Talk:John B. Floyd

Fair use?

Is this image usable since it was published over 100 years ago? http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=November&Date=29 -- it mentions Floyd in the cartoon --plange 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The standard is that the author or artist died 100 years ago, not its publication. There is an alternative public domain status that occurs for works that were published before 1923 in the United States. But you also have to determine that the website that you wish to extract it from has not claimed a copyright on it due to such factors as special cropping or photo correcting. In general, the safest way to get Civil War illustrations from the Internet is from the Library of Congress or the National Archives. Hal Jespersen 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Floyd Scandals

The following text was added by an IP to the main body of the article -- I have moved it here in case anyone wants to discuss it or incorporate it into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[The following information was submitted by Linda Bryan, 1752 Gulden Place, Maplewood, MN 55109.]

PLEASE HAVE AN EXPERT LOOK AT MY MATERIAL. I AM NOT A CIVIL WAR EXPERT AND DO NOT INTIMATELY KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE FT. SUMPTER ATTACK AND AFTERMATH. I WENT TO WIKIPEDIA IN HOPES THAT SOMEONE ELSE COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN JOHN B. FLOYD'S TENURE AS SEC. OF WAR. INSTEAD I FIND THAT YOUR ARTICLE HAS A CONFUSION. THERE WERE TWO SCANDALS: HIS HAND IN THE "ABSTRACTION" OF INDIAN BONDS AND THE INEPTITUDE OF FLOYD IN DEFENDING THE UNION AS SECRETARY OF WAR. AT THIS POINT IN THE STORY WHERE I AM WRITING, YOU CONFUSE THE TWO AND THUS THE QUOTE FROM HARPER'S WEEKLY WHICH FOLLOWS MY MATERIAL MAKES NO SENSE.

$870,000 APPROX. WORTH OF INDIAN BONDS WENT MISSING FROM A SAFE IN THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT in 1860. IN THEIR PLACE WERE "ACCEPTANCES" -- A TYPE OF I.O.U. A RELATIVE OF FLOYD'S WITHIN THE INTERIOR DEPT NAMED BAILEY TOOK THEM. THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BE COUPON BONDS WHICH HAD NO STAMP UPON THEM TO INDICATE THAT THEY WERE PROPERTY OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIANS.

New York Times Feb 13, 1861: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9407E3DE1E3DE53BBC4B52DFB466838A679FDE&scp=1&sq=%22indian+bonds%22+floyd+bailey&st=p

"As respects the War Office, when the defalcation in the Department of the Interior was detected, and Floyd's acceptances found in place of the stolen Indian bonds, it became impossible for that minister to continue any longer in the cabinet. With the deepest reluctance was Buchanan constrained to admit Floyd's complicity. Often was he heard by his friends to exclaim, "He can not have done it, he can not have done it!" When Floyd's letter of resignation was handed to him, foreseeing its purport, his emotion could not be concealed. His trembling hand set the crisp and crumpling sheet nearer and then farther from his eyes, which seemed to refuse their office. With difficulty he deciphered the well-known but now mazy and swimming characters. The fortunate star of the republic was for the moment in the ascendant, and, at the earnest recommendation of the attorney general, Joseph Holt, a Kentuckian, who was true to the nation, received the vacant appointment." History of the American Civil War. Volume: 2. Contributors: John William Draper - author. Publisher: Harper & Brothers Publishers. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1868. Page Number: 45 . THIS AUTHOR BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY BY SOUTHERN CONGRESSMEN AND MEMBERS OF THE BUCHANAN ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH FLOYD PLAYED A PART. A SIMILAR PIECE WAS WRITTEN IN 1866 Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion. Contributors: James Buchanan - author. Publisher: D. Appleton. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1866. P. 44-45. I ACCESSED THESE ONLINE THROUGH QUESTIA BUT THEY MAY BE AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE.

IN MY DIGGING ABOUT TO LEARN ABOUT THE BONDS, IT WOULD SEEM THAT AT LEAST A PART OF THE MONEY WAS ROUTED TO INTERESTS IN THE WEST, INCLUDING THE PONY EXPRESS AND CONTRACTORS SUPPLYING GOVERNMENT VENTURES IN UTAH. I CANNOT DOCUMENT THIS PART OF THE STORY EASILY; IT TOOK ME YEARS TO GET TO THIS POINT; I AM NOT A SCHOLAR OF THE SOUTHWEST HISTORY.

THE IRONY OF THE LOST MONEY AND FLOYD'S EXONERATION WAS NOT LOST ON THE INDIANS: MONEY DEDICATED TO THE ONGOING COMMITMENTS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOWARD LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO THE INDIANS WAS VULNERABLE. THIS CASE DID NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE TRIBES. IT WAS NO COINCIDENCE THAT WITHIN THE YEAR, THE DAKOTA SIOUX ATTACKED SETTLERS IN MINNESOTA.

THE CASE IS SUMMARIZED IN A FEW DIFFERENT PLACES I HAVE IDENTIFIED. THE NEW YORK TIMES HISTORICAL NEWSPAPERS SERVICE GIVES US SOME OF THE DETAILS, APPARENTLY BY A MAN WHO ATTENDED THE HEARINGS. AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL TRIAL IS GIVEN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ON MARCH 11, 1861. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9407E3DE1E3DE53BBC4B52DFB466838A679FDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS IS ON MARCH 23 1861. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0DEFDC1F3BE532A25750C2A9659C946091D7CF&scp=1&sq=FLOYD+MARCH+1861&st=p A SUMMARY OF THE CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY IS IN NEW YORK TIMES MARCH 13, 1861. SEE http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9407E3DE1E3DE53BBC4B52DFB466838A679FDE, UNFORTUNATELY IT IS AN INCOMPLETE VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.

I KNOW THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL SERIAL SET MATERIAL HAS THE ENTIRE FEDERALLY PUBLISHED INQUIRY, BUT I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO IT AT THIS TIME. PERHAPS YOU DO?

AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE, NO ONE WAS EVER CIVILLY PROSECUTED FOR THE INDIAN BOND THEFT. THE STORY BROKE ON THE EVE OF LINCOLN'S ELECTION AND THE INQUIRY OCCURRED AT INAUGURATION TIME. IT WAS RECOGNIZED AS BEING THE GREATEST EMBEZZLEMENT IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT EVER. THE LEGAL TECHNICALITIES IMPEDING PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE ABSURD AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE NYTIMES SUMMARIES. THE GUILT OF FLOYD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL AGENCIES WAS CLEAR. IT IS INTERESTING FROM THE MINNESOTA HISTORY POINT OF VIEW THAT LUKE LEA, FORMER INDIAN COMMISSIONER AND A MAN WHO SIGNED THE 1851 DAKOTA TREATY, WAS IMPLICATED AS A MIDDLE MAN OR WORSE BUT APPEARS TO HAVE DODGED ANY TAINT OF GUILT.

THE RECORD REGARDING FLOYD NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY CORRECTED. EVEN IN THE 20TH CENTURY, FLOYD HAD DEFENDERS. SEE Hughes, Robert M., " John B. Floyd and His Traducers," The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1935), pp. 316-329 Published by: Virginia Historical Society (Digital copy available through JSTOR).

ADDITIONALLY, THE IMPACT OF THIS STORY ON AMERICAN INDIAN HISTORY HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED. IT IS A PART OF OUR SHAMEFUL TREATMENT OF NATIVE PEOPLES AND THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE CROSS-REFERENCED WITH OTHER MATERIAL OF A SIMILAR NATURE TO AID FUTURE RESEARCHERS. BE SURE TO CROSS-REFERENCE IT WITH YOUR RUSSELS, MAJORS AND WADELL ARTICLE ON THE PONY EXPRESS AND YOUR ARTICLE ON Central Overland California and Pike's Peak Express Company. THE PONY EXPRESS HAS AN ETHOS IN AMERICANA WHICH IS ONLY A PART OF ITS ACTUAL SUBSTANCE. TAKE A LOOK AT THE SAINTLY STATUS IT CURRENTLY HOLDS IN THIS EXAMPLE: http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=680&Lot_No=74087&src=pr

--LINDA BRYAN

Complicity with "Southern Cause"

There is no mention in the article that he purposely put southern officers in charge of all the southern forts shortly before the war. Northern officers were shifted to the far west or the northern forts. This is why all but 2 (or 3) southern forts were given up without a fight. Major Anderson was from Kentucky, but his loyalty was strongly pro-union, so he didn't give up until fired on with overwhelming force. The other southern forts that didn't give up was Fort Pickens & some fort in Virginia. Most all the rest of the southern forts were commanded by southerners. Sec Floyd's influence of the peculiar arrangement of commanding officers predisposed to support the peculiar institution that was so much the question of the day should be explored.

66.105.72.67 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Jack Stout, Jr.

An Amicus Curie brief filed with the Supreme Court for Trump vs. Anderson case implicates John B. Floyd in an attempt to prevent Lincoln's first inauguration, which was referenced during congressional debates leading to drafting of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. The brief claims similarities that insurrectionist conspiracy to prevent inauguration and events of Jan 6 insurrection. Brief found at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295994/20240118094034746_Trump%20v%20Anderson.pdf Dux96 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)