Talk:James Ludington/Archive 1

Apparent contradiction
According to the article, "Ludington then took over the operations of this sawmill" "in what was then known as the village of Pere Marquette in the northwestern part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan", yet he "lived in the state of New York as a boy and in the state of Wisconsin as an adult. He never lived in Ludington, Michigan - the town that bears his name." How could he (no mention of a manager or agent) operate a business a state (and a large lake) away from his residence in the 19th century?

This may arise from the article's being written largely from one source: Historic Mason County, Michigan - HMC, Taylor Publishing Company 1980, Dallas, Texas. Some experience has shown these local histories to have a tendency to be filled with anecdotal evidence, which is frequently inconsistent and/or incomplete and sometimes contradictory.


 * Hi User:Piledhigheranddeeper. Apparently I didn't make clear enough that The sawmill that Ludington acquired had developed into an independent entity called the Pere Marquette Lumber Company so I added the wording that was the management of the sawmill. The source of HMC was written also by James L. Cabot. It says: "On October 11, 1854, Mr. Ludington entered into an agreement with George W. Ford to loan funds to Ford and his sawmill. Ford became insolvent in 1859 and the sawmill came into Mr. Ludington's possession." (page 303) Then on page 11 it says: "Ill health forced Mr. Ludington to sell his holdings at Ludington in 1869 and the Pere Marquette Lumber Company was formed on July 24, 1869, to manage the properties." On page 303 it says: "He sold his holdings to the company for $500,000." I already pointed out that on page 303 it said: "He never married and he never lived in the city which bears his name." Noticed the source said "....holdings at Ludington..." meaning someplace different than where he was. It turns out other sources say he owned large timberlands throughout Michigan's Lower Peninsula and Upper Peninsula. He obviously hired managers to control his various holdings - he was quite wealthy.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again User:Piledhigheranddeeper. Here is additional information that it seems quite plausible that James Ludington lived only in Wisconsin and not in Ludington, Michigan. I am not saying he never visited Ludington, Michigan - just that he never lived there. On page 303 of the HMC source it says: "Worsening health caused Mr. Ludington to move from the Newhall House Hotel in Milwaukee to the Plankinton House in the same city. He died in the Plankinton House in Milwaukee. This hotel is still in existence. In 1897 it was reported that his brother, Charles H. Ludington was a stockholder of the Pere Marquette Lumber company." It doesn't say, however my guess is that his brother Charles had a large part in the operations and management of the Ludington company. His "agent" could have been his brother, however key managers could have just as well worked - even in the 19th century. On page 11 it says: "George W. Clayton came to the village in 1867 at the urging of Mr. Ludington and on September 17, 1867, Mr. Clayton began publishing the Mason County Record newspaper." Now since he had a manager to run the newspaper, this person could also have participated in managing other holdings of Mr. Ludington (i.e. sawmill and the Big Store). It didn't specifically say so, so I didn't write that. So since there were various "agents" that James Ludington had for his holdings in Ludington, it would have been quite easy to have key managers for the sawmill and the Big Store - especially if he paid them well, which he could have easily done. Look at the other Positions he held, which obviously earned him a lot of money. Besides at the time Ludington didn't have any real nice hotels like what he was accustomed to live in. The earliest such hotel like this was called the Stearns Hotel built in 1905. --Doug Coldwell talk 20:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sybil Ludinton poem
Hey, I question the addition of the poem in this article. It belongs in Sybil Ludington. It is not specifically relevant to an article about her nephew. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. - I'll work on that. Thanks for notification. Also I am now working on Ron Ludington being the "grandson" of William = I have got it wrong and am trying to figure out the correction. Good catch!!! I'll work on BOTH of these = eventually someday in the future, I'll have you go over the corrections I will make. Also I am thinking on expanding the lead. Thanks for hints...--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You have brought up some excellent improvement suggestions. I will be working on those over the next few weeks, as I only have so many RAMs as an old man and am working on several projects that require a hard drive. Will get back to you later (~ 3-4 weeks) for another overview. Thanks, as these are all excellent improvements to help make it a Good Article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

1855 investigation
In answering the tagged template it appears that it was James Halpin and Dr. Hunt (p-26) that did the investigating in 1855 of possible mishandling of funds. It appears that $3,655.35 came up missing from what Ludington and Chapman paid of $13,845.05 total to the treasurer of Wisconsin for the school lands. That amount was paid to the treasurer or his deputy and that only $10,189.70 was recorded. The books of the state of Wisconsin secretary of state matched that of the treasurer (within $1.90). Mr. Seaver was in charge of the treasury department for the state of Wisconsin at the time. The investigation of Halpin and Hunt imply misappropriation of funds given to Seaver - possible skimming of the $3,655 missing money by Seaver or his deputy. That is what I get from the explanation on pages 27 and 28 of the Report of Joint Select Committee. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then, It would appear that Ludington caught the ricochet from the investigation into this skimming. You should lightly mention that. But be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH as this is a primary source. Just state the facts and let the reader reach her own conclusion. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggestion = I'll think how to do that for a couple of days. Thanks also for all the great help on copy editing = you are a professional.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I left this comment before I read the edit you did. I think what you have now is exactly what I was talking about. It states the facts and no more. I am happy with it. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)