[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:George S. Boutwell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 45: Line 45:
====================
====================


1. The edit says that Boutwell "*may* have been chiefly interested in quarantining African- Americans in the South..." It does *not* say that Boutwell definitely held that view.
1. The edit says that Boutwell "*may* have been chiefly interested in quarantining African-Americans in the South..." It does *not* say that Boutwell definitely held that view.


2. Boutwell's speech states:
2. Boutwell's speech states:

Revision as of 15:05, 9 January 2016

Elector

This asserts that Boutwell was a Presidential elector for Bryan in 1900; should that be ran for? He was not an Elector unless his slate took the state, and Boutwell lived in Massachusetts, which went for McKinley. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this article be improved. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements have been made to the article. Thanks for all editors who have helped out. More needs to be done. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 3-23-2013 I deleted an incorrect reference to the 13th Amendment from the Boutwell article, and my change appeared in the Boutwell article. I included a reference to a source to explain why I made that deletion. After doing so, I hadn't looked at the Boutwell article until today; now I see that my change is apparently still in the article, but I cannot find any history of my change in the View history area. Does that indicate that something is wrong with the way the View history area for this article is working? RW7890 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your edit in there. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr. Strummer. I obviously don't know my way around; I see my contribution all spelled out as I wrote it when I click on the "your edit" link you provided but I still nothing about it when I click on the Boutwell article's View History. On 15 May I saw nothing in the my Contributions area, but today when I go to my Contributions area I see the Boutwell contribution that I made. RW7890 (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed POV

I removed undo criticism of Secretary Boutwell and POV. Wikipedia is not meant to bash a person's reputation whether alive or dead. The following has been removed from the article.

  • "Boutwell did little to withdraw paper currency from circulation, shaping his financial policy to forestall either inflation or deflation. Intellectual critics saw in these actions a want of guiding principle and a lack of solid theoretical knowledge. "He believed in knowledge just so far as it was convenient for him to justify his own theory that knowledge was a deception," Henry Adams wrote in a much-quoted analysis in 1870. "He believed in common schools, and not in political science; in ledgers and cash-books, but not in Adam Smith or Mill; as one might believe in the multiplication-table, but not in Laplace or Newton. By a natural logic he made of his disbelief in the higher branches of political science a basis for his political practice, and thus grounding action on ignorance he carried out his principle to its remotest conclusions."[1] But in a very corrupt time, it spoke well of Boutwell that nobody thought that he made money out of his Cabinet post, either for himself or his friends. Living within his salary, he lodged in a boarding-house throughout his tenure. His only pleasures lay in writing lectures and playing billiards or poker -- though never for money.[2] "He is an inaccessible man, uninfluenced by fear, favor, affection or hope of reward, and does not burst out into brillian exhibitions of love or hatred," a New England politician wrote his brother.[3]
  • "Boutwell's financial policy was less dogmatic than pragmatic."
  • Liberal reformers had hoped that he would embrace civil service reform and rush the country towards the resumption of specie payments; but while Boutwell appointed subordinates on the basis of merit for the most part, , he did little to rein in the spoils system outside of Washington, remaining on friendly terms with the party bosses."
  1. ^ Henry Adams, "The Session," North American Review, July, 1870, p. 36.
  2. ^ Chicago Times, March 6, 1875.
  3. ^ Henry F. French to Benjamin B. French, March 16, 1869, Benjamin B. French Papers, Library of Congress.
Let's try to keep criticism focused on his policy. We should not over praise or bash Boutwell's reputation. One thing is clear was that he was "haughty" or "inaccessable". I don't beleive Boutwell was a nice man to be around, but that does not mean we need to denegrate his character. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crédit Mobilier of America scandal

Then-Senator Boutwell was also involved, implicated, and investigated in the notorious Crédit Mobilier scandal of 1872, which please see.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On quarantining blacks

Recent anonymous edits have added the claim that Boutwell "may have been chiefly interested in quarantining African-Americans in the South where they could not compete for the wages of Northern working men." This claim cites an article by Gene Dattel (link to article PDF), in which he argues that Boutwell supported the idea that several Southern states be "designated exclusive black states". In support of this Dattel quotes a Boutwell speech dated July 20, 1866 (full text available here). The problem is, Dattel's analysis is flawed, and the speech does not IMHO support this claim. Boutwell's argument in the speech is, that if a just policy is not enacted (in Boutwell's opinion, one requiring suffrage for African Americans before a rebellious state is readmitted), then blacks would move north to states where they had voting rights. He's describing this migration as a consequence of a policy he opposes, and is not putting forward any sort of argument about either isolation or "quarantine" (the word presently used in this article).

I have no particular evidence whether Boutwell shared the not-uncommon racist views of many Northern politicians, but this bit does not strike me as a good indicator either way. Dattel's assertion strikes me as a bit of a fringe view, and should (if it is retained at all) not be expressed in the editorial voice. Magic♪piano 04:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

========

1. The edit says that Boutwell "*may* have been chiefly interested in quarantining African-Americans in the South..." It does *not* say that Boutwell definitely held that view.

2. Boutwell's speech states:

"I bid the people, the working peoples of the North, the men who are struggling for subsistence to beware the day when the Southern freedmen shall swarm over the borders in quest of rights which should be secured to them in their own states...An unjust policy on our part...forces [the freedman] from [his] home to those [Northern] states where his rights are protected to the injury of the black man and white man in the North."

Since less than 2% of the population of the Northern states were black (as compared to 40% in the South) Boutwell's implication was targeted at the racial fears among the white Northern working class that a migration of freedmen from the South into the Northern states would produce massive new competition for jobs.

3. Gene Dattel's conclusion stated in his September 2015 article is not a fringe opinion. It is Boutwell's implication. Historian Avery Craven reached the same conclusion in his 1969 book, "Reconstruction,"which is cited at the end of the applicable paragraph.96.59.84.189 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_S._Boutwell&oldid=698988773"