton, according to a major exhibit at the New-York Historical Society in 2005-2007. That's an indication of how important the trade was to the North. What was the full situation Grant was trying to manage? The article lacks content that more fully describes the context of the traders and the illegal business - what was the volume, what was the result? Was Grant more resentful of the distraction on his own time, or worried about corruption among Army officers, and resenting those trying to tempt them? It does appear to pose difficulties to ask an army also to regulate trading in a war zone, and he was busy trying to develop strategies and tactics to defeat Vicksburg. Wars have always provided opportunities for corruption; so how did this one compare on this issue? That is content that is lacking. Parkwells (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Example of Grant's non-antisemitism

The Jewish-American physicist A. Michelson owed his appointment to the naval academy directly to president Grant.--Jrm2007 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is "non-antisemitism" a word?

Hitler supposedly had 150,000 jewish soldiers. Is that evidence of his "non-antisemitism"?JohnC (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is actual documentation of Grant's antisemitism, comparing U. Grant to A. Hitler has no place in this discussion. With A. Hitler, there is plenty of documentation of his antisemitic attitudes. Furthermore, "supposedly" does not count as "fact". Please cite source of your assertions, or amend statement accordingly. --dswynne (talk) 00:57. 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitler did not have 150,000 Jewish soldiers in his army. The title of a well-known book on that topic is highly misleading. There were very, very, very few professing Jews in the German army in World War II. In fact, there might have been none at all. There were several thousand German soldiers with "close" Jewish ancestors (a grandparent or great-grandparent). To refer to these individuals as "Jewish" when they neither practiced the Jewish religion nor associated culturally with the Jewish people is incorrect. Most of them went to great pains to disassociate themselves from their families' Jewish past. As for Grant, it was entirely possible that he liked individual Jews but also believed various anti-Semitic generalizations. Poldy Bloom (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

yet to say/claim Grant is definatly Non-anti-semite does not fit with the General Order No11 which is 100% pure anti-semitism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Congressional Resolution

The article currently reads, "The Democrats condemned the order as part of what they saw as the US Government's systematic violation of civil liberties and introduced a motion of censure against Grant in the Senate, attracting thirty votes in favour against seven opposed." But in Arthur Hertzberg's book The Jews in America: Four Centuries of an Uneasy Encounter, he writes, "Most unfortunately, a resolution to revoke the order had meanwhile been introduced in Congress, and it lost in both Houses." So which is it? Did the resolution pass in the Senate by 30 to 7, or did it fail? Or are these two different resolutions -- one to censure Grant and one to revoke the order? Poldy Bloom (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

sounds like two actions: considering the usual political process, to make hay from the opposition's mistakes, it's likely the Democrats passed a motion of censure in the Senate to condemn Grant, but couldn't get the wider support needed to revoke a military order made by a ranking general in wartime.Parkwells (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Korn

Korn's book is certainly an important source regarding the Order, but it seems that it has been used somewhat selectively. For example, while the article mentions that the Order was not the first such decree to flow from Grant's pen, the article does not mention Grant's rather brusque revocation of a similar order written by another officer, thus making the idea of a clear pattern harder to sustain. Most importantly, perhaps, Korn himself seems to suggest that though the Order was issued by Grant, it did not necessarily originate with him, with (if my memory isn't failing) Korn mentioning specifically the odd wording of Halleck's "rebuke" in the aftermath of the order. Also mentioned is that the word "Jew" was often crassly used by Grant and many others as sort of a shorthand for cotton speculators. None of this excuses Grant, for the Order went out in his name and in his hand, but I do think a little greater context could be provided.--172.190.85.99 (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and am trying to find more content.Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

implemented, then revoked

The last paragraph says it "was revoked before any such action was taken", but earlier in the article is specifically lists 3 towns where people were expelled. So obviously the "any" is not accurate. I'll correct it. T-bonham (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously both can't be right, just make sure you are correcting the right mistake.--172.190.146.199 (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

first time a US president attended synagogue services?

I suggest that this detail in the last paragraph be checked for accuracy. I remember visiting the Touro synagogue in Providence at one point, and a guide there claimed that George Washington, among others, had visited the synagogue.

Can you find a source? Maybe one refers to visiting, and the other to attending a service or commemoration.Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article improvements

I have been making improvements to the articles and added Grant biography sources. The goal is to make the article neutral and accurate as possible. I also added a source by Miller (2019) who authored a book on the Vicksburg campaign. Opinions on article improvements are welcome. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

"Although Grant protected African American slave refugees, " - can this be reconciled with the fact that Grant had owned slaves? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Grant owned one slave that he set free when he was poor and needed the money when he lived in Missouri. Grant could have sold the slave for over $1,000, but he did not. That was before the Civil War. He did not own any slaves during the Civil War. His wife might have owned slaves during the Civil War. Grant set up a program to help African American refugees on their way to citizenship. The information from Miller was added to give a neutral view of Grant. African American slaves had no freedoms. Their families were slaves from the moment they were born. They could not legally marry. They were human property. Grant's Grand Junction camp is part of the Vicksburg background. The Jewish people were citizens and could vote. Some were Confederates and some were Unionists. The nation was divided. During this time period citizens were obstructing the war. General Orders No. 11 was issued during a war. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sentence from the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Grant being judged a war criminal ?

Do historians have the right to say Grant's order was racism ? Do historians have the right to judge Grant or any general fighting a war ? FDR's EO9066 that imprisoned over 100,000 Japanese was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. In the article there is an anti-Semitsm tag. As terrible as Grant's GO11 was, is Grant being judged a war criminal in this article ? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black held that "all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect" and subject to tests of "the most rigid scrutiny," not all such restrictions are inherently unconstitutional. "Pressing public necessity," he wrote, "may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can." Source: Facts and Case Summary — Korematsu v. U.S. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Can it be argued that Grant's "Pressing public necessity" was stopping cotton smuggling and funding of the Confederate Army ? Grant observed that Northern goods "did not just go to sustain civilians, but to supply the Confederate Army." White (2016) page 236. Grant said "We cannot carry on war & trade at the same time." White (2016) page 236. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

yes that is what historians do--make judgments on moral issues. However being anti-Semitic otr anti-Japanese or anti-American or anti-Russian does NOT make a general a war criminal. Rjensen (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

FDR was cleared of racism against the Japanese by Justice Hugo Black, in essence, FDR was cleared of a war crime of imprisoning over 100,000 Japanese people. What moral authority do historians have to make any moral judgements on Grant, any general, or President. Historians are entitled to their respected opinions, but have no moral or legal authority. With the anti-Semitism label in the article Grant could be assumed guilty of a war crime. Grant's GO11 could have been done out of "Pressing public necessity" rather than anti-Semitism. Miller (2019) says we don't know why Grant issued GO11. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

confining 100,000 Japanese was not a war crime. As for historians, yes the community assigns them the role of making historical moral judgments as to whether specific actions conform to moral standards. The historians write the history books which young people are required by the government the local community & and their parents to study. As for General Grant, I think "war crime" is not true--and just who accuses him of one?? the consensus on his moral standards as president have been pretty clear for many generations. Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The confining of 100,000 Japanese was not a war crime because the Supreme Court ruled that was not racism, rather a "Pressing public necessity." Grant's GO11 is labelled anti-Semitism by historians. Doesn't that make Grant a racist. FDR is moral, but Grant is not. Yes. Students are required to read history books, so the accuracy of history is paramount. Secular history books are not meant to be lessons in morality, that is what the Bible is for. But you can't teach from the Bible in public schools. Nor can teachers pray in public schools or post the ten commandments. All I am asking is that Grant be given a fair shake. Let the reader decide whether GO11 was a measure of public necessity or racism. In this article there is no choice. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

years ago (1950s) I took lots of history in 3 catholic high schools and U Notre Dame using Catholic textbooks. "God" was rarely an operating force--the morality taught was the same as public school textbooks. The point is that religion is not really used to teach American/European/world but the textbooks do teach the community standards of our own day. They moved President Grant up for his efforts to support blacks. But they do not move him far in terms of his corrupt presidential administration. it's not in the textbooks but Grant was also a national leader in 1875-1876 fomenting hatred and fear of Catholics--esp the fear that having little Catholic kids like me going to priest-ridden parochial schools was a threat to American values. Rjensen (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not want to get sidetracked with public schools, religion, and morality. Catholics are not a threat to American values nor any other faith or race. Grant's GO11, as far as I know, was never taken to the Supreme Court, nor was Grant personally taken to court over GO11. But Korematsu v. U.S. is a legal standard of saying what is racism and what is pressing public necessity. Was GO11, like FDR's EO9066, issued under pressing public necessity. In Grant's case that would be war with the Confederacy, he was in enemy territory, communications were destroyed by Forrest and Van Dorn, rampant smuggling of cotton whose profits went to fund the Confederate Army, that Grant was fighting. I don't think it is a given that GO11 was only about racism or anti-Semitism. I favor removing the anti-Semitism tag in the article. The reader should be allowed to decide whether racism or pressing public necessity was the cause of why Grant issued GO11. These are just my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is from a New York Times book review of Sarna 2012 book by Janet Maslin Apri 4, 2012 [1] The Exodus From Paducah, 1862: What tangible damage did the expulsion do? Very little, as far as Mr. Sarna, chief historian at the National Museum of American Jewish History and the co-editor of “Jews and the Civil War: A Reader” can tell. He can provide no individual accounts of families fleeing the order, no more than four affidavits about the expulsion and no reports of physical hardship beyond those who claimed they had been jailed briefly, treated roughly or forbidden from changing out of wet clothes. It is not the magnitude of the incident that makes it so enduring, ugly or willfully ignored. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Traders or Traitors: Northern Cotton Trading During the Civil War Business , 4nd Economic History, Volume Twenty-eight, no. 2, Winter 1999 This link, taken from the Ulysses S. Grant talk page, in my opinion, demonstrates "pressing public necessity" of Grant's GO11. Does the anti-Semitism tag need to be put into the article ? Could the order have been a mixture of "pressing public necessity" and racism ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that the article you cite doesn't mention any form of the word "Jew". It could have been understandable if Grant had issued a general order to expel cotton traders from the district, but that's not what he did. Not all cotton traders were Jews, nor were all Jews cotton traders. Suppose that shortly after the order expelled Jews from the district, Grant's father had returned and said, "Ulysses, I have some more cotton traders I'd like you to meet so they can get a contract with the Army. But don't worry, these fellows aren't Jews." That would have left Grant back where he started, with merchants trying to exploit their, and his, relationship with his father to engage in profiteering. Hence, there was no "pressing public necessity" for Grant to expel "Jews" from the district. Since his problem was with cotton traders, if he was going to expel any class of people, he could have identified them by occupation rather than by religion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Pressing public necessity

Is it possible Grant's order could have been initiated by pressing public necessity rather than just racism or anti-Semitism ? Korematsu vs. United States established this standard of "pressing public necessity". Calhoun (2017) pages 46-47 calls GO11 Grant's "ill-advised" order. Grant in his letter of defense in 1868 says "which violation innured [sic] greatly to the help of the rebels....I have no prejudice against sect or race but want each individual to be judged by his own merit....I do not sustain the order." Was Grant lying in his order ? I realize no historian uses the term pressing public necessity, it is a legal term. Not trying to cause trouble. Is the article neutral ? I am not proposing to use the term "pressing public necessity" in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're saying that irrational prejudices usually have accompanying rationalizations I don't understand what the issue might be with the article. But Korematsu isn't currently regarded as an 'exoneration' and 'pressing necessity' as publicly invoked in 1943 can justify anything at all. Sparafucil (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Korematsu is judicial law of the land and has yet to be overturned. However, I do realize Supreme Court decisions can be overturned and is not meant to be an exoneration of Grant's GO11. It is not about justification. All wars contain unjustifiable crimes. It is about this article being neutral. Do historians have a right to judge historical figures? FDR is not labeled anti-Japanese or racist in his respected article. Grant could have been motivated only by racism, but he could have been motivated by public pressing necessity part of the war. I am not making light of the order either. War is a terrible event. It could have been both racism and desire to stop smuggling. We don't really know why Grant issued the order. The anti-Semitism tag judges Grant a racist rather than allowing the public pressing necessity of fighting smuggling. Did Grant just invade the South to expell the Jewish people or to defeat the Confederacy ? Also, what was Grant suppose to do? Historians have no answer for that ? Allow the smuggling and profiteering. Were not Lincoln and his generals, including Grant, fighting a war against the Confederacy just like FDR and his generals were was fighing a war against Japan. Let historians have their opinions and there should be a section in article on historical opinions. I believe the anti-Semitism tag automatically assumes Grant is a racist or a war criminal. Let the reader decide. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The anti-Semitism tag was removed. I have added a "quoted" historical views and assessements section. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

I tried to add an Infobox: event, but had to be discussed for approval. Not sure why ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)