Talk:Benjamin Harrison/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New material

I added some new material / images to the 'Nomination' section that touched on Harrison's inauguration speech. I provided a source which may not be up to standards for this page. If someone can cite this material with one of the established sources instead perhaps this would be better. I also added an image to the 'Nomination' section. Found it at Library of Congress. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

One last version

This last version is more of what was in mind for coverage of the post office/stamp topics, in a way that goes beyond the stamp to the governing bodies and notable people involved. I would even forgo mention of 'subsequent stamps' to keep more focus on Harrison and in the effort of keeping the section small. If anything, this would be a nice subsection for legacy. I leave the final decision with Coemgenus. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Legacy section

New section looks okay. I made a link edit and a caption edit. I think it still needs a little attention though. The second paragraph tends to read too simple. Also, for some reason you chose this item to include in with this section: The administration faced challenges throughout the hemisphere, in the Pacific, and in relations with the European powers, involvements that would be taken for granted in the twentieth century. It seems this sentence belongs under the 'Foreign policy' section. Other than that this will do for now. I am going to hunt around for some books that cover Harrison's/Wannamaker's/Congresses involvement with the Post Office Dept, as covering events of the POD is no different than covering events involving other departments connected with the Presidential cabinet -- esp when there are landmark events involved. Yes, I noticed you mentioned the first commemoratives, even mentioned Wanamaker, but it seems this event should get more attention if other items, like the USS Maine are covered with some length. Earlier I stopped at two used book stores with wonderful selections of history books, presidential biographies, etc, (even found Grant's Memoirs for only $7.50), but no sign of any books specific to Harrison. I asked the gentleman running the shop if he knew of any books for Benjamin Harrison. He said, "Benjamin Who?". I.e.No luck yet. Gwillhickers (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have no intention of covering Harrison's tangential connection to the USS Maine. Good luck with finding those sources. --Coemgenus 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a feeling I'm going to need it. Even though the PO and its national role are very important it isn't exactly the sort of topic biographers are clamoring to write about, evidently. Maybe a biography about Wanamaker will reveal the extent of Harrison's involvement with the Commemoratives. It would be interesting to know i.e. if Harrison was present during any of the debates, etc. Well, Coemgenus, I do believe we now have 'the' most scrutinized section in all of Wikipedia here on the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1880 convention

An editor just added this part of a sentence about Harrison's role at the 1880 Republican National Convention: ", and was thought to have been instrumental breaking the deadlock which resulted in the ultimate nomination of James A. Garfield."

1. Who thought this? The passive voice is vague. 2. Is there a citation we can add to this? --Coemgenus 13:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been digging around, the best I can find is that after many deadlocked votes, Harrison got the Indiana delegation to support Garfield, and several other state delegations followed suit on subsequent ballots. I can't find where its said his actions specifically were decisive. But by combining a couple sources I can see how it was the ballot on which he shifted support that the support fro Blaine and Grant collapsed in favor of Garfield. Thats pretty thin.. I think its tenuous at best to say was "instrumental", but he did have an impact. Maybe someone else can come up with something better?

I would suggest we change it to say something more like, "After thirty-three rounds of deadlocked ballots, Harrison convinced the Indiana delegation remove its support for Blaine in favor of Garfield. Other states followed suit on the subsequent ballot and Garfield won on the thirty-fifth." I can only find where Harrison directly influenced the Indiana delegation to change sides, and indirectly that influenced other state delegations to switch to. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. I won't be able to add citation until next week, but I'll be glad to do it if you don't have time this weekend. --Coemgenus 13:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Last President with a beard

Some user made a rather odd entry to the text just recently, that Harrison was the last president to have a beard. The entry was removed, presumably because it was unsourced, there was no edit summary. Seems as though the statement could have been worked into the text somewhere, just to give the biography added personal color, if anything (not that it's lacking here). As sourcing goes, a simple referral to a presidential portrait gallery should suffice. The item could also get the Harrison page nominated for a DYK feature. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

DYKs must be either new articles, fivefold expansions of existing articles, or twofold expansions of BLP articles. See WP:WIADYK. --Coemgenus 06:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Powder River War

I believe a section on the Powder River War would improve the article. The section could give some understanding on how the West had remained wild even into the 1890's. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's look through the sources and see what his biographers had to say about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Source: The war on Powder River

It seems like a rather minor event in the course of an entire presidency. The book only mentions him three or four times, and never in a way that suggests serious involvement. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

One interesting factor is that President Harrison is calling troops on American citizens and demonstrates that the West was wild even up to 1890. The Wyoming state militia could not handle the vigilantes. The other factor is that the West was also taming, since the people rose up against the vigilantes and were going to destroy them. I would only put in the article if there was editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian Policy

I believe a section on President Harrison's Indian policy would be good for the article. He favored whites to settle in Indian territory. Battle of Wounded Knee Cmguy777 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's look through the sources and see what his biographers had to say about it. I presume you mean for these two to be the same section. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is fine. Wounded Knee might be one of the last major Indian Wars in the 19TH Century. The Powder River War could be put in the same section. The Powder River War did not involve American Indians, as far as I know. Basically, the war had to do with attacking cattle "rustlers". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Source:Benjamin Harrison: centennial president

There should be something about the Indian Wars, I suppose. Let's consult the sources and drum up a couple of sentences. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The source book had good footnotes and I thought explained the incident well. The source also discussed President Harrison's Indian policy. This could also be mentioned. President Harrison did not want the high causalities and I believe he took this massacre personally. I would mention the background of the War, the War itself, and President Harrison's reaction. Then a few sentences on President Harrison's Native American policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential edit:

During the 1880's the Sioux had been confined to live on reservations in South Dakota. By 1890, one American Indian shaman, Wovoka, influenced the Sioux to participate in a militant Indian movement known as the Ghost Dance. On December 29, 1890, six-hundred Seventh Calvary troops sent into South Dakota killed two-hundred Indians at the Battle of Wounded Knee, mostly women and children. This massacre was done in part as retribution for Col. George A. Custer in 1876 at the Battle of Little Big Horn. President Harrison was incensed at the slaughter, ordered an investigation, and removal of any offending officers if found. To keep the peace, thirty-five-hundred federal troops were stationed in South Dakota. The dead Lakota Sioux were buried in a mass grave.

President Harrison's Indian policy included that Indians assimilate into white society, learn to farm, and to educate Indian children. In 1890, there were 56 agencies under the federal Office of Indian Affairs. American Indians, who became depressed on the harsh conditions of reservation system and the loss of their native heritage, turned to alcohol for comfort. The Battle of Wounded Knee is considered the last major American Indian battle in the 19th Century.

Utley (1964) state 153 Lakota Sioux were killed while Moore (2006) stated 200 Indians were killed. What is the best number to be used in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

2nd draft

How about this:

During Harrison's term, the Lakota Sioux, previously confined to reservations in South Dakota, grew restive under the influence of Wovoka, a medicine man, who encouraged them to participate in a militant movement called the Ghost Dance. On December 29, 1890, troops from the Seventh Calvary clashed with the Sioux at the Battle of Wounded Knee. The result was a massacre of at least 146 Sioux, including many women and children. The dead Sioux were buried in a mass grave. Harrison was concerned and ordered Major General Nelson A. Miles to investigate. Harrison also ordered 3500 federal troops to South Dakota, and the uprising ended. Wounded Knee is considered the last major American Indian battle in the 19th century. Harrison's general policy on American Indians was to encourage assimilation into white society and, despite the massacre, he believed the policy to have been generally successful. This policy, known as the allotment system, was favored by liberal reformers at the time, but eventually proved detrimental to American Indians as most of their land was resold at low prices to white speculators.

--Coemgenus (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Great summary and sources. Looks good to put in as is. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New material and source

Is there a better citation for that new material aded under "Civil rights"? I think it's all true, but I'd be more comfortable with something other than an obscure teritiary source. And why not discuss major changes here first? These things go more smoothly when we collaborate, like we did on the last addition (Indian policy) and saves us from wasting time. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is good to discuss and collaborate. I believe that Harrison's Civil Rights section is important, particularly for a 19TH Century President. That is why I expanded the section. The New York Times covered the Blair Act. I can start another section in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's already up there, so let's just work from what's there now. I'll look in Calhoun and the other secondary sources to see if I can cite to them or add anything. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I apoligize for any misunderstandings or having to work backwards. I started a Civil Rights section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed Civil Rights section. Best to have discussion in one section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times source for the Blair Act: Education To Be Aided Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Blair Act was made to fund education "for children without distinction of race or color". I believe the measure was very progressive for its time period. Alabama Senator Morgan stated that education would not help the black race and that whites were to be the governing race over the blacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to expand the coverage of the Blair bill on a separate page about it. If you don't think that it's notable enough (since it didn't pass, after all) maybe you could mention it on Blair's page (I think I cited the right Senator Blair in the article -- it certainly wasn't Francis P. Blair!). At the same time, I'd avoid newspaper accounts in favor of scholarly histories. Newspapers don't always get their facts right, and they always lack historical perspective and deeper understanding, since they're written contemporaneously with the events they describe. A scholar has the benefit of years to study the big picture and see how events actually turned out. Scholarly sources also get peer-reviewed and edited, while newspaper articles only get the amount of editing between their authorship and their publication the next day. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In terms of using New York Times or other contemporary newspapers, I believe these articles lack historical perspective. However, Pulitzer Prize winning historian William S. McFeely, Grant: a biography (1981), cites newspapers or chronicles as his sources. McFeely cited the New York Times, the New York Tribune, and the New York Herald. The NYT article confirms that the Blair Bill was a civil rights bill debated in Congress. I would use the NYT article as confirmation of the Blair Bill. The NYT even goes into the amount of money spent on education. It may have passed the House, but failed the Senate. The point is that it was a Civil Rights legislation held back by the Solid South or Alabama Sen. Morton. President Harrison supported the bill. Morton's statement's are honestly candid and gives a good idea the opposition President Harrison faced. I am so far unable to obtain a copy of the O'Reilly book. I believe the Smith book is reliable, although in encyclopedic format. The Smith book is devoted precisely to African American politics, not a general encyclopedia. I agree other sources, if found, could add historical weight to the Civil Rights section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nixon's piano: presidents and racial politics from Washington to Clinton by Kenneth O'Reilly (1995) on page 59 discusses Harrison and civil rights. Eleven Italian citizens were lynched in New Orleans. The Italian government protested and Harrison launched antilynching legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is another New York Times pdf link to the Blair Bill: The Blair Bill Doomed. Apparently there had been several attempts to pass the Senate in the past. By the time Harrison was president, the Senators apparently lost interest in the Bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are other sources on the Blair Bill: Cmguy777 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Daniel (1971) The Black Response to the Blair Education Bill

Allen (1957) The South and the Blair Education Bill

Woodward (1971) Origins of the New South, 1877-1913

This could be a really good source for the Blair Bill and President Harrison. In relative terms Harrision privately supported the Blair Education Bill over the Morrell Education Bill. In other words, President Harrison, did not publically support the Blair Bill, although he prefered the Bill over the Morrell Bill. The origins of federal support for higher education Williams (1991) Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Comengenus for the added reference edits in the Civil Rights section. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Smith source did not list references for Harrison supporting anti-lynching legislation or the constitutional amendment to overturn the 1883 Supreme Court decisions. Maybe a second source would add reliability to the statements. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Harrison tour

Harrison made a Presidential tour in 1891. He traveled through 22 states. Source: Reid (1892), Life and Times of Benjamin Harrison, pp. 438-445. I know the source is dated, however, do any biographers recount his traveling tour. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

These presidential tours are fairly inconsecquential. Was there anything of historical import that resulted from it? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It was highly successful and lasted a month. He may made 143 speeches. He traveled by railroad and horse and carriage. Maybe his speeches might have significance. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Calhoun (2005) discusses the tour on pages 119-121. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I read those pages, and I still don't see anything terribly noteworthy. It's nothing I'd expect to see in an encyclopedia article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

One suggestion, possibly, would be to incorporate his U.S. Tour into one of the sections already in the article. For example, "On his U.S. tour in 1891 President Harrison stated..." or possibly one sentence that mentions President Harrison, to get away from the stresses of Washington, took a one month tour of the United States in 1891. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe a sentence, if there is a place it could be logically added. I'll take a look this weekend. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Foreign policy

I believe mentioning the Italian lynching would be good for the article. Calhoun (2005), pp. 126, 127. Maybe expanding on Harrison's sometimes cool relationship with Sec. Blaine would be good. Calhoun (2005), pp. 75-77. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

His major involvement in the incident was to say that he couldn't do anything. The way Calhoun describes the resolution is ambiguous, too: "the United States agreed in principle to pay an indemnity." Id., p. 127. Fairly minor involvement on Harrison's part. As I said above, is this the sort of thing found in a typical encyclopedia article? I'd be shocked if Funk & Wagnalls or Britannica devoted a single word to it. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The incident was controversial, I believe, since the Italians and Americans withdrew their consuls from their respected countries. I agree that Calhoun's description is ambiguous. Harrison's reaction (or lack of reaction) was what caused the withdrawal of the consuls. The Italians were angry, if I am reading Calhoun within context, that Harrison, the President of the United States, looked incompetent and weak, since he stated the states controlled their own laws and Harrison did not have any real or effective powers as President to stop lynchings. I agree that more information or an alternative reference is needed if put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times (April 1, 1891) pdf reference that gives more information: State Department Action Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What I did not know concerning President Harrison was how sick and absent Sec. Blaine was. Harrison, seemed to be running his own state department for much of his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly expansion of the navy could be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit trade and tour

Here is a proposed edit of Harrison that mentions his tour and foreign policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

President Harrison's central foreign policy goal was to expand reciprocal trade to other countries. In San Francisco, on tour of the western states in 1891, Harrison stated that the U.S. Navy would protect American oceanic shipping and that trading partners around the world would increase American influence and prestige. Harrison believed that the United States was in a "new epoch" of trade.

Calhoun (2005), pp. 119-121

How about:

In San Francisco, while on tour of the United States in 1891, Harrison proclaimed that the United States was in a "new epoch" of trade and that the expanding navy would protect oceanic shipping and increase American influence and prestige abroad.

It could go in the first paragraph of "Foreign policy". --Coemgenus (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That is good. That would emphasize Harrison's trade policy and that he went on tour to promote his foreign policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I added it. Done deal! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cherokee commission

I'm not sure this belongs in this biographical article. Was Harrison closely involved with this group? I don't recall his biographers mentioning it at all, but I'll have another look when I get home. It might help to create the article about the commission first, so people could see what it was all about. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a source Taking Indian Lands Hagan (2003), pp. 34-41. Harrison was indirectly involved with the commission. I believe their may have been resistance to dividing up Indian lands by severalty. Harrison appointed Warren G. Sayer who gave information to Harrison on the Cherokee Commission. Did Harrison influence the outcome of this commission by appointing Sayer? Did the Commission resolve the pressured sale of Indian Lands? Apparently Chief Mayes wanted the sale of Indian lands to be done by the Cherokees. I would have to do more research on Cherokee Confernence. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In reading Hagan's book Taking Indian Lands Harrison appointed 3 commissioners in 1889 to buy up the Outlet, land owned by the Cherokees, to the United States Government. Chief Mayes rejected their attempts. Under pressure from Sec. Noble, President Harrison ordered that cattle leases and cattle off the Outlet. The Cherokees were making money off this land by leasing to Cattle ranchers. The initial attempt to get the Cherokees to sell the Outlet by the Commissioners failed. It would take a few more years for the Government to get the Outlet. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed photo addition

Here is a photo to be put in the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• 

There's room for it in "Indian policy" or "civil rights" without crowding. The quality is pretty bad on that thing, though. I guess outdoor shots weren't ever great in those days. Is there no better version? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I made improvement edits such as focus and lighting on the original. I also "cloned" in some of the sky background. I am guessing this was from a glass plate original camera and I am not sure who the original photographer was. Calhoun stated that President Benjamin Harrison visited Sec. Blaine in Maine in 1889. Yes. It would be nice if the the photo was in better condition. I have yet to find a better photo then this one. I believe the photo captures the style of later 19TH Century Victorian world, particularly the women's clothing. This is one of the first photographs I know of a President being photographed with women. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. The photo fits in the Civil Rights section since Representative Henry Cabot Lodge is in the photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice addition to the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sec. Blaine

Here is a proposed edit on the rift "unfriendliness" between Sec. Blaine and President Benjamin Harrison. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Although President Harrison and Sec. Blaine agreed in principle on an active foreign policy and reciprocal trade, the two did not always get along with each other. Privately, Harrison resented Sec. Blaine for being often absent from the U.S. State Department and for having to shoulder the burden of foreign policy programs while Blaine took the credit. Sec. Blaine during Washington's hot summers staid in Bar Harbor, Maine. Sec. Blaine was upset for Harrison not appointing his son, Walker Blaine, to first assistant to the Secretary of State. As a cultured and sophisticated Easterner, Sec. Blaine considered Harrison and his wife Caroline, inferior socially. Harrison and his wife, Caroline, believed that Sec. Blaine and his wife Harriet were a "strange family" who could not be completely trusted. Before Harrison visited Sec. Blaine in Maine in 1889, Blaine had privately referred to Harrison as the great "White Elephant" to Henry Cabot Lodge.

I think the rift is a bit exaggerated. Blaine didn't get along with anybody. I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but I'll say it again: we can't put everything in the sources into the article. The article is a brief summary of the collected wisdom of the scholarly sources. More specifically: lets leave out the Walker Blaine bit (too picayune) and the "social inferiors" (which Calhoun indeed writes but which is unsupported in other sources and, frankly, makes no sense -- the Harrison family was far more prestigious than the Blaines). The bigger issue here, which I'm beginning to understand as I'm reading a Blaine biography: Blaine was a prickly, over-sensitive, grudge-holding man who thought he, not Harrison (or Garfield, or Arthur) deserved to be president. But that's more of an issue for a Blaine article. I suggest adding this sentence to "Foreign policy":

Harrison and Secretary of State Blaine were at times personally unfriendly, but were in perfect agreement on an active foreign policy and reciprocal trade.

I think that covers it well enough. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. One sentence is good. I was attempting to tie in the photo that Harrison visited Blaine in Bar Harbor, Maine. During the hot summer months Blaine refused to work in Washington. Blaine seemed to have some pull on the people he was around. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Blaine pretty much did whatever he wanted. I'll add the sentence and clean up the paragraph to fit it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I believe knowing what was going on between Sec. Blaine and President Benjamin Harrison adds interest to the photo on the ship. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Pension Bureau

Without adding another section, I believe more can be added on the Pension Bureau. Harrison fired Tanner and his replacement Raum got into trouble also, however, Harrison did not fire Raum. The Woodward book Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct is a good source. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I tweaked the langauge a bit, but it looks fine to me. Concise and well-cited. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. The Gilded Age did not end with the Ulysses S. Grant Administration. I believe that was the main "corruption" found in Benjamin Harrison's tenor of office. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Radical Republican

Was Benjamin Harrison the last Radical Republican President? I suppose Ulysses S. Grant would be the first. One source states he was a Radical Republican, Anne Chieko Moore, Hester Anne Hale (2006), Anne Chieko Moore, Hester Anne Hale pg. 29. Maybe Harrison should be referred to as a Radical Republican somewhere in the article and certainly explains his prosecution of voting rights violations in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Harrison was fairly moderate. That quotation from Moore & Hale doesn't say that he was adhered to the radical faction, only that his father, a conservative Whig, thought of all Republicans as radicals. If you look at the source they cite, Sievers v.1 pp. 127-128, you'll see that "radical" is Hale's & Moore's formulation, not John Harrison's or Fr. Sievers's. See here. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I know Moore & Hale called him a Radical Republican and both sources imply that his family knew he was outside the Harrison family political arena by joining the Republicans. His attorney General, I believe was one of the last U.S. Attorney Generals to prosecute African American voting violations in the 19th Century. True the Radicals were a loose bunch in terms of their ideals, but Harrison persisted in passing a Voting Rights bill. I suppose my whole point is that Harrison was attempting, like President Grant, to get rid of the last vestiges of slavery. I was going by the Moore & Hale statement and Harrison's actions as President and that many African American historians view Harrison's policies were anti-racist. Maybe President Grant's prosecution or the Klu Klux Klan from 1871 to 1873 influenced Harrison. I am not saying that Harrison was a radical like a Charles Sumner, but Harrison did place a signifigant importance on prosecuting Civil Rights cases. I am for editor consensus on this, but I would say compared to someone like James Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, and Grover Cleveland that Harrison was a Radical. Thanks for your response Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Harrison was more leftist on civil rights than Arthur and Cleveland, but there were really no Radicals in government in the late 1880s. The faction was marginalized. None of Harrison's biographers call him radical, either. For us to add that characterization would be to add our own opinions rather than the scholarly consensus, which we may not do, of course. Further, I find it a better writing style to describe a man's actions and quote his words and let the readers make what judgments they will. For us to hang a label on him is too simplistic, and only invites editwars over something none of us can prove. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Moore & Hale source referred to him as a Radical, however, you are correct, Coemgenus, the reader can decide that issue. I referred to Harrison as a Radical since he seemed to have that spark of aggressivism on Civil Rights similar to the Radicals during the 1860's and early 1870's and he was also a Union Civil War general. Is there enough information in the article that sets him apart as being more progressive on prosecuting civil rights voting violations and promoting civil rights agenda then say Arthur and Cleveland? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's pretty well covered. Be careful about assuming that being a Union general makes a man a Radical; many of the most prominent were Democrats (McClellan, Hancock) or non-Radical Republicans (Sherman). --Coemgenus (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the War changed the outlook of men, some more then others. Possibly Harrison, viewed that giving up on African American civil rights would be kind of a surrender to the former Confederates. This was something Harrison would not allow. As a Union Civil War General, maybe he had some fight still in him in terms of civil rights. I agree that the article covers his civil rights agenda well. I believe a sentence that states Harrison was more aggressive then Arthur and Cleveland on persueing Civil Rights would be appropriate for the article. However, this would be done only with editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a suggested sentence: President Harrison persued Civil Rights agenda progressively more then his predecessors Chester A. Arthur and Grover Cleveland. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion: President Harrison was more progressive in promoting a national civil rights agenda then his predecessors Chester A. Arthur and Grover Cleveland. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this would be best placed in the Legacy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What do the sources say about how his civil rights agenda compared to his predecessors'? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am taking this from the book American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom (2000), pages 200-201. Harrison is classified as "anti-racist" in terms of civil rights. Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Benjamin Harrison are linked by "anti-racist" legislation and Executive actions. For example, Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, Grant and the Force Laws and the destruction of the Ku Klux Klan, Harrison and his Voting Rights act in addition to prosecuting voting rights violations by his Attorney General. Grover Cleveland and Chester Authur were considered racially neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I think it's better to let the president's actions speak for themselves, rather than repeating some author's opinion. The idea of classifying 19th-century presidents as "racist" or "non-racist" strikes me as facile, anyway, but I've not seen the book so I can't really judge its seriousness. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the term racism was popularly used during the 1930's describing Hitler's anti-semitism. The term "anti-racist" means that President Harrison's actions as President were designed to signifigantly reduce or stop opposition by conservatives to African American citizenship. Like Lincoln and Grant, Harrison wanted to get rid of the vestiges of slavery. Harrison was more pro active in this area then Arthur or Cleveland. I used the term civil rights then "anti-racist". Harrison desired that blacks be able to vote in the South without infringement of their citizenship rights. I believe this was Harrison's legacy as President and worthy of mentioning in the legacy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed modified sentence:

Harrison as President has been recognized for his proactivism in attempting to protect African American voting rights through the Justice Department and advocating civil rights legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the civil rights section we wrote together before conveys all of this already. Anyone reading that section would conclude that Harrison favored equal voting rights and civil rights for black southerners. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean adding the sentence to the Civil Rights section, rather, the legacy section. His civil rights record distinguished himself from other Presidents. One could even state that Presidents who followed Harrison were more conservative until Harry Truman. From Harrison to Truman there was a lack of effort or interest in Civil Rights. Maybe simplifying the statement would be best. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Harrison's presidency was distinguished by his advocating voting and civil rights for African American southerners. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Find a reliable source to cite to it and let's do it. I can't tell you how much I hate that Legacy section. We only added it in the first place to appease that postage maniac. For a president like Harrison, who has no real legacy in the popular mind, the section is pointless except to advance the authors' opinions of the man's work. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Gwillhickers, who can be extremely resistant to working together with other editors on an article or even to have a conversation on a talk page. I read the legacy section and I believe much of the information is not legacy, but rather, memorials. I believe Harrison does have a legacy. He kept America out of war, he passed the Sherman Anti-trust bill, and he protected African American civil rights. I would have to go through the section more to see if any memorials are neccessary for the article. The section could use a narration tweak. Thanks Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the language you want to add is far more relevant to Harrison's legacy than the memorials are. Like I said, I'm on board with adding it, so long as you add some source citation with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section improvement

I believe the Legacy section needs to be improved. I propose that the Legacy section be renamed Historical reputation and memorials. In terms of memorials, I believe mentioning any actual artistic memorials, would be primary. I believe the format needs to be in sentence or paragraph form rather then listing the memorials. I propose removing the following information from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Harrison also was featured on the five-dollar National Bank Notes from the third charter period, beginning in 1902.
• In 2012, a dollar coin with his image, part of the Presidential $1 Coin Program, was issued.

Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Harrison does have a statue memorial in Indianapolis, Indiana. Here is the link: Benjamin Harrison Statue - Indianapolis, Indiana

Do you really want to re-open that can of worms? That section was the result of months and months of stupid arguments, RfCs, edit-wars and other wastes of time. I like the thing you want to add, as I said above, but I don't want to spend one more minute of my life talking about Harrison's image on stamps, coins, or banknotes. Let's just leave well enough alone. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, if this is the editor you Coemgenus are talking about, uses intimidation and personal threats. I agree. I don't want to open a can of worms either. That is why I have been putting this in the talk page. If I can get that one photo of Harrison's statue in, that would be good. I could shuffle the postage stamp photo somewhere, keep what is in the article, but put in a paragraph form; and add the civil rights sentence. The listing of his memorials, in my opinion, does not fit the rest of the articles style. Don't worry, I would be cautious in my editing. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be a paragraph rather than a list. I'm not sure how it ended up that way, I think it was a paragraph at one point. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I improved the "Legacy" section. I changed the name and got rid of the list formating. I also changed the Harrison postage stamp photo to the Harrison Memorial Statue photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I added more on Harrison's historical reputation. My source was Gale Encyclopedia of American Law (2010) edited by Donna Batten. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not present at his grandfather's inauguration

"Harrison was seven years old when his grandfather was elected President, but he did not attend the inauguration.[2]" - The weather that day was horrible, and the main speaker was long-winded.Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Pach Brothers - Benjamin Harrison.jpg

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Pach Brothers - Benjamin Harrison.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 20, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Benjamin Harrison (1833–1901) was a politician who became the 23rd president of the United States. The grandson of former president William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison was a lawyer and soldier before becoming a U.S. senator from Indiana. After defeating the incumbent Grover Cleveland, in 1889 Harrison became president; during his four-year term he enacted such policies as the McKinley Tariff and the Sherman Antitrust Act.Photo: Pach Brothers, restoration: Adam Cuerden

Added image...

Just added BEP engraved portrait of Harrison as President. If this is problematic, please let me know. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Presidency 1889–1893: "His speech was brief – half as long as that of his grandfather, William Henry Harrison, whose speech holds the record for the longest inaugural address of a U.S. president."

This sentence by itself, without more information, is logically incorrect. Just because a speech is half as long as the longest speech ever, doesn't make it brief. What if the longest speech was 4x longer than every other speech? Should include either the total time or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.137.239 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Declined reputation

The article does not really state why Harrison's reputation has declined. He really did not have any scandals. He was relatively honest. Why is Harrison downgraded so much ? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know off the top of my head, but consulting the biographies about him might explain it. If I had to guess: it's not that he became unpopular, just that the weak presidency of the 19th century gives 21st-century scholars little to get excited about. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Coemgenus. The reader does not really know why historians give Harrison low marks. If what you are saying is true then that gives this article the impression of prensentism, or simply downgrading Harrison because he was president in the 19th Century. As far as I have read there is no explanation in the article why Harrison is downgraded. Something needs to be mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If historians have downgraded him, it's not for us to question their reasons, only to summarize their scholarship. If you could get the biographies, they might tell you more. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not questioning their reasons. I am saying there are no reasons in the article for the reader. There is no critically negative scholarship to be summarized. To say Benjamin Harrison was a terrible president but then not to give any reasons or explanation is not historical analysis, but more hearsay or slander. Also it appears the article on Historical rankings of Presidents is being used a source. Wikipedia articles can't be used as a source in an article. Was he a terrible administrator ? Was there out of control scandals ? Presentism is not a reason to degrade a president, is POV, and lacking neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So read the sources and find the answers, if they exist. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

6 states

Congress created three new states (VT, Kty, Tenn). The original 13 states of NC and RI also ratified the Constitution & entered Congress in 1789-91, but that at best gives n=5 for George W's years. NC and RI never "left" the Union in 1789--they were still considered states but without a voice in Congress. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2016 (

A note of context for the above comment: Prior to this 12/9/2016 edit, the last sentence in the article's States admitted to the Union section read, "More states were admitted under Harrison's presidency than any other since George Washington's." Arguably, 5 states did join the new Union created by the 1787 Constitution (the 2 that ratified the Constitution + the 3 that were created by the U.S. Congress later on) during Washington's presidency. That earlier statement was factually false however, as 5 states also joined the Union a few decades later during the presidency of James Monroe. The change I made, to "More states were admitted under Harrison's presidency than any other since that of James Monroe." was reverted. Rjenson then shortened the sentence, taking the focus off both GW & JM, and putting it back on the important fact, which is that, "More states were admitted under Harrison's presidency than any other." Drdpw (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Should Godlike Orth read Godlove Stein Orth?

This is a superb article on Benjamin Harrison; however, I'm wondering if there may be an error in Mr. Orth's correct given name. I believe it might be Godlove instead of Godlike. Please see the Wiki entry for Godlove Stein Orth. It seems to be well documented. 8i9 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. I've corrected the name and added a link to Orth's article. Indyguy (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benjamin Harrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628132932/http://www.presidentbenjaminharrison.org/museum/default.php to http://www.presidentbenjaminharrison.org/museum/default.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The real 23rd President

This is a superb article about Benjamin Harrison. However, there is one problem. This article is the first result on google when you search 23rd president of the USA even though he wasn't a president. In Steel Ball Run it was revealed, that the real 23rd president was Funny Valentine with his stand Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap( also known as Filthy Acts at a Reasonable Price). So I would like to request deleting the parts where it reads President

/jojoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by KokuChan (talk • contribs) 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)