Talk:Chester A. Arthur/Archive 1

1829 or 1830
Some sources say 1829 and others say 1830 about Arthur's birth, but this page says nothing about this dispute. Can anyone put any info in?? 66.32.252.184 00:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thats because Chester Arthur told people his birthyear was 1830. It was actually 1829. --Coingeek (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nearly five years after its questioning here, this is covered, and sourced, in the Early life and education section. &mdash;ADavidB 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chester A. Arthur v. Chester Alan Arthur
Why was this moved to Chester Alan Arthur? --Jiang 01:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Because User:Neutrality decided to move it unilaterally.--KrossTalk 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just moved it back.--KrossTalk 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Cause of Death
According to

Bumgarner, John R. The Health of the Presidents: The 41 United States Presidents Through 1993 from a Physician's Point of View. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland & Company, 1994.

"Arthur's administration was the first to systematically mislead the public about the President's health." In short, the notion that Arthur died of Bright's Disease, as the wiki stated prior to my edit, or that he even had Bright's Disease, has since proven false. He died, in fact, of a cerebral hemorrhage on November 18, 1886.

See "President Chester Arthur: Medical History," http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/t21.htm# --DanielNuyu 09:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some of the information on this page is copied with some changes word for word from the White House Biography.

WhiteHouse.gov

Quote?
Would including the "America: The Book" quote of "Chester A. Arthur: The policies we want, the muttonchops we need. Vote Chester A. Arthur 1880." be relevant or just forced humor? I personally find it funny but it probably doesnt have a place in wikipedia. I'll let others comment should they like, wouldnt add it without consensus. --Cptbuck 00:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Introduction
Does anyone think this intro is too long?

I do. Plus I think it exhibits a shameful pro-Arthur bias. Not everybody thinks he was so great.128.6.62.17 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoils system
Most of the last paragraph of "Pre-political career" is lifted verbatim from the 4th paragraph of this site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ca21.html

Can you incorporate any of this: "As President, however, Arthur rose above his patronage-dispensing past to promote landmark legislation designed to curb the very spoils system that had been the springboard for his own political rise." from here: http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/hall2/chests.htm I've taught my history classes that because Garfield was killed by a disgruntled office seeker under the spoils system, that Arthur moved strongly to change the system. Even though he himself had benefitted from it he came to see its inherent weaknesses. Am I wrong? Yopienso 06:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Some famous quotes
I added some info on Arthur's promotion to, and occupation of,, the Vice Presidency, including a couple of quotes. I'm surprised that they hadn't been included yet.

Exactly why did you remove them? The crisis was real, the quotes were real, and it's very important to the presidency. I put them back with citiations.

Presidency section, possible copyvio?

 * Okay, thanks. I didn't want to delete in case it was copied from here to there or if it was already public domain. --Lyght 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He was very stupid and weird.

Why didn't he have a vice president?
I don't see it in the article --AW 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He didn't have one because the constitution didn't provide for the replacement of a VP prior to the 25th amendment. No VP who ascended to the presidency had one prior to Gerald Ford.Montco 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly: Garfield was elected President and Arthur Vice President, so when Garfield died and Arthur became President, there was now no Vice President in office and no mechanism for selecting a new one until the next election. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Break with Conkling
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about how he broke from Senator Roscoe Conkling and the "Stalwarts" after ascending to the Presidency -- something that showed quite a bit of character and took a bit of political courage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.48.168 (talk • contribs).


 * Be bold! Go ahead, find a source, and add the material yourself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Die Hard reference
I came to Wikipedia today to find out who the 21st president was, because I was watching Die Hard With A Vengeance. I found a well written article, followed by a reference to the movie that sent me here. I love Wikipedia. --76.18.66.115 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadian??
It should be noted: Even though Arthur may have been born in Canada, he was born a US citizen - thus he still would've been eligible for the Vice Presidenty & Presidency. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that. Wikipedia should not be promoting the urban legend that one must born in the United States to become President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.15.141 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these days you do indeed need to be born in the United States to run for President. However, this rule was not always so and has changed over time. During President Arthur's time, it was not so. It is not an "Urban Legend," it is just something that has changed and may change again. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I believe you are completely in error about that. The constitution calls for presidents and vice-presidents to be "natural-born citizens," but that does not and has never been legally construed to mean only persons born on the physical land of the United States or its territories. Rather the distinction is between naturalized citizens (those who go through the legal process of joining the citizenry of the U.S.) and those who do not need to be naturalized because they were "natural born," i.e., they were BORN citizens, not naturalized as such. Even if Arthur were born in Canada, he'd still have been a natural-born citizen, eligible for the presidency, because his parents were U.S. citizens. He could have been born on the moon to U.S. parents and still been a natural-born citizen. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, this isn't a forum to discuss constitutional or statutory law.If anyone has a source for informtion they can use to improve this article then that's great, but please take the off-topic discussions elsewhere. See WP:TALK. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say. I was hoping to head off an erroneous edit. Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I sounded gruff. I was just prodding us away from the vast area of the topic and towards the small space of this article. While this may seem to be an obscure topic, it may become more popular due to John McCain's birth in the Panama Canal Zone. As with any controversisial matter, it's best to simply summarize all the notable viewpoints found in reliable sources with a neutral point of view. Because the foreign-birth issue was briefly important in Arthur's life it merits a brief mention here, but a detailed discussion of legal issues belongs in a "U.S. Presidential qualifications" article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that there is some dispute as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen," and that, in the past, this has been interpreted to exclude people born outside the country, even if their parents were U.S. citizens, and has always been a source of discussion and confusion. john k (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was certainly a topic of dispute in Arthur's presidency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, one might claim that the USA had an unconstitutional President in the person of Chester A. Arthur. In light of such a claim, maybe we should go easy on McCain and Obama. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Twain quote potentially misleading.
Twain may have meant that the potential inherent in Arthur and his administration was fulfilled, through the virtue of being rather small to begin with. Insults couched in such a manner were used often by Twain, so context would be extremely helpful, if you can provide it, or perhaps the possibility should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

pre-political
Is being Collector of the Port of New York in the 1870s really not political? I can think of few things more political than a pre-civil service reform port collectorship. john k (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Early career" is better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whig Party (United States)
According to this source, he also was a member of Whig Party, before he contributed to the establishment of the Republican Party. ChickenFalls (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Claim of birth in "Quebec, Canada"
The article says it is sometimes claimed that Arthur was born in "Dunham, Québec, Canada". This is anachronistic. In 1829-1830 "Canada" was only a term referring to a geographical area; we are talking about political units and the name of the relevant British colony was then "Quebec". The text should be changed (and linked) to "Dunham, Quebec", and the other mentions of Canada should also be changed (with a comment, I suggest, warning people not to put "Canada" back in).

I'd fix this, but the article is semi-protected, and I'm not registering for an account.

Also, the article states outright that if he really was born there, it means he was ineligible to be president; yet his mother was born in Vermont, which today would make him a natural-born citizen. If the citizenship law was different then, or if it wasn't clearly established, then the article needs to say so. Conversely, if the article is wrong, it needs to be fixed! I see that there was an item about this already above, but some people dismissed the point as peripheral. It's not; the article makes a plain statement that needs to be either corrected or supported.

I'd add a "needs expert attention" tag, but the article is semi-protected.

--208.76.104.133 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The assumption, uncited and unexplained, that Arthur would not be a "natural born" citizen is just flat wrong, and politically biased, in my opinion as a former election lawyer, and in the best case scenario for the article borders on a POV statement. The notion that "soil" controls citizenship is a feudal concept. In a republic the citizens are the sovereigns, so the applicable rules by analogy is to the son or daughter of a king or queen, which were always considered automatic subjects by birth. Same with diplomats. This clause of the constitution has never been construed, and in any event is modified in meaning by the 14th, 19th amendments and numerous equal protection rulings of the US Supreme court that prohibit discrimination based on national origin. (talk) 08:22 4 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PRFinn (talk • contribs)


 * This thing claims he was born in Vermont, but that his father was not yet American at his birth. The guy is of using this to draw attention to his suit claiming that Obama does not qualify for the US presidency. However, some kids of this marriage were indeed born outside the US, so the naturalization of Chester Arthur may have been a somple clerical error. In fact, if Chester's father was not American at his birth, it would mean that the Arthur presidency is actually a good precedence for the belief that being born in the USA means you are a natural born citizen and therefore eligible. Woodrow Wilson may be another precedent. Not only was his mother British at his birth (whether she was alos US citizen is doubtful), at least his father later switched allegiance to another country. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misunderstood - apparently there is no claim that Chester Arthur himself got naturalized (forget the thing about other kids born in Canada and the clerical error I assumed). However, now I do not understand the whole argument anymore, since: Chester Arthur was not a naturalized citizen, he was not a US citizen born abroad to US citizens or a US citizen and, according to the poker guy with the lawsuit he was not a natural born citizen either. So what was he? I can imagine why the guy is getting compared to Obama - the article here may need some strong and long protection to keep the nutwingers and birthers away. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Chester Arthur was in fact only a naturalized citizen. At the time of his birth there was no Wong Kim Ark yet, not even the 14th Amendment, only the federal law, which was later codified under Section 1992: "All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power […] are declared to be citizens of the US." Arthur was a natural-born subject of the British monarch by jus sanguinis, but also a subject of Vermont, provided he was born there (but the only record is the Arthur family bible, so we can't know for sure), and normally Arthur would have become a citizen of the US simply by virtue of being a citizen of a US state, but the above federal restriction on foreign subjecthood (Section 1992) overruled that automatism. A minor's citizenship followed the father, if the parents were married, and Arthur only became a US citizen by co-naturalization, as a minor, whose father naturalized (Section 2172, originally from the Naturalization Act of 1795): "The children of persons who have been duly naturalized […], being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the US, be considered as citizens thereof." Therefore, Arthur was definitely not eligible, because the laws at the time wouldn't allow him to be a citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen. PS: What the above "former election lawyer" states, is flat out wrong. The laws at the time were pretty clear. If Arthur was indeed born abroad (which is uncertain and impossible to prove or disprove), the language established in the Naturalization Act of 1795 would also have been the relevant law. Then Arthur wouldn't have been a citizen at birth either, because the NA1795 specifically states that only children born abroad of US parents (plural) are citizens. Even if Arthur's father had been a naturalized citizen at the time, Arthur would not have been natural born. Natural born citizenship by foreign birth of two US citizen parents only existed from 1790 to 1795, when Congress specifically removed "natural born" from the Naturalization Act. So what it says in the WP article is one of the usual WP hogwash opinions we can find everywhere in this place. I quote: "If Arthur had been born in Canada, some believe that he would not have been a natural-born citizen (interpreting the law to mean that to be a natural-born citizen one must be born on U.S. territory)". Read the Naturalization Act of 1795 and compare it to the one from 1790. Search for "natural born" in both of them, then come back and tell us which one had legal effect at the time of Arthur's birth. (A little hint: the later act did change something substantial). "Some believe", "interpreting the law" — wiki blah blah. It's amazing that this article even mentions that Arthur's father didn't naturalize until 14 years after Arthur's birth. (You deserve a little applause for that, despite my criticism.) But in any case, the law at the time is clear: Either way (whether born in the US or not) Arthur was not eligible. For a better understanding of the later law, i.e. during Arthur's presidency, before Wong Kim Ark, please refer to this expert assessment in the American Law Review. Does anyone of you folks "believe" that the laws were less strict and more liberal decades before, when Arthur was born? —85.178.109.63 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ash pole...
In Thomas Reeves' biography of Arthur he mentions that while attending a Lyceum he and some fellow Whigs built an "ash pole" to testify their support of Henry Clay. What does an ash pole symbolize? Is it really made of ash? Kingturtle (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The best source I found defines the ash pole as "the white-ash tree selected in flag-raising, in 1828, as symbolic of the whig party, in opposition to the hickory-tree of the Democrats." Another example of the activity is briefly described in this reference. &mdash;ADavidB 03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work!! Very, very interesting piece of lost history. Thank you so much for discovering it. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle initial in the title
Is it necessary to title this article "Chester A. Arthur"? Is that really more common than just "Chester Arthur"? Funnyhat (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A search of Amazon book titles indicates that the vast majority of biographies of Arthur use the name Chester A. Arthur in the title, which is indicative. Or you could check with the Chester A. Arthur Society (www.chesteraarthursociety.com) :-) Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death
Could someone please update that President Arthur also died of a cerebral hemorrhage as well as a stroke. It says so in the section that contains details about his death, though it is not in the category. Please add it.

Darren Monaghan, 28 February, 2009, 22:17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.220.242 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Category added. &mdash;ADavidB 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated citation format
Over twenty citations in the article are from Reeves' book Gentleman Boss, with most of them cited separately for a varying page number. I'm thinking the use of the template for these may be more efficient. It would display a colon followed by the applicable page number after the reference number, as follows this sentence.$[ 1]:418$ This would allow the 20+ citations from this one source to display with a single entry in the References section. Thoughts? &mdash;ADavidB 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this was implemented correctly. At the very least, it doesn't perform as advertised, a complete entry for each page number utilized now appearing in the reflist. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With no argument against the change, I applied the rp template first to one section, then the rest of the article. You viewed the article between my two edits, though 'rp' is now fully applied for the repeated Reeves citations. &mdash;ADavidB 23:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great now. I'll read up. Thanks for showing me something new. BusterD (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
As per Wikipedia policy, the reverts, called edit warring, be stopped immediately per WP:3RR. -- / MWOAP &#124;  Notify Me \ 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph
The first paragraph seems a little messed up. I think the year should be after September 19.Oreocookey (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The words "of that year" have been added, to avoid any confusion. —ADavidB 13:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scots Irish
Many Americans are unaware the word "Scotch" is a pejorative for a Scotsman. We just had guests from Scotland who confirmed that notion. "Scotch," said they, "is whisky, never people." (Actually, what they said was, "Scawch is whisky, neigh-vaihrr peeep'l.") Here it is online:

USAGE NOTE  Scottish  is the full, original form of the adjective. Scots is an old Scottish variant. Scotch is an English contraction of Scottish that came into use in Scotland as well for a time (as in Burns's "O thou, my Muse! guid auld Scotch drink!") but subsequently fell into disfavor there. In the interest of civility, forms involving Scotch are best avoided in reference to people; designations formed with Scots are most common (Scot, Scotsman, or Scotswoman), but those involving the full form Scottish are sometimes found in more formal contexts. Scotch-Irish is the most commonly used term for the descendants of Scots who migrated to North America, but lately Scots-Irish has begun to gain currency among those who know that Scotch is considered offensive in Scotland. There is, however, no sure rule for referring to things, since the history of variation in the use of these words has left many expressions in which the choice is fixed, such as Scotch broth, Scotch whisky, Scottish rite, and Scots Guards. http://www.answers.com/topic/scottish

Now, I can't actually find this line in the article. :O But I offer this explanation for my reversion. Yopienso (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My edit
I took out two things, that really have no place.

1. The reference to WorldNetDaily. WorldNetDaily is not a scholarly source for certain things.

2. The reference to Arthur hiding his father's immigration status. There is actually no evidence of it, and in fact, Arthur's political enemies knew that his father was an immigrant before Arthur's innaugeration.

It seems like these two comments were put there by birthers to support their insane 2-citizen-parent theory of Natural Born Citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunstvangeet (talk • contribs) 08:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

copied text
people have posted about this a couple times already on this talk page, but there a chunks of text on this page copied directly from Chester Aruthur's white house bio page (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/chesterarthur). This section is taken directly: "Acting independently of party dogma, Arthur also tried to lower tariff rates so the government would not be embarrassed by annual surpluses of revenue. Congress raised about as many rates as it trimmed, but Arthur signed the Tariff Act of 1883 anyway. Aggrieved Westerners and Southerners looked to the Democratic Party for redress, and the tariff began to emerge as a major political issue between the two parties." --JasonDaniel123 08:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonDaniel123 (talk • contribs)
 * See wp:bold Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Chester was born on America's most common birthday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.125.113 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo/Portrait?
The current image for President Arthur is the cartoon logo, why is it like this? --phil_d80 —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC).
 * It was the work on a vandal. Thank you for the notice. --CutOffTies (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tammany Hall
Was Arthur, a Republican, really a member of Tammany Hall, which is a Democratic organization?

Popularity
I am no expert on him, but it was noted in a History Channel special that he had an extrememly high approval rating upon leaving office. Perhaps some text as to what caused this, as it stands now he is largely unknown to modern America.


 * I heard that too... it also stated that 4 young women proposed to him when he left office. is it true or just a rumor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.228.241 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To do
I see no reason at all to remove the link to President Arthur's wife. --65.73.0.137 = Canada ==

Several documentaries now believe they have proof that Arthur was born in Quebec. He assumed = Which Newport? ==

The article mentions that he was hobnobbing with the elite of Washington, New York and Newport. Which Newport? There are several on the list in Wikipedia. I assume Newport, Rhode Island, but don't want to make that assumption if incorrect. I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but for completeness sake it would be nice to know. --User:FeanorStar7 = Grandson and namesake of US President Chester Alan Arthur ==

Possibly of interest is Gavin Arthur (Chester Alan Arthur III).Geo8rge (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

General clean up
I believe this article could use a general clean up. Justus D. Doenecke is a good source reference: The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Within the next few months, I will do a complete re-write. I'm reading the source material now.  --Coemgenus 22:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Coemgenus. I believe more needs to be written on the War of the Pacific, Civil Service Reform, and Star Route Postal cases.  Arthur was embarrased that the persons indicted in the Star Route Postal cases, initiated by Pres. Garfield, Arthur's predecesor, got a "Not Guilty" verdict. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvements
Here are suggested improvements for the Chester A. Arthur article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Add "Indian policy" to the presidency section.
 * Add "Naval resurgence and reform" to the presidency section; continued from Garfield's Naval resurgence and reform.
 * Put "Writings and sayings" section in talk page.
 * Add information on civil service reform in the presidency section; Arthur was embarrased that there were no convictions in the Star Route indictments.
 * Add sources to paragraphs where needed.

Quotes
Arthur quotes removed from article to be moved to Wikiquote. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Writings and sayings

On Taxes and Spending:
 * "The extravagant expenditure of public money is an evil not to be measured by the value of that money to the people who are taxed for it."

On Democracy:
 * "Men may die, but the fabrics of free institutions remain unshaken."

On Privacy:
 * "I may be President of the United States, but my private life is nobody's damned business."

On Garfield's death:
 * "An appalling calamity has befallen the American people since their chosen representatives last met in the halls where you are now assembled...To that mysterious exercise of His will which has taken from us the loved and illustrious citizen who was but lately the head of the nation we bow in sorrow and submission. The memory of his exalted character, of his noble achievements, and of his patriotic life will be treasured forever as a sacred possession of the whole people."

On Sitting Bull:
 * "The surrender of Sitting Bull and his forces upon the Canadian frontier has allayed apprehension, although bodies of British Indians still cross the border in quest of sustenance. Upon this subject a correspondence has been opened which promises an adequate understanding. Our troops have orders to avoid meanwhile all collisions with alien Indians."

On the Interoceanic Waterway:
 * "The questions growing out of the proposed interoceanic waterway across the Isthmus of Panama are of grave national importance. This Government has not been unmindful of the solemn obligations imposed upon it by its compact of 1846 with Colombia, as the independent and sovereign mistress of the territory crossed by the canal, and has sought to render them effective by fresh engagements with the Colombian Republic looking to their practical execution."

Significant events during presidency
Removed from article. Any signifigant events need to be incorperated into the article rather then a separate section. Arthur's Presidency ended on March 4, 1885.

Significant events during presidency

02:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shufeldt Treaty (1882)
 * Standard Oil Trust (1882)
 * Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
 * Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883)
 * Civil Rights Cases (1883)
 * International Meridian Conference (1884)
 * Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois (1886)

Reference clean up
Before any improvements can be made on this article there need to be many reference clean ups. The Reeves source needs page numbers in the references. I am not sure what source "ibid" is connected. This means finding alternative sources if available. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed Sitting Bull photo
Removed Sitting Bull photo to talk page, until a place can be found in the Arthur biography article, possibly to be put under a potential Indian policy section. File:Chief sitting bull.JPG 02:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked quotes
Did anyone delete the blocked quotes put in the discussion page from Arthur's early life? If so, why? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the edit prior to yours, Coemgenus removed them with an edit summary, "there's no reason to put this here". —ADavidB 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess as to a further reason is a preference for the use of a sandbox for such storage, rather than a discussion page. —ADavidB 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. That is fine. Thanks ADavidB. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Willis Abbot book
There are free versions of this book: Free is good. Brad (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I changed it. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good article nomination
Is this article, Chester A. Arthur, anywhere near a good article nomination? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that would be a good next step. Just wanted to wait for the peer review to end.  I'll nominate it today.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look for the article nomination. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Civil rights attorney
I had edited that CAA was a civil rights attorney since he had two cases in New York, and then went to the hot bed of abolitionism, Kansas, in 1856,to practice law. Why else would CAA go to Kansas? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * He spent three or four months in Kansas and not one of his biographers mentions a single client or a single case that he worked on there. "Civil rights attorney" is an anachronism; that wasn't a specialty in CAA's day.  He was a general practitioner who worked on two civil rights cases.  Most of his law work was not civil rights, which wasn't a field of law that could keep a man in business in the 1850s and 60s.  Mentioning either one in the lede is like saying "Ulysses S. Grant was a Army officer and St. Louis firewood salesman."  True, but vastly undue weight to a minor part of the man's life.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you are saying, Coemgenus. One source, Santella (2004), Chester A. Arthur, p. 17 mentioned Northeast abolitionists went out to help out in Kansas.  My question has been whether Arthur was one of those "abolitionists".  At least I would put in the article that it is unclear what Arthur did in Kansas, however, something prompted him to leave his wife (correction: fiance) and go to Kansas. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say what he did, so neither can we. Santella is a children's book, which is why I didn't include it among the sources.  I think the months in Kansas and the two civil rights cases get pretty good coverage in the body of the article.  --Coemgenus (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Santella is a children's book, however, I believe the book adds that Arthur left Kansas to console his fiance after her father had died. Then the two got married.  The article states that things did not work out.  In my opinion, that is a generalization and leaves the reader guessing.  Maybe putting that Kansas was a very violent place, might have some signifigance.  I apoligize if I am being nit picky.  Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Image license fix up.
I'll slowly go through and freshen the pic licensing for FA quality in the next few days. It's not difficult but it is time consuming. 15-20 minutes per image so I'll do a couple a day. Brad (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, that will help at FA. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Finished with licensing and leaving you the following:
 * Status
 * File:Chet Arthur Mad Sq jeh.JPG was a total MF to license correctly because the US does not have freedom of panorama. In this case not only the photo but the sculpture itself has to be out of copyright. Everything is fine now but that took an hour to get fixed up. (just complaining)
 * In the administration and cabinet section there is a pic of Gray that is pushing down into the scotus section. The scotus section itself isn't large enough for the pic either. Decide how important Gray's photo is to the article.
 * All photos except one are missing ALT text according to the Altviewer. This would be WP:ALT.
 * I think you should ram in a stamp pic somewhere. Brad (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for all your help with the licenses. I took out the Gray pic -- it wasn't terribly necessary.  I was not aware of that panorama issue -- I thought a photo of a three-dimensional object was OK.  Glad you could work it out.  I'll add the alt text where necessary.  As to the stamps, I think we could fit five or six, no problem.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

CAA queries

 * Why was President Hayes so against Chester A. Arthur? Was there anything personal between the two?  Did anyone influence President Hayes to sack Arthur?  Was President Hayes really going after Sen. Conkling? As a reader I would like to know more concerning President Hayes and Chester A. Arthur.  I know the article is limited in size, but that seems to be a very important issue in terms of political reform.  Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What set Arthur apart from other Presidents? Maybe there could be more on Arthur's life in the White House, his dinner parties, his presidential carriage, his family. I believe a daughter lived with him in the White House.  Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What caused the transformation between Arthur the spoils man and Arthur the reformer? My view was that the assassination of President Garfield changed Arthur's political perspective.  He was emotionally upset after President Garfield was shot.  I believe this needs to be addressed in the article and may explain his reluctance to take office while President Garfield was slowly demising. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Was Arthur a loner, or what was his personality? Possibly more could be on Arthur's childhood and personal life. I believe he loved to fish and shoot guns.  Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did Arthur burn his personal papers? Was he trying to hide anything or are there any theories why he destroyed his papers? I believe this is significant.   Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a bit about his late night carousing as party boss in the 1870s. The rest of these are difficult.  You want to know motivations for things but, as you point out, Arthur burned his papers and left few remembrances for historians to use in figuring such things out.  You read the same sources I did: did you see anything of that sort?  I didn't, I don't think, but I'll peruse them again before the FA nom.  --Coemgenus (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coemgenus for the addition. I believe if there was a source on why Arthur burned his papers that would be good for the aricle.  You are correct on finding his motivations is difficult since the papers were burned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Chester A Arthur Papers
Thomas C. Reeves wrote a great article on the Chester A Arthur papers. Not all the papers were burned and Arthur had collected 8 bound Volumes of newspaper articles. 2,100 documents were left to Chester A. Arthur II and his son Gavin. The papers were found in Colorado Springs. I believe there needs to be a segment on CAA papers, maybe a paragraph. As early as 1882 CAA was destroying papers at his New York Apartment. In 1885 he had his son burn 3 garbage bins full, repeatedly, of his papers. Arthur may have been attempting to destroy more, however, he was unable to open a safe where he methodically kept his papers. The source is: Thomas C. Reeves (Summer, 1972), The Search For The Chester A Arthur Papers; The Wisconsin Magazine of History, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 310-319. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A paragraph? I could add a footnote, I guess. This doesn't change anything in the article.  Any info in the recovered papers is already in Reeves's book, which is the main source here.  I thought of adding something on Gavin Arthur (né Chester Alan Arthur, III,) who is an interesting figure in his own right, and was Arthur's last living descendant when he died in the 1970s.  But it's pretty tangential -- maybe I'll write a Gavin Arthur article someday, if I can source it well.  --Coemgenus (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Reeves wrote an extensive article on the subject and I believe he thought it was important enough for publication. A paragraph footnote would be good on the subject. It is important to know CAA was determined to destroy his papers.  The other issue, is that CAA, was extremely concerned over his image as President; creating and keeping 8 bound volumes of valuable newspaper articles.  I would mention that Gavin Arthur finally donated the remaining papers to the Library of Congress. An article on Gavin Arthur would be good.  Do you, Comengus, have access to the Reeves article?  I got the Reeves article copy at JSTOR.


 * I read it when I was writing the article, and Reeves cites it in Gentleman Boss, along with several other articles he wrote while researching the monograph. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a note about the papers. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coemgenus. I think Arthur was the only President to himself order his papers burned. Knowledge that part of his papers survived is good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Indian policy
I believe an Indian policy section would be appropriate for the Chester A. Arthur article. A good source for information is Justice D. Doenecke (1981), The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur, pp. 85-91. Arthur is presented as an activist President concerning Indian policy and had a concern for their welfare. An important ruling or set back took place in 1884, Elk v. Wilkins that stated Indians were no different then foriegn nationals. Arthur believed in land severalty and permanent land owneship for Indians, in order to become farmers. Sec. Teller wanted the Indians to raise livestock and cultivate their land. Arthur stressed Indian education. Congress increased funding to Indian education programs. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read the article. Arthur's Indian policy is already detailed in the Civil rights section you badgered me about last year.  Allotment and assimilation are covered.  Elk is not, since Arthur had nothing to do with the ruling.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not badgered you Coemgenus concerning anything in this or any other article. Rjensen, has advocated Indian policies in other Presidential articles.  There is no ownership of any of these Wikipedia articles.  Every edit in these Presidential articles apparently has to meet your Coemgenus approval. The ownership of articles is forbidden according to Wikipedia policy.  I do not understand any controversy in having an Indian policy section for Presidents during the 19th Century. I gave a legitimate source Doenecke who is a professor of History.  If Doenecke mentioned Elk then that is good enough to be mentioned in the article. I suggest a gentle approach to discussion pages, rather then any accusatory tones. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly, Rjensen could give some helpful advise concerning Indian Policy and 19th Century Presidents. My view is that Indian Policy concerned three areas: the use of the military; land rights; and the acculturation of Native Americans to white society. Indians are distinguished, since they are the original occupiers of the land, as opposed to Europeans, African Americans, or Chinese.  Indian Policy is at the core of American Manifest Destiny, where white Christian Americans are destined to take over the Continent.  This, I believe is why there needs to be a separate Indian policy segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, perhaps I was too brusque. You're right, I don't own this or any article, but I do feel responsible for keeping it from losing its FA status.  It's not my approval that's needed, just consensus among the all the editors, of whom I am one.  And I agree Doenecke is a legit source -- I read it while writing this very article and cited it many times.  I've never stopped you from putting an "Indian policy" section in any article, just like I never stopped you from putting a "Civil rights" section when that was what you were after.  I just want to move slowly, build consensus, and make sure the additions are written to the same standard the rest of the article is.  So, by all means, propose what you wish to add and which sources its based on, and we'll hash out something we can all be happy with.  --19:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coemgenus. I take that the above unsigned comment was stated by Coemgenus.  I do not own any articles and I am all for editor consensus. I apologize if any way my statements were perceived as "badgering".  I do not want to do anything that will take away FA status. I believe information on Indian policies enhances in 18th and 19th century Presidential articles gives an understanding on what living conditions were in the West and on the migration of settlers into the West while pushing the Indians into Indian Territory.  Editor consensus is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was me -- I typed one "~" too many, I think. Anyway, I separated the Indian section from the Civil Rights section.  You're right, they're not really the same thing.  I'm still not sure Elk is relevant -- it was handed down November 1884, and Arthur left office March 1885.  Also, the decision didn't change anything, it just affirmed the existing interpretation of citizenship.  Arthur's opinions on Indian education and his attempts to get it funded are way more relevant.  Actually, what we should add is what we were discussing at Talk:Grover Cleveland -- how Arthur opened Indian Territory to white settlement by executive order as he left office.  --Coemgenus (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree on the Indian territory being given to settlers being added. I am not sure why Arthur did this.  I believe Doenecke referred to Elk because this denied Indians from voting and kept educated Natives on the Reservation.  Arthur wanted Indians to be part of American society, that is why I believe Elk was a set back for "Indian civilization" in terms of 19th Century Indian policy.  Putting in the Dakota land order is good for now. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit

 * Here is a proposed edit for Arthur's Indian policy segment. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Settlers and cattle ranchers, lured by profits, during Arthur's presidency continued to encroach on Indian territory. Arthur and Secretary of the Interior Henry M. Teller were against encroachment; however, under false information that the lands were not protected, Arthur in 1885 opened up the Crow Creek Reservation in the Dakota territory to tens of thousands of settlers.  Arthur's predessor, Grover Cleveland, however, finding that title belonged to the Indians, revoked Arthur's order. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the idea here. How about:
 * During Arthur's presidency, settlers and cattle ranchers continued to encroach on Indian territory. Arthur initially resisted their efforts, but after Secretary of the Interior Henry M. Teller, an opponent of allotment, assured him that the lands were not protected, Arthur opened up the Crow Creek Reservation in the Dakota Territory to settlers by executive order in 1885.  Arthur's successor, Grover Cleveland, finding that title belonged to the Indians, revoked Arthur's order a few months later.
 * I added a citation to Reeves and moved some things around a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I recommend putting the modified edit in the article. That gives the reader some sense of Westward thrust or migration during this time period. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would add one more sentence: Cmguy777 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sec. Teller, in an Indian reform effort, allowed semi-autonomous Indian judges to prosecute polygamy, "immoral" dances, and the sale of wives committed among tribal members.


 * I'm not sure about this for two reasons: (1) It's more about Teller than Arthur and should go in his article, and (2) I'm not sure I'd call it an "Indian reform effort". That seems more like an opinion than a description of what happened.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was going by the Doenecke source who referred to Teller as a reformer. Doenecke put this in his book The Presidencies of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur on page 90. Doenecke discusses Indian Policy on pages 89-90. Doenecke did not give a specific instance of an actual ruling by any Indian judges. The reform was that Indians judges were set up to judge other Indians, according to Doenecke. However, if there is no need to put this in the article that is fine. Your Coemgenus orginal modification is good as written to put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I know it's in Doenecke, I just meant it was more about Teller than about Arthur. On the other hand, if you want to improve the article on Teller, I'd be glad to help any way I can.  There's a lot to tell about his tenure as Interior Secretary.  Doenecke cites "Henry Moore Teller: Defender of the West" by Elmer Ellis.  Might be useful.  --Coemgenus (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My view is that unless over ruled by the President, Teller's policy was Arthur's policy. That is why I believe the sentence could be put in the Arthur article.  I have no issues with expanding the Teller article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I added information to the Teller article from the Doenecke source. Does Arthur have any responsibility for Teller's policies? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but should every one of his cabinet members' actions be included in his biographical article? Even in the 1880s, the government was large enough to make that an enormous undertaking.  And we already note that Teller and Arthur completely disagreed about allotment -- who is to say that Arthur did or did not agree with Teller's other ideas on Indian policy.  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point Coemgenus. How many policies are made by Presidents versus their cabinet members? That is a good debate.  I believe ultimate responsibility belongs to the President. One thing I have noticed is that 18th and 19th Century Presidential Cabinet articles are neglected.  I have been working on Grant Cabinet members, Benjamin Bristow and Amos T. Akerman.  Other aricles such as Teller's are deserving of improvement. Thanks, Coemgenus, for adding the Indian Policy to the Chester A. Arthur article.  I suppose anything directly involving Arthur and Indian could be added. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pejorative? Republican Political Machine
What is a Democratic Political Machine? What is a Republican Political Machine? Carmelmount (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Political machine. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

TFA?
With the upcoming presidential election, wouldn't this be a good candidate to run on the main page for Arthur's birthday (October 5th)?--Chimino (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Historical reputation.
I believe a "Historical reputation" section would be appropriate for the Chester A. Arthur article, particularly since historians seem to be impressed with his civil service record as an under rated President. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You already know how much I hate legacy sections, however they're named. But "I think they're stupid" is not a reason to keep it out, as far as I can tell.  So, sure, I'll help come up with one.  Let's hash it out here on the talk page first so we can get it in apple-pie order before adding it to the article.  I've actually found few, if any, reviews of CAA's reputation, but I'd be glad to hear whatever you dig up.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coemgenus. I believe that any U.S. President who has been in office long enough to affect Government policy needs some sort of historical evalutation, although, in a Wikipedia article this needs to be as brief as possible. Interestingly the author, James Greene Jr., just published today an analysis of Chester A. Arthur as President Here is the source: . I used this source once for the description of Arthur's memorial tomb, however, I believe Greene could be useful for historical analysis, in addition, the article gives information on Arthur's grandchild, Gavin Arthur. Greene's article is written really well and I believe is the most up to date writing on Arthur's historical reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I would focus on Arthur assuming the office of Presidency underated, and having left the Presidential office highly respected by historians in terms of civil service and postal reform. In addition, Arthur created the modern Navy. Arthur was in general a quiet unassuming President and that this factor has signifigantly affected his popularity as President, according to Greene. Arthur did not have that "big ticket draw" type of personality. This could be a good starting point. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that James Greene, Jr. is a blog writer. I believe his article Gravespotting Chester A. Arthur is well written. I do have another source, John G. Sproat, that can back up Greene's assessments of Arthur. However, if Greene does not have enough historical weight then I do not object to Greene not being used as historical assessment. Can Greene's article Gravespotting Chester A. Arthur be used to describe Arthur's memorial tomb? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unless Greene is a noted authority on the subject, or his blogging is overseen by a trusted publisher, I don't believe his blog-written comments are suitable as a source on Wikipedia, per WP:BLOGS. —ADavidB 08:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree about the blogs. They usually fail to satisfy WP:RS. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean removing Greene's description of Arthur's tomb at Albany Rural Cemetary? His article was documented with photos of Arthur's tomb. I believe Greene would be an appropriate source for this description. However, if other editors disapprove Greene as a source for the description of Arthurs tomb, that is fine. I do not believe that the description of Arthur's tomb requires historical analysis. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a good book source for Chester A. Arthur historical reputation by Paul F. Boller, Jr (2007) The Leisurely Chester A. Arthur. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed Greene blog source and replaced with reliable New York Times source. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In terms of Arthur's historical reputation I believe there could be three areas of discussion. One is that Arthur was a man of high tastes and standards even as President of the United States. The other was that Arthur was under rated as President, yet he surprised his critics by advocating and enforcing Civil Service Reform. A third area, I suppose, would be Arthur's signing of the Chinese exclusion act, that I believe remained in effect until the 1940's. I know much of this is covered in the lede section, but possibly can be viewed from other historical perspectives in the historical reputation section. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How about this?
 * Chester A. Arthur was a man of impeccable taste and enjoyed the finer things in life, even while President of the United States. Prior to becoming President, Arthur was known as a classic Gilded Age politician who was a strong advocate of the patronage system. Having assumed the Presidential Office after President James A. Garfield's assassination by the hands of a deranged office seeker, President Arthur became a champion of civil service reform by signing, enforcing, and expanding the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. President Arthur also prosecuted and shut down corruption in the Postal Service known as the Star Route Scandal. President Arthur's signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act barred Chinese U.S. citizenship up until 1948. President Arthur realized the importance of a modern Navy reforming and strengthening U.S. naval presense around the world. Arthur was an extremely private man and desired that his personal life be kept from the public. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not about his historical legacy, though, it's just a condensed version of the article. We already have that in the lead paragraph.  --Coemgenus (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

With all do respect, I thought this was suppose to be a cooperative effort. No one except myself has made any effort on Arthur's historical reputation and all I get is criticism. I have improved his memorial section and no one seemed to have any interest in that either. I was expecting more enthusiam in Arthur's historical reputation and his memorials. Maybe people don't care about Chester A. Arthur, but I do. He was President of the United States, kept the U.S. out of war, a fiscal conservative, and he established civil service reform. Even if this has been stated in the article, I believe this information belongs in his historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * When I rewrote this entire article last year, this question came up at the FA nomination. Here's what I wrote then:
 * "I would like to avoid a Legacy section, if possible. The sources don't really provide much information on a legacy, possibly because most Americans know almost nothing of Arthur or his works, so anything I wrote would verge on original research. There's not much legacy to speak of. Those sections usually end up being just lists of non-notable stuff named after him. Among the FAs of Presidents, Rutherford B. Hayes has no legacy section. Coolidge has a legacy section without the name here, and it's not good. Cleveland has an 'honors and memorials' section that is also mediocre. I'd just as soon do without. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)"
 * The reviewers agreed with me. I think it still holds true today, unless you know of some scholar who's written an new analysis of Arthur in American memory since then.  I appreciate your enthusiasm for Gilded Age politicians -- and I share that enthusiasm -- but it doesn't create an historical reputation where none exists.  Whether we believe he should have greater renown is immaterial; he doesn't, and Wikipedia articles only report the scholarship as it is, not as we wish it would be.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I respect your sentiment Coemgenus. Arthurs historical reputation is one of an honest President, who had a somewhat lax work ethic, extremely private, and who knew how to throw parties. I gave the Boller link as an example. Boller refers to Arthur as the leisure President. Arthur looked like a President. I would say expansion of the U.S. Navy, Civil Service Reform, and the Chinese Exclusion Act that kept Chinese from gaining U.S. citizenship until 1948 are worth repeating. However, I am not going to push the Legacy section. In the meantime, I can work on finding appropriate sourced information if any that addresses Arthur's historical reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Zachary Karabell (2004), Chester A. Arthur, does specifically address Arthur's reputation in the Epilogue section starting on page 139. Karabell states that Arthur's reputation did not decline or fall, rather "disappeared". Historians have ignored Arthur as President. Karabell states that Arthur among all Presidents transended party politics, "Physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." I believe Karabell's assessment of Arthur would be a good place to start for a historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Potential edit

 * " Although Chester A. Arthur was admired by the American public after his death in 1886, his historical reputation virtually disappeared. During his lifetime, Arthur had neither inspired great devotion nor great revulsion. Arthur had loyaly worked his way up through Republican ranks, and out of duty accepted the Vice President nomination in 1880. However, upon assuming the Presidential office in 1881, after the assassination of James A. Garfield, Arthur unexpectantly trascended party politics more then any other President. According historian Zachary Karabell, although President Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country. " Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure there's enough there. All we really have is Karabell saying that Arthur's reputation disappeared.  So, the legacy section is one statement: there's no legacy.  The rest is a slightly POV recitation of the facts stated in the lead and the article's body.  You say in the first sentence that he was greatly admired (which, after reading Reeves and Howe, I can't agree with) and then in the next sentence say he "neither inspired great devotion nor great revulsion".  Which is it?  My own recollection from the sources was that Democrats mostly disliked him, and that much of his own party thought him corrupt and, by 1884, irrelevant.  They denied him the nomination, after all.  Real reformers like Edmunds and Schurz, found him insufficiently reformist, Stalwarts felt betrayed even by his half-hearted embrace of reform, and Half-Breeds were for Blaine, first, last, and only.  Instead of saying that he "unexpectedly transcended party politics", it might be more accurate to say that party politics had no use for him after 1881.  Just my opinion, of course.  But, again, all we have is one statement by an historian, which is that the man was soon forgotten.  I'll see if Reeves or Howe has more to say, if I have time this weekend.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there may be a start here. I suppose not having a historical reputation is having a historical reputation. At least Karabell attempted to make an assessment of Arthur. Karabell was stating both were true that Arthur was not expressly loved nor hated, somewhere in between. That is what made Arthur "irrelevant" after 1884. Karabell did make an astute statement, that Arthur, although physically ill, persisted in doing the right thing for the country. FDR is often praised for being paralyzed and being President. Arthur suffered from Brights disease and continued to be President of the United States. Boller emphasizes Arthur's taste for high living at the White House, a subject not addressed in the article. Schurz had critisized Arthur for not stopping William W. Dudley for claiming Civil War pensions would be expedited if veterans voted for Blaine and Logan in 1884 during an election year. Historian George F. Howe (1934) maintains that Arthur did not do anything against Dudley to keep the Republican Party from splitting. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Another point of view is that Arthur was a flamboyant Easterner, not in the same category as mid-western Republicans, who apparently were dominating the Republican Party, including Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Arthur's high tastes may have clashed with mid Western conservative lifestyles. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Gregory J. Dehler (2007), Chester Alan Arthur: The Life of a Gilded Age Politician And President may be a good source on Arthur's historical reputation. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a modified version. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Prior to assuming the presidential office, Arthur was known as a well dressed, elegant, eastern Stalwart protégé spoils man of Roscoe Conkling. Arthur, as President, however, surprised his critics when he became a champion of Civil Service Reform signing into law, enforcing, and expanding the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. President Arthur distinguished himself from mid western Republicans who dominated the Republican Party by throwing extravagant parties at the White House and wearing expensive clothing. Arthur looked like a President; having cherished the leisure life his work hours were less then his predecessors. Arthur's reputation after leaving office virtually disappeared; reformers denounced him for not going far enough, while he had ostracized his Stalwart friends by vigorously prosecuting the corruption in the Star Route Scandal. During his lifetime, Arthur who had focused primarily on working within the ranks of the Republican Party, did not inspire great devotion. Historian Zachary Karabell maintains that although President Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That's kind of the same as the last one -- one sentence by an historian about Arthur's non-reputation, and the rest just restating facts from the article. There's no need for a high school book report-style conclusion paragraph.  Between the lead and the body, much of this is already said -- twice!  As for Dehler, I'd stay away from it.  It appears to be a regurgitation of other scholars' wrok, published by a vanity press.  --Coemgenus (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that repetition should be cut out from any historical assessment and that Dehler is unreliable as a source. I believe Karabell's assessment is accurate that Arthur's reputation disappeared and that Arthur overcame physical illness to serve as President. I do not believe those issues have been covered in the article nor Arthurs flamboyant lifestyle distinction from dominant mid western politians as Boller has pointed out. There is one more source that could help this discussion: Col. Crook (1910), Through Five Administrations, pp. 276-280. Crook pointed out that Arthur turned the White House into the Court of American diplomacy. This was unprecedented. Arthur looked like a president and he put "courtesy, tact, and skill" into White House social functions. Crook also contends that Arthur was a haughty President who stood over six foot tall most men straight as a rail. That is a different assessment that I do not believe is covered in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Refined edit:
 * Arthur, a former spoilsman politician, was not a popular President and his reputation after leaving office disappeared completely. However, during Arthur's tenor as President, important matters of the nation got done or were handled adeptly while his Administration remained free from major scandals. Arthur, in an unprecedented move, turned the White House into the Court of American diplomacy, and his eleborate Washington D.C. social functions were handled with "courtesy, tact, and skill". Arthur looked like a President standing tall above most men "straight as a rail" displaying a haughty appearance in the finest clothes that could be bought. This was different from previous mid western Presidents who had occupied the office. Although Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel like we're talking past each other. Other than Karabell's commentary, this is all a restatement of the article. Arthur's taste for high living is discussed in the section about his time as Collector. His health is discussed toward the end of the Presidency section. And whatever Crook thought of Arthur's diplomatic efforts (and is that Gen. George Crook?) what he says is at odds with the scholars' assessment of Arthur's foreign policy, which completely reversed Garfield's and Blaine's efforts at a greater international role for the country.  What remains?  That he was tall?  I seem to recall reading that somewhere, so maybe we should add it to the article, I guess, but it's fairly trivial.  --Coemgenus (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That is Col. William H. Crook who served on the White House staff through five administrations. I do not believe the article mentions Arthur's grand banquets or that his looks were different then that of his mid western predecesors. Crook stated that statecraft according to Arthur had to do with presentation in addition to politics. Arthur got things done. Crook stated that Arthur was not popular because he was haughty and believed he could do no wrong. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision 01:
 * Arthur was not a popular President and his reputation after leaving office disappeared completely. Standing "straight as a rail" above most men, Arthur took on a haughty regal appearance. Arthur believed that statecraft was dependent on fine living standards; taking extra efforts in his grand banquets at the White House. President Arthur reversed Secretary Blaine's and President Garfield's attempt at an active U.S. foriegn policy. Although Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to flesh this out with other suitable sources, though as discussed previously, they're scarce. Correct the policy spelling to "foreign", and change "; taking" to "; he took" or " and he took", and I think Revision 01 will suffice for now. —ADavidB 08:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Only the first and last sentences really add anything new. Are they both sourced to Karabell?  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am open to using the first and last sentences. The first sentence is sourced to Karabell and Crook. The second sentence is Karabell. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alternative edit 01:
 * Arthur was not a popular President and his reputation after leaving office disappeared completely. Known for his regal appearance and haughty behavior, Arthur was an effective administrator. Although Arthur was "physically stretched and emotionally strained, he strove to do what was right for the country." Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Segment added
I finally added the Historical reputation segment. I used Boller (2007), Karabell (2004), and Crook (1910) as references. Please feel free to make any edits or add to any discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I tightened the language a bit. I'm still dubious about Crook as a source -- it's a memoir, not an historical source -- and I don't see what Arthur's height and manner of dress had to do with his historical reputation.  I'll look in Reeves today to see if a more scholarly assessment can be added instead.  --Coemgenus (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason why I put Crook (1910) in the article was that he was personally in the White House and had met Chester A. Arthur. Reeves, a great scholar, had never met Arthur or had known him on a daily encounter. I believe Crook is a valid historical source. Crook stated that Arthur was a good administrator and that that Arthur was not popular as President. I believe the part that Arthur's critics viewed him as a playboy needs to be kept in the reputation section. Boller (2007) and Karabell (2004) are recent sources. Please feel free to edit the historical reputation section Coemgenus. Thanks for the narration improvement. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Actually meeting the person doesn't necessarily give a more nuanced and measured view.  As an historian, Reeves looks at many sources and writes about how the nation perceived Arthur.  Crook looks at how Crook perceived Arthur.  His impressions tell us more about Crook than they do about Arthur.  --Coemgenus (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point of view Coemgenus. I believe if you actually meet someone and work under someone, first hand experience, you get a good sense of the person. I agree that Crook was writing from a White House staff position. I believe one can say for any historian, that their work(s) tends to tell something about the historian, in addition to giving an evaluation of historical perspective. If Reeves gives a better perspective then Crook on Arthur, then I have no issue with replacing the Crook source with the Reeves source. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I found some things in Reeves and Howe that I'll add pretty soon. Here's the larger point I wanted to make: if you were writing a book on Arthur, a secondary source, a primary source like Crook might show you something.  All it would show you was what Crook thought, but that, combined with everything else, all the other research into Arthur's life and times, would give you the material to make a good secondary source.  When writing an encyclopedia, however -- a tertiary source -- what we should be aiming at is not to do the work of professional historians (for which neither you nor I are qualified, and for which this encyclopedia is not a platform) but to combine the best secondary sources out there into a distilled article.  Shorter version: the pros have already incorporated the primary sources in their work; it's our job to incorporate their works into a tertiary source.  --Coemgenus (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe Crook might be somewhere in between a primary and secondary source since he was giving his own interpretation of each President he worked under. I am all for tertiary sources that are well researched with valid sources. With that said, I believe even tertiary sources can have bias in their approach to evaluating a historical figure such as Arthur, although I would expect that bias would be minimalized. Thomas Jefferson would be a good example of divergent tertiary interpretation; both pro Jefferson and anti Jefferson perspectives in terms of Jefferson's views on slavery and race in terms of whether Jefferson was pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Yes. I have no issue with replacing Crook with any evaluation from Howe or Reeves. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're saying the Jefferson article is a freaking mess: I couldn't agree more. Thankfully, people don't get that excited over Chester Arthur!  --Coemgenus (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I added the Howe and Reeves parts to show the full historiography and rearranged a few things. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good edit Coemgenus! I believe historical analysis offers some closure to the article. Thanks. The Jefferson article was extremely difficult to edit since their are so many various opinions on Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of Mark Twain quote
IP User 89.156.251.186 has decided to remove a cited quote twice from the lede of this page, "Mark Twain wrote of him, '[I]t would be hard indeed to better President Arthur's administration'" using the edit summary "Unneeded, anecdotal, and inappropriate for lede". I disagree with this removal and would like to discuss why the quote has been removed. IMHO, the quote represents a view held by an important opinion leader; this quote is evaluative, not anecdotal. I would urge the ip editor to make his or her case here. BusterD (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reinserted the quote, since no argument has been made here for removing it. While I concede the quote wasn't present in the FA version of this page, it has been a part of the introduction to this page for well over a year and hasn't been considered controversial or dubious until this one ip editor's action. BusterD (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could take it or leave it. I think it adds little, but it's sourced and doesn't make the article worse.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As the person who put it in, I vote yes. I think it's interesting and relevant. IronDuke  19:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox: 'political affiliation'
"Political party 	Republican (1854–1886) Other political affiliations 	       Whig (Before 1856)"

Should the first line not read "..(1856-1886)? Harfarhs (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. They should match now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead image
Think we'd be better using more-or-less the original crop at http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3a07409/ just losing a bit of the headroom, and maybe editing out any writing if needed to give appropriate headroom. A decent crop doesn't appear to exist yet; the supposed "full" version crops very, very tight to his head - I think it's from an alternate copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Microfiche showing much later father naturalization recently discovered
Chester A. Arthur gave a number of false and misleading statements about his family history. A recently discovered microfiche shows his father was a Commonwealth citizen who did not become naturalized until Chester was a young teenager. Although Chester was likely born on American soil this would have cast doubt on his "natural born citizen" status depending on which theory prevailed.

Elemming (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is this information reliably documented? —ADavidB 11:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The only sources I found when I looked today were politically conservative opinion web sites such as Free Republic, The Battle for Truth, and Natural Born Citizen. They're all in the context of anti-Barack Obama attacks from 2008.  The basic claim is that if William Arthur didn't become a naturalized citizen until the 1840s, then Chester Arthur wasn't a natural born citizen, or maybe was a dual citizen of Britain and the US, and was therefore ineligible to be president.  And if Chester Arthur was ineligible to be president, then so is Barack Obama.


 * Of course, this line of attack says nothing about Arthur's mother being a US citizen by birth, or Arthur being a US citizen by birth -- both were born in Vermont. By extension, the attack on Arthur also doesn't account for Barack Obama's mother having been born in Kansas and Obama having been born in Hawaii.


 * By almost all interpretations of the term "natural born citizen", if one of your parents is a US citizen, then you are a natural born citizen, regardless of your birthplace. The question was explored in 2008, and the US Senate passed non-binding resolutions indicating its view that John McCain (born in the Panama Canal Zone) and Barack Obama (whose father was from Kenya) were both natural born citizens.


 * To use an earlier example, Time and Life magazine publisher Henry Luce had reason to believe that if a Republican won the 1948 presidential election, Luce might be appointed Secretary of State. At the time, before the passage of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Secretary of State was next after the Vice President in the order of succession.  Luce had been born in China to US parents who were on a church mission, so he researched the natural born citizen clause.  Luce's attorneys were of the view that because at least one of his parents was a US citizen, the fact that he was born in China was irrelevant -- Luce was a natural born citizen and could serve as Secretary of State without disrupting the line of succession.  (Of course, the question was rendered moot by the passage of the 1947 act, which placed the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate ahead of the cabinet in the line of succession, as well as Republican nominee Dewey's loss to President Truman, a Democrat, in 1948.)


 * All things considered, the story about William Arthur's naturalization seems to me to really be an inaccurate, ham-handed attack on Barack Obama. Respectfully, I don't think it merits mention in the article on Chester A. Arthur.


 * Billmckern (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. That he was born here was enough for 19th-century people. These more convoluted arguments are more about our own times and opposition to Barack Obama or Ted Cruz. Barring the publication of a reliably sourced article by a historian, let's leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chester A. Arthur. 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/20121013092658/http://newyorkcitystatues.com/chester-a-arthur/ to http://newyorkcitystatues.com/chester-a-arthur/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

More on Arthur's birthplace
Dracion12 recently attempted to add information on Arthur's possible Canadian birth and was reverted. His/her argument was that it wasn't mentioned in the article and should be included.

A - It is in the article. There are details in the "Birth and family" section.

B - As I believe the references and notes very clearly show, Arthur was definitely born in Vermont, not Quebec.

To believe that Arthur was born in Canada, you have to believe that he lied about being born in Vermont for his entire life before the 1880 election and that his parents lied before him by entering a Vermont birth in their family Bible. But Arthur had no reason to lie. The only thing being born in Canada would have possibly affected was his eligibility to serve as president - and maybe not even that. But no one in the world, including Arthur himself, had any reason to think before 1880 that he might possibly become president. He simply had no motive to spend his entire life before 1880 falsely claiming to be born in Vermont. He was definitely born there.

Billmckern (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Stalwarts
We say, “The running mates, never close, detached as Garfield continued to freeze out the Stalwarts from his patronage.” However, in Candice Millard’s “Destiny of the Republic,” it is Conkling’s undermining of cabinet appointments that is to blame. I don’t have an on-line source, but the main arguments are in Chapter 7DOR (HK) (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Mediocre or average?
Was his presidency "mediocre" or "average"? Mediocre means not very good, but average means generally halfway between the best and the worst. Arthur was not average; in fact his presidency is seen as below average.

What do the sources say?
 * 2021 – Professor Richard M. Valelly in the Princeton book Princeton Readings in American Politics ISBN 9781400833818: Arthur was "mediocre" but better than Tyler, Fillmore and Johnson.
 * 2018 – Professor Matthew Dennis in the Cornell book Red, White, and Blue Letter Days: "Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Chester A. Arthur—mediocre, almost accidental presidents all..."
 * 2016 – The Times-Union says "mediocre and forgettable".
 * 2015 – Professor Douglas Brinkley wrote in American Heritage History of the United States that Arthur was part of a "mediocre run of U.S. presidents" from Hayes through Cleveland's second term.
 * 2013 – The Ludwig von Mises Institute (libertarian economists) published a book titled Reassessing the Presidency ISBN 9781610166140. They write that Arthur is considered by "conventional wisdom" to be a "mediocre or bad" president. But the Institute says that their viewpoint regarding Arthur's hands-off style of leadership is positive, that Arthur should be considered a "very good" president.
 * 1995 – Historian Paul S. Boyer wrote in The Enduring Vision ISBN 9780669331684: "By becoming a mediocre president, Chester A. Arthur pleasantly surprised those who expected him to be an unmitigated disaster."
 * 1993 – Edwin M. Coulter in Principles of Politics and Government, page 199, wrote about James Garfield "and the somewhat mediocre performance of his successor, Chester A. Arthur."
 * 1987 – Frank Northen Magill's Great Lives from History, page 95, ISBN 9780893565299: "The historians assigned Arthur to the average class, along with seven other presidents..."
 * 1974 – Harry Joseph Sievers wrote in Six Presidents from the Empire State, page 77, ISBN 9780912882079, that "Arthur has been assigned a position in the presidential ranking game near the bottom of the average or middle group..."

These sources are saying mediocre or average, with the majority saying mediocre. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right. Please take a look at the edit I just made to the lede and the reference I added to see if it's line with your assessment.


 * Billmckern (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That works. Thanks for your diligence. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I think people initially thought he would be corrupt, but he was better than people thought he would be, especially after federally creating the Civil Service Commission. Also, he showed tact and compromise with his veto power. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it could be added that with the exception of Naval resurgence and modernization under Secretary of Navy Chandler, Arthur was an average president. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This article says Arthur is generally underrated by historians: 1800s president remains unremarkable even at own local birthday bash Pete DeMola Oct. 5, 2022, Updated: Oct. 6, 2022 Times Union
 * "Yet Arthur is generally viewed by historians as underrated after racking up a generally respected track record as a progressive reformer during his time in public service, experts said, including serving as quartermaster general of the New York State Militia during the Civil War, a task for which he received high marks owing to his ability to navigate logistic hurdles. Pete DeMola Oct. 5, 2022, Updated: Oct. 6, 2022 Times Union
 * Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Harv cite issues
Holy cow...if anyone around here has "User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js" enabled, this article's "Further reading" is absolutely riddled with "Harv errors"...44 in all. I'll take a whack at them sometime soon but thought I'd post here in case anyone else is inspired in the meantime...almost every book, the majority of articles, newspapers, and even a few websites. I know it's just a technical nicety and doesn't impact the Featured article status but still ... Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I finally got around to starting to FIX all the Harvard Cite errors. Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * All done. Shearonink (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Who was shot?
In the intro paragraph it says that "Arthur succeeded the presidency upon Garfield's death in September 1881—two months after being shot by an assassin." I understand Garfield was shot, but that sentence is phrased in such a way it can be understood that Arthur himself was shot. Shinryuu (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Have adjusted that sentence. Hope it makes complete sense now. Shearonink (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I think it's clearer now. Shinryuu (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Harry S. Truman which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)