As of 1895, Grant Circle was unpaved, the area surrounded it was heavy wooded, and the only trace of commerce was an abandoned peanut stand nearby.

When the circle was built, it was in a very rural area, far from the center city, and erecting a statue of Ulysses S. Grant would have been considered an insult.

Curiously, the most comprehensive source of information on the circle and its design, the 2017 National Park Service Cultural Landscape Inventory, mentions no action of this type in 1939.

But, after 1934, there are no specific actions identified, only this entry covering 1934 to 1980: "NPS maintains Grant Circle, no major new designs or plantings introduced at the site".

Therefore, what The Post’s 2021 caption suggests was a specific action in 1939 may well be more accurately viewed as a summation of the design-related issues that were addressed between 1924 and 1934, as described in the NPS Cultural Inventory.

The Wikipedia page that discusses him notes: "During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Grant's reputation was damaged by the Lost Cause movement and the Dunning School".

[22] Whether any of these themes influenced the design of Grant Circle will have to remain an open question, given the lack of definitive information in the available sources.

Of particular note is a front page article from the April 6, 1922 edition of The Evening Star, "Children to lose another play site by improvements: Grant Circle will be sodded and made into park space".

[23] No information is provided as to whether that 15 to 2 ratio was sufficient to meet the "separate but equal" expectation for the provision of public services that was prevalent during that period of history.