Talk:Rutherford B. Hayes/Archive 3

FAC archived
I note this has been archived. I will take a look and copyedit sometime in the two week lockout period before renomination. Alet me if I haven't returned within a week. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks for your help.  --Coemgenus 22:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

1st FAC comments
To continue improvements to this article before its next FA submission, I've copied the yet-unresolved comments from the 1st FAC below:

 Comments - not ready to support, as I think the prose needs some serious flow work as well as some concerns with comprehensiveness.
 * General comments -
 * Sourcing - I noted this article which states that the first presidential library was Hayes - perhaps this point needs to be brought out as a legacy?
 * Speaking of legacy, I'm not seeing any sort of viewpoint on his presidency so far. This might have some information of use. Likewise this article might be of use.
 * I'm not seeing a lot of sources on the era he was president during. I see a couple of books were used on the year 1877, but some more infuriation on Reconstruction and the Gilded Age would help to round out any possible biases in the other sources.
 * Overlinking - I see a lot of terms that probably don't need to be linked - gallows, mental institution, murder, currency, heart attack - as well as a lot of terms that are linked multiple times in short order. Republican is way overlooked in the article, as well as Democrat, brevet, as well as a number of states. An audit of all the links needs to be undertaken to make sure you're not duplicating links or linking to things that are of low-value for understanding the article.
 * A concern is that there isn't a lot of context for why things are happening in political matters. His career as a Congressman is not given any context on why he voted the way he did.
 * I strongly suggest a copyedit by someone not from the United States - not only are there a number of verbose sentence structures, finding someone who isn't familiar with U.S. history will make sure that you haven't left out context that's important for understanding the article.
 * There are unsightly white gaps in the article, probably caused by the templates that appear to be used to keep pictures with sections. However, this causes large blank areas on some screen sizes, and should be considered a bad idea.
 * Specific comments -
 * Education - What are "common schools"? needs explanation. Likewise "preparatory school"?
 * Education - what's meant by "where the curriculum was of a classical bent."?
 * Cincinnati - "Cincinnati, just across the Ohio River from Kentucky, a slave state, found many such cases in its courts." just sounds off, consider rewording this a bit to make it sounds less Victorian in its phrasing.
 * What does "running ahead of the ticket" mean?
 * Civil War - "The army spent the winter of 1862–1863 in winter quarters near Charleston, West Virginia. Hayes saw little action until July, when the division..." There is a disconnect between these two sentences, they don't flow well together.
 * Governor - I don't like the phrase "endorsed the impeachment and conviction of President Andrew Johnson." which implies that Johnson was both impeached AND convicted. Although he was impeached, he wasn't convicted. Perhaps a better phrasing is possible?
 * Governor - "Hayes was re-elected with an increased majority, …" just is clumsy - perhaps "Hayes was re-elected with a larger vote total than in 1867"?
 * private life - "That same year, the Panic of 1873 dashed business prospects across the nation…" dashed? perhaps rephrase to something less Victorian sounding…
 * Election of 1876 - "Because of fraud by both parties in the three disputed states, the results were uncertain, and the three states returned certificates of election for electors of both parties, with each claiming to be the only legitimate electors." I'm unclear what is meant here, as the phrasing is such that I'm lost in all the election/electors/etc.
 * Civil rights - okay, we had three states still under military government during the election but only two by the time he became president? How'd that happen?
 * "In his first year in office, Hayes contended with the largest labor disturbance to that time in American history…" awkward, consider rewording.
 * Consider culling some of the external links - is there really any need for the link to the Biographical directory of the US Congress or the Finda Grave link or the White House biography? Do any of those add anything additional to the understanding of the subject?
 * My main concerns are comprehensiveness of the research and the prose. The prose is clunky in places and while I did a copyedit, I am no where near a copyediting genius. Strongly suggest an independent copyedit by a non-expert in U.S. history, and I can't really consider supporting until the prose issues are addressed. The above concerns are just the ones I noticed, and I cannot be sure of catching them all.
 * I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool, and didn't get anything but Wikipedia mirrors. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Eadglyth: Thanks very much for the copyediting you did. I'm embarrassed to have missed some of those things for so long.  As to your comments, I'll address the general ones first.  I've removed the  templates and it still looks OK.  I've also dealt, I think, with the overlinking.  I added a sentence about his library.  I don't have JSTOR access just now, but I should be able to get it in the next few days, so I'll evaluate those articles you suggest (hopefully, this should be done before Christmas.)  As to sourcing, I thought that the scholarly biographies of Hayes ought to form the backbone of the article, but I'll be glad to look for more general histories of the era to augment the biographical sources where necessary.


 * As to the specific issues: I think the revisions I made to his early education clarify the ambiguities there. I've tried to tread the line between "Victorian sounding" phrases and the "engaging, even brilliant" prose that the FA criteria call for.  Unfortunately, I tend to sound high-fallutin and pompous when I write.  I've toned down the sentences you pointed out into something more modern and prosaic.  I think I fixed most of the problems you pointed out in that area, but I think "increased majority" is common enough phrasing to remain (I've run across it in lots of political histories and biographies.)  I simplified the electors/election/electoral certificate detail in 1876 -- I think I had tried to cram too much minutia in one sentence.  How it went from three to two states under reconstruction governments is actually explained in the footnote -- do you think I out to separate the substantive notes from the references like they did in this article?  I also re-worded the sentence on the labor issues and further culled the external links (I agree that most external links in these types of articles are useless).


 * As I said, I'll look into more sources when JSTOR access happens, and I hope to resolve the rest of these issues quickly. Thanks again for your thorough review.  --Coemgenus 19:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I separated the notes from the references. Still waiting on JSTOR access.  Coemgenus 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm...JSTOR access is harder to come by than I thought. I did find a copy of the Thelen article and added information and citations from it in the Post-presidency section.  The Smith article is available for free here.  Coemgenus 01:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've addressed your concerns. please let me know if there's anything I missed, or anything else you've thought of.  Coemgenus 02:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I won't oppose, I don't feel comfortable supporting without someone independent going over the prose and doing some copyediting, it's still clunky at a number of points. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at prose, am a little less than halfway through. It seems reasonable so far (I'm a science-minded Brit, so am definitely not an expert in American history) - I've made some tweaks and corrected the occasional error, but it was already in fairly good shape I felt. (I'm not an expert in copyediting either, but the acid test would seem to be whether one can easily follow the meaning and I've mostly been okay; some comments are below) I will try and a look through the rest sometime today or tomorrow. Trebor (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. While going through, a few things I noticed:
 * After a few months of training, Hayes and the 23rd Ohio set out for western Virginia in July 1861 - dates don't work if he only joined 23rd Ohio in June and had several months training.
 * In November, Hayes was promoted to lieutenant colonel and led his troops deeper into western Virginia - was he now the overall leader? What about Stanley Matthews - was he not also lieutenant colonel?
 * Following the rout, the Union forces destroyed Confederate supplies and engaged the enemy again successfully - "engaged the enemy again successfully" is a bit vague in my opinion - what happened to the enemy the second time?
 * Early's army surprised them at Kernstown on July 24, where Hayes was slightly wounded and had a horse shot out from under him, and the army was defeated - This is unclear: was Hayes wounded because of the horse?
 * More comments probably coming when I look through the rest. I'm finding it interesting so far though. Trebor (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Trebor: I think I've clarified the issues you listed: --Coemgenus 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) They trained from June to July, so I changed it from " a few months" to "a month"
 * 2) Matthews was promoted to colonel of another regiment when Hayes was promoted to Lt.Col.  Because the colonel of the 23rd Ohio, Eliakim P. Scammon was commanding several regiments in the area, Hayes had day-to-day overall command of the 23rd.  I'm not sure how much of this detail you think we should add.
 * 3) The second engagement was minor -- an artillery duel and some covering fire -- but not a full-on battle.  I changed it to "skirmished with the enemy."
 * 4) The sentence about his horse and his injury should be clearer now.
 * Thanks for that, those all looks fine now. I'll try to have a look rest of the article in the next week or so. Trebor (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to do a GA nomination as a next step? Racepacket (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You may be right. I think we should resubmit it there in a couple of weeks, after people have finished their copyedits.  --Coemgenus 12:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I nominated it for GA again. --Coemgenus 16:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A few copyediting notes

 * Not a big deal, but some would change "As president, he presided ..." to "As president, he oversaw". - Dank (push to talk)
 * Done. Coemgenus 14:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The major American dictionaries go with "reelection" and "reelect" rather than "re-election", but Carol Saller considers this a matter of style rather than right and wrong in The Subversive Copy Editor, and I've heard that it looks awful without the hyphen to Brits and Australians.  Your call. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I agree, but I've gotten complaints before about mixing AmEnglish and BrEnglish. I'm going to leave this one as is.  Coemgenus 14:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Consistency is needed in Hayes' vs. Hayes's. Most style guidelines let you make the call but prefer the latter (in this case). - Dank (push to talk)
 * I've tried to use the latter throughout. I think I got them all now.  Coemgenus 14:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Close to Hayes throughout his life, Sardis Birchard ...": "his" dangles; see WP:MHCL. - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the copy-edit~  Coemgenus 14:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, although I didn't get far before the article was promoted. Congratulations. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Navy decline and Star Route Postal Contracts
I believe that there needs to be something mentioned about the U.S. Naval decline and the Star Route Postal Contracts. The Navy may have reached the lowest ebb under Hayes; the decline having started under Grant. The Star Route scandal; a scandal under Grant; may have restarted under Hayes. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source for that? I don't remember his biographers mentioning it, but I could be wrong.  Coemgenus 11:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Miller states that promotion in the Navy was slow and by seniority. Naval enrollment, only 6,000, during Hayes was lowest since the Andrew Jackson Administration.  Poltics and favoritism inundated the Naval Department.  Many of the crews were not even American and could not speak English.  The process of decline, according to Miller, was between 1869 to 1881.  The navy ships were not many and were not maintained very well.  There is also the interesting arctic saga of the Jeanette.The U.S. Navy: a History by Nathan Miller (1997) - pages 145-147. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The star routes rings took place from a period between 1869 to 1881. The height of the corruption was during the Grant Administration, however, the corruption continued.  Hayes' Postmaster General Horace Maynard protected the corrupt postal system saying that the General public cared little how their mail was delivered. A Vast Scheme Of Fraud New York Times (May 9, 1881)Star Routes in the Past New York Times (October 17, 1881) Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Biographers, in my opinion, do not cover all aspects of Presidents. I believe that getting information from multiple historical vantages and reliable sources such as Miller and the New York Times are appropriate and signifigantly improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A good rule of thumb is that if none of the scholars who wrote the secondary sources on the article's subject saw fit to mention it, Wikipedia (a tertiary source) should also not mention it. --Coemgenus 19:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Rule of thumb" is not Wikipedia policy. There is no policy rule that says articles on people must only receive sources from any biographers.  Wikipedia is open source. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are links for Wikipedias policies on sources:
 * Sources
 * Identifying reliable sources
 * Neutral point of view Cmguy777 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nathan Miller and the New York Times are reliable sources. The proposals I put in the talk page would be put in the article with a neutral point of view.  I am not attempting to denegrate Rutherford B. Hayes.  My opinion of the article is that there needs to be balance.  Garfield had Crédit Mobilier, Grant had the Whiskey Ring and many more scandals.  If there was corruption under President Hayes, then that should not be avoided in the article.  The navy decline is not corruption, rather, historical observation. The saga of the Jeanette is historically interesting since President Hayes authorized the voyage. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you click on the link I included in my last response? It actually does link to a policy page.  --Coemgenus 14:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. I read the link. Both Miller and the NYT are secondary sources.  The New York Times quoted U.S. Postmaster Maynard's statement the public only cared that their mail was delivered rather then any Star Route investigation or controversy.  The NYT's articles goes over the history of the Star Route corruption and the politics and profiteering involved in getting the contracts.  Hayes appointed Maynard. Miller's book is an overall history of the U.S. Navy.  The Jeanette saga gives the reader historical perspectitive that during Hayes' Presidency there was signifigant interest in Artic exploration. Hayes, as President, is in charge of the Navy.  Readers need to know the history of the Navy, in terms of the Hayes presidency.  There was no corruption in the Navy under Hayes, however, Miller believed the decline was signifigant enough to put in his book. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the Miller book mentions Hayes once, and not in connection with the decline of the Navy. The two NYT articles mention him not at all and were written after Hayes's presidency.  Miller is a secondary source and seems reputable, but I just don't see the connection to Hayes.  --Coemgenus 20:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hayes was President from 1877 to 1881 and responsible for both the Department of Navy and the Postal Service. The New York Times mentions Sec. Maynard. Hayes appointed Maynard. Hayes also appointed the Secretary of the Navy. The timeline in the Miller book for the Naval decline was, according to Miller, between 1869 and 1881. Hayes was President during this timeline stated by Miller. The "Jeanette" arctic expedition was launched during the Hayes presidency and was under authority of the Department of Navy and President Hayes, while Hayes was President. The NYT articles goes over the history of the Star Route scandal, not just during Garfield's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that's synthesis. If there's no source that attributes these things to Hayes, we can't create one.  --Coemgenus 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all no article segments have been written or posted. This is talk page discussion.  Secondly, there is no orginal sythensis or research that Hayes was President from 1877 to 1881.  The President appoints secretaries to Cabinet positions.  Hayes appointed U.S. Postmaster Maynard.  Maynard was postmaster during the Star Route time period.  There is no orginal synthesis or research. Hayes as Commander in Chief has the power to command the Navy and appoint the Secretary of the Navy.  That is not original sythesis or research. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This can be used as a reference to "No orginal research" Wikipedia policy:
 * "...all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged&mdash;but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the interest of disclosure I have invited editor Rjensen to put input into this discussion. Other editors input would be helpful to resolve this issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the interest of disclosure I have invited editor Carmarg4 to put input into this discussion. Other editors input would be helpful to resolve this issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the interest of disclosure I have invited editor Elen of the Roads to put input into this discussion. Other editors input would be helpful to resolve this issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the Detroit Free Press (June 5, 1881) Senator John A. Logan told President Hayes in 1880 that there was a "Bad set of rascals" in the Postal Service and break up the Star Route corruption. Carl Shurz also told Hayes to break up the Star Routes and fire Gen. Thomas J. Brady. The paper stated that Hayes did nothing since any corruption would affect the 1880 presidencial election. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. We've been able to compromise on good language for featured articles in the past, like in this article.  If you can find sources that relate this directly to Hayes, why don't you propose some language and citations here on the talk page and we'll try to figure out something together.  --Coemgenus 19:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. As for the Starr Routes corruption I would only mention briefly that President Hayes was personally told by both Sen. Logan and Sec. Shultz to shut down the corrupt Star Route rings, in addition Shultz asking Hayes to fire Gen. Brady, who was later indicted.  I would put Hayes declined to go after the Ring during the 1880 U.S. Presidential election with an "according to" clause.  I would add just a definition of the Starr Routes fraud; that would mean the Starr Routes would get no more then 3 sentences.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Navy and the Jeanette saga I would combine. No corruption was involved.  I would briefly describe the condition of the Navy.  A book on the Jeanette saga has been written and may mention President Hayes first hand.  This section would get no more then 5 sentences.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am open to suggestions. I would want the wording to be as neutral as possible and allow the reader enough information for historical perspective without bias. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break 01
Here is what I would write on the Star routes:
 * In 1880, President Hayes was asked by Sen. John A. Logan and Sec. of Interior Carl Schurz to shut down the "star route" rings, an imbedded system of contract profiteering in the Postal Service, and fire Gen. Thomas J. Brady, an alleged ring leader. According to the Detroit Free Press, Hayes declined to prosecute the corrupt postal rings or discharge Brady during an U.S. Presidential election year. Hayes' Postmaster, Horace Maynard, said the public only cared their mail was delivered with "certainty, celerity, and security," rather then the methods postal routes were contracted.

Section break 02
How about this:
 * In 1880, Schurz and Senator John A. Logan asked Hayes to shut down the "star route" rings, a system of contract profiteering in the Postal Service, and to fire Thomas J. Brady, an alleged ring leader. Hayes reportedly declined to root out the corruption or discharge Brady because it might have injured Republican electoral prospects during the election that year.  Hayes' Postmaster, Horace Maynard, said that the public only cared their mail was delivered with "certainty, celerity, and security," not the methods by which postal routes were contracted.

I'd place it in the "Civil service reform" section, to contrast the reforms that did happen with those that didn't. I'd also like to search for some scholarly assessment of Hayes's role in this scandal. Newspapers were nakedly partisan in those days, and it would add some perspective if we could find some sober-minded analysis by an historian who wasn't caught up with the politics of the day the way reporters are. I'll look around JSTOR and see what can be had. --Coemgenus 12:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, some quick research has shown this suspicion to be correct. Neither of Hayes's modern biographers give any credit to the newspaper's accusations in 1881.  Trefousse, at p. 144, writes that Hayes "hardly knew the chief suspect [Brady] and certainly had no connection with the corruption."  Hoogenboom, at pp. 439-440, writes that Hayes and Congressional Democrats grew suspicious in 1880, but Congress found no evidence of wrongdoing and Hayes took the precaution of suspending the further grants of star route contracts until it could be figured out.  It sounds to me like simple partisanship that modern historians discredit.  --Coemgenus 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your above paragraph is good. No evidence of wrongdoing? Brady was indicted. Congress had shut down the postal rings temporarily in 1876.  Historians do not question when the Salary Grab Act was exposed by the press in 1873.  Partican newspapers and corruption in government are mutually exclusive.  What source says Hayes suspended further grants?    In the last sentence I would put " Hayes, rather then root out the corruption or discharge Brady because it might have injured Republican electoral prospects during the election that year, had only suspended further grants of star route contracts.", or something to this effect. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gen. Brady was assistant to Post Master Key and Maynard. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gen. Brady was indicted in April, 1882. The 'star routes' had to do with excessive pay contracts to deliver the mail and a complicated scheme of straw bidding. When did Hayes stop the grants for the 'star route' contracts? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hayes stopped granting new contracts in 1880. I think what I wrote needs revision in light of the source material I mentioned.  Let me take a look at my books when I get home and see if we can distill some consensus on Hayes's role (or lack or a role) in the scandal.  --Coemgenus 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coemgenus. Hayes made a "moderate" reform. Rather then have a full blown investigation as Sen. Logan and Sec. Schurz wanted, Hayes stopped granting the postal contracts to avoid scandal during the 1880 election. The paragraph, then, needs to reflect Hayes' limited reform action. I do believe that Logan and Schurz plea to Hayes for stronger reform needs to be mentioned. My personal opinion of Hayes was that he was a good President and has been underated by historians. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break 03
I think this provides a brief, balanced assessment:
 * In 1880, Schurz and Senator John A. Logan asked Hayes to shut down the "star route" rings, a system of contract profiteering in the Postal Service, and to fire Thomas J. Brady, the ring leader. Hayes and the Congress both looked into the contracts, but found no compelling evidence of wrongdoing.  Hayes stopped granting new star route contracts, but let existing contracts continue to be enforced.  Hayes' Postmaster General, Horace Maynard, said that the public only cared their mail was delivered with "certainty, celerity, and security," not the methods by which postal routes were contracted.  Some in the press accused Hayes of delaying proper investigation so as not to injure Republican chances in the 1880 elections, but modern historians conclude that Hayes "hardly knew the chief suspect [Brady] and certainly had no connection with the corruption."

Yes. That is a good paragraph! I would specifically mention the Detroit Free Press rather then say "Some". Brady and others were indicted. United States Federal Judge Andrew Wylie, an Abraham Lincoln appointment, ruled there was compelling evidence for the indictments. The paragraph is expanding, however, as long a neutrality is in the article. Wylie claimed there was enough evidence that there was a conpiracy to gain money from the government by illegal methods. Here is the link: The Brady Indictments. Did Trefouse state "modern historians" or did Trefouse make the statement, "hardly knew the chief suspect [Brady] and certainly had no connection with the corruption." If Trefousse made that statement I would put "Historian Trefousse stated Hayes "hardly knew the..."" Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This would by my rewrite:
 * In 1880, Schurz and Senator John A. Logan asked Hayes to shut down the "star route" rings, a system of contract profiteering in the Postal Service, and to fire Thomas J. Brady, the alleged ring leader.   Hayes stopped granting new star route contracts, but let existing contracts continue to be enforced.  Hayes' Postmaster General, Horace Maynard, said that the public only cared their mail was delivered with "certainty, celerity, and security," not the methods by which postal routes were contracted.  The Detroit Free Press stated that President Hayes delayed proper investigation so as not to injure Republican chances in the 1880 elections. Historian Hans L. Trefousse stated President Hayes "hardly knew the chief suspect [Brady] and certainly had no connection with the [star route] corruption."  Although Hayes and the Congress both looked into the contracts and found no compelling evidence of wrongdoing, Brady and others were indicted for conspiracy in the star route cases. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break 04
I'm basically on-board with that. I added a topic sentence and some details.


 * Hayes also dealt with corruption in the postal service. In 1880, Schurz and Senator John A. Logan asked Hayes to shut down the "star route" rings, a system of corrupt contract profiteering in the Postal Service, and to fire Second Assistant Postmaster-General Thomas J. Brady, the alleged ring leader.  Hayes stopped granting new star route contracts, but let existing contracts continue to be enforced.  Hayes' Postmaster General, Horace Maynard, said that the public only cared their mail was delivered with "certainty, celerity, and security," not about the methods by which postal routes were contracted.  The Detroit Free Press stated that Hayes delayed proper investigation so as not to injure Republican chances in the 1880 elections, but historian Hans L. Trefousse would later write that Hayes "hardly knew the chief suspect [Brady] and certainly had no connection with the [star route] corruption."  Although Hayes and the Congress both looked into the contracts and found no compelling evidence of wrongdoing, Brady and others would be indicted for conspiracy in 1882, but found not guilty.

What do you think? --Coemgenus 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good! I recommend to put the paragraph in the article. The "star routes" scandal has been mentioned in the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration. Congress had investigated the "star routes" in 1872 and 1876. The postal graft continued through Garfield and Arthur. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll add it in. I wrote the article for Thomas J. Brady, too, so add anything you think I left out.  It's still pretty rough.  --Coemgenus 01:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a good article. Brady's conviction was overturned. That is interesting. Possibly the Library of Congress might have a photo. Worth a try. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Brady led an interesting life. I could not find any photos of Thomas. J. Brady at the Library of Congress. I am going to try "Find a grave". Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I could not find any grave or photos for Thomas J. Brady at "Find a Grave". This guy may have been camera shy. Who knows? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The New York Times articles mention that Brady's first trial the jury could not make a verdict. There was suspicion that the jury was bribed.  On Brady's second trial he was aquitted.  I could not find anything that Judge Wylie reversed his sentence.  Brady did not have a sentence to reverse. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever source I looked at last night suggested there was a verdict in the first trial and it was overturned. I could be wrong.  We should continue this discussion on that talk page.  --Coemgenus 10:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The addition looks good in the article. I started a new talk page section "Star routes" on the Thomas J Brady article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Section break 05
From what I read in the New York Times articles two members in the inidicted group in the first 1882 trial were found guilty, however, in the second trial in 1883 all indicted members were found not guilty. The two who were found guilty in the first trial had their guilty verdicts overturned by the second jury. In the first trial, the jurists could not reach a decision on Brady. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeanette incident
I believe the Jeanette naval expidition is worth mentioning. Exploring the artic region was very popular while Hayes was President. Maybe a paragraph can be written on the subject. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a few days to look into the sources and I'll let you know what I think. --Coemgenus 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Here is a web link: Jeannette Arctic Expedition, 1879-1881 Overview and Selected Images. The crew drifted on the ice for 21 months! The ship was private, yet, 33 Navy officers were in charge of the expedition. The web site called the expedition, "an epic Arctic adventure that defines the limits of human will and endurance in an overwhelmingly distant and hostile environment." The key question is how much did President Hayes know of the Jeanette and how he authorized the expedition. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There was an Act passed on February 27, 1879 authorizing the arctic expedition headed by the Sec. of Navy. Hayes must have signed this into law. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A bill passed the Senate on February 24, 1879 authorizing the Jeanette for the Arctic expedition. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Richard Perry states that a special Act of Congress gave the Pandora (Jeanette) an American Registry. Also, a Judge Charles P. Daly, of the American Geographic Society, in Janurary 1881 had written a letter to President Hayes to launch a second rescue mission for the Jeanette. Hayes or the Navy had previously sent the USS Corwin during the Summer of 1880, to look for the Jeanette, but to no avail.  There was a certainty that the Jeanette expedition was alright.  President Hayes may not have been alarmed, the Jeanette supposedly had provisions for three years.  Judge Daly asked President Hayes to send the USS Galena, a strong ship, to search for the missing Jeanette and crew.  Judge Daly was worried the crew was dead.

I think this is a bit tangential. A look through the scholarly sources on Hayes shows no mentions of this ship or its voyages. Not everything that transpired in Hayes's four years in office should be in this article. Remember that it is written in summary style. The New York Times has articles in it every day about the Obama administration, yet most of them are not included in the Barack Obama article. If the scholarly sources pay it no mind, neither should this much shorter encyclopedia article. --Coemgenus 19:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe Hayes signing a special act of congress that authorized the Jeanette Expedition is signifigant. The main purpose was to give some idea what the U.S. Navy was doing under the Hayes Presidency, and just a brief mention in the artical. The New York Times is a valid source.  I gave a naval web source also that went over the expedition.  Other sources cover the Jeanette, not just the NYT.  Pulitzer prize winning author, William S. McFeely, used the New York Times as a source in his autobiography on Ulysses S. Grant.  Yes. McFeely did not mention the arctic expedition under Grant, the Polaris, in the biography.  That does not make the exploration any less signifigant.  The whole point is to accurately access 19th century America.  If the Jeanette was just a private expedition, then I would agree with you Coemgenus.  The Jeanette was privately owned, but operated and outfitted by the U.S. Navy.  The Space Program exploration under John F. Kennedy is mentioned.  Instead of space, 19th century America was interested in the North Pole.  However, I believe in concensus.  If you don't want the Jeanette in the article, that is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1st Hayes stamp
I formatted/centered the caption text to Hayes' stamp, adding note that stamp was issued on the 100th aniv of Hayes' birth. (Some html is ok if used sparingly) Presently the placement of the stamp seems a bit odd. Noting that the Rutherford page doesn't have much of a 'closing' perhaps a legacy section which includes the stamp image (and other images?) with words that bring Rutherford's legacy/biography to a close might be a consideration. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Indian Policy
I believe a section on Indian Policy during Hayes' presidency would be appropriate for the article. The section could cover Sec. Shurz reform in the Interior Department and Hayes' support of Indian education and citizenship. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a Trefousse (2002), Rutherford B. Hayes, source for Hayes' Indian policy Rutherford B. Hayes' Indian Policy p. 109. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What is interesting concerning Hayes' Indian Policy is that ethnology was beginning to become popular. Hayes kept the Department of Indian Affairs under the Interior, rather then War, and I believe he started the Bureau of American Ethnology. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Trefousse gives him one small paragraph in his entire biography. It's hard to justify including that in something as short as an encyclopedia article.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe 19th Century Indian policy up until Benjamin Harrison is important and signifigant. McFeely-Woodward (1974) discuss Hayes's active role in settling the Ponca Indians protest in being removed from their lands in 1879. Hayes's appointed reformer, Carl Shurz, as Secretary of Interior and kept the Department of Indian Affairs under the Department of Interior. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How many paragraphs does one need in a book to be mentioned in Wikipedia? Wikipedia does not have a paragraph policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability  The edit would not be very lengthly, just enough to let the reader know Hayes had an Indian policy and mention any signifigant American Indian issues, wars, or events that concerned President Hayes or Sec. Schurz. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You proposed a "section". If we gave the article a section for every paragraph in his biographies, this would be the longest article on Wikipedia.  It's meant to be an encyclopedia article, not a book-length exposition.  I know you think it's important, but our opinions of what's important are irrelevant; we're supposed to be summarizing the relevant secondary sources.  Policy? See WP:SS and WP:LENGTH, as well as the length restrictions for feaured articles.   --Coemgenus (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the need for space since the article is currently around "84,569 bytes". Paragraph counting from a source is not Wikipedia policy in establishing the relavance of article content. Wikipedia establishes "relevance of information" by the reliability of sources Relavance of Content.  McFeely-Woodward (1974) and Trefousse (2002) are reliable sources and therefore any content information from these sources is relevant. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand: are you saying everything in Trefousse should be included in the article? --Coemgenus (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I am stating that everything in Trefousse, according to Wikipedia policy, is relevant since Trefousse is a valid source. I was not asking for an extensive edit that would cause an article byte overload.   I thought that mentioning Hayes' active intervention of the Poncas Indian removal, over ruling Sec. Schurz, was signifigant.  The only place to put this edit, I believe, would be in an Indian policy section. However, I am for editor consensus on adding any Indian Policy section or making any Indian policy edits.  Possibly other editors could give their respective views on adding information on Indian policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is another source: Rutherford B. Hayes - Rethinking indian policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are other sources: Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Kenneth E. Davison (1972), The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes
 * Francis Paul Prucha (1976), American Indian Policy in Crisis: Christian Reformers and the Indian, 1865-1900


 * I know Davison is a source, I read it when I wrote this article. Prucha I don't know, but if it says something about Hayes it might be relevant.  That presidentprofiles.com website, however, shows no sign of being a reliable source.  What is there in Davison that you want to include?  --Coemgenus (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The "presidentialprofiles.com" source was taken from Henry F. Graff's (2002) book The Presidents: A Reference History. Keith Ian Polakoff wrote on Rutherford B. Hayes's Presidency. As far as Davidson (1972) goes, anything on Hayes's Indian policy would be appropriate. The Pucha book concentrates on Indian Policy. I do not have currently have access to these books, except what is limited available online.  I believe these sources, including McFeely-Woodward (1974) and Trefousse (2002) would be good to make a brief section on Hayes' Indian policy, possibly focusing on Hayes' intervention in the Poncas removal attempt by Sec. Schurz.  Cmguy777 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My objective is to briefly explain President Hayes' Indian policy and then mention the Poncas removal intervention. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have access to the Hoogenboom (1988) book The presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes. This may help on the Indian Policy information. The Davison (1972) book The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes seems to be in depth. The Trefousse (2002), book Rutherford B. Hayes, although valid, is more of a summary biographical style. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential edit

 * President Hayes' American Indian policy was considered paternalistic, yet fair; having advocated education and eventual citizenship for the Native tribes. During President Hayes's first years there was considerable Indian problemantic disputes. In 1879, after Ute Indians killed Colorado Indian agent N.C. Meeker, Sec. Schurz negotiated peace with the Ute tribe and prevented the Colorado citizens from taking revenge on Meeker's death.  In one instance, President Hayes took an active role in settling the removal of the Ponca Indians in Nebraska. Tactfully over ruling Sec. Shurz demand on the Ponca Indian removal, President Hayes set up a commission that ruled Ponca Indians were free to resettle their orginal homeland or stay on their reservation in Nebraska.  The Poncas were awarded compensation for their land rights having been taken away, previously by mistake to the Sioux nation, under the Grant Administration. In a message to Congress, President Hayes insisted he would "give to these injured people [Ponca] that measure of redress which is required alike by justice and by humanity."


 * It's a good start, but the cites need to be tightened up. For example, who called Hayes's Indian policy "paternalistic, yet fair"?  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I got that "parternalistic, yet fair" from "Hayes's Indian policy was paternalistic, yet fundamentally decent."Treatment of Native Americans. However, I believe the opening sentence can be improved.  Hayes central focus, although humanitarian, was to divide Indian land into severalty. This policy ended up in taking millions of acres away from American Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rewrite -
 * President Hayes' American Indian policy included Anglo acculturation; education and eventual citizenship for the Native tribes; dividing Indian land into severalty; and forceful removal of Indians onto reservations. During President Hayes's first years there was considerable Indian problemantic disputes. In 1879, after Ute Indians killed Colorado Indian agent N.C. Meeker, Sec. Schurz negotiated peace with the Ute tribe and prevented the Colorado citizens from taking revenge on Meeker's death.  In one instance, President Hayes took an active role in settling the removal of the Ponca Indians in Nebraska. Tactfully over ruling Sec. Shurz demand on the Ponca Indian removal, President Hayes set up a commission that ruled Ponca Indians were free to resettle their orginal homeland or stay on their reservation in Nebraska.  The Poncas were awarded compensation for their land rights having been taken away, previously by mistake to the Sioux nation, under the Grant Administration. In a message to Congress, President Hayes insisted he would "give to these injured people [Ponca] that measure of redress which is required alike by justice and by humanity." Cmguy777 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant by tightening up the citation was that each sentence should be cited, as the rest of the article is, not just one big string cite at the end. I know history books do it that way, but they're written by professionals with professional editors to check their work (theoretically).  We have to cite better to make up for Wiki's lack of reliability.  FA criteria don't say that every sentence needs it's own cite, but it's good practice to at least cite each new idea.  --Coemgenus (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. Since this is discussion I only put in the references at the end of the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we can work it up from there. What book is McFeely-Woodward?  --Coemgenus (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Rewrite -
 * President Hayes' Indian policy was implemented, for the most part fairly, by Sec. Schurz. This policy included Anglo acculturation; educational training; and dividing Indian land into severalty or individual property. This policy, however, caused the Indians to loose their own cultural identity and acceptance of white culture. During President Hayes's first years in office considerable Indian conflicts had to be delt with, that included the Nez Percé attempted escape to Canada, led by Chief Joseph, the Bannocks, and the Cheyanne. In 1879, after Ute Indians killed Colorado Indian agent N.C. Meeker, Sec. Schurz negotiated peace with the Ute tribe and prevented the Colorado citizens from taking revenge on Meeker's death.  In one instance, President Hayes took an active role in settling the removal of the Ponca Indians in Nebraska. Tactfully over ruling Sec. Shurz demand on the Ponca Indian second removal, President Hayes set up a commission that ruled Ponca Indians were free to resettle their orginal homeland or stay on their reservation in Nebraska.   The Poncas were awarded compensation for their land rights having been taken away, previously by mistake to the Sioux nation, under the Grant Administration.  In a message to Congress, President Hayes insisted he would "give to these injured people [Ponca] that measure of redress which is required alike by justice and by humanity." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction: John G. Sproat wrote on President Hayes in the book, Responses of the Presidents to Charges of Misconduct, edited by C. Vann Woodward. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I cleaned up the citations and spelling. I'll review the other sources tomorrow (Hoogenboom, Barnard, Davison) to see how they compare with this account.
 * Interior Secretary Carl Schurz carried out Hayes's American Indian policy, which included assimilation into white culture, educational training, and dividing Indian land into individual allotments. The allotment system was favored by liberal reformers at the time, but eventually proved detrimental to Native Americans as most of their land was resold at low prices to white speculators.  During Hayes's first years in office he dealt with several conflicts with Indian tribes, including the Nez Percé attempted escape to Canada, led by Chief Joseph, the Bannocks, and the Cheyenne.  In 1879, after Ute Indians killed Colorado Indian agent N.C. Meeker, Schurz negotiated peace with the Ute tribe and prevented the Colorado citizens from taking revenge on Meeker's death.  Hayes took an active role in settling the removal of the Ponca in Nebraska.  Overruling Schurz's demand on the Ponca Indian second removal, Hayes set up a commission that ruled Ponca were free to resettle their original homeland or stay on their reservation in Nebraska.   The Ponca were awarded compensation for their land rights, previously granted by mistake to the Sioux during the Grant Administration.   In a message to Congress, Hayes insisted he would "give to these injured people [Ponca] that measure of redress which is required alike by justice and by humanity."


 * The Stuart ref is to *, which I used in the Chester Arthur article. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

edit break 01
The clean up looks good. The other sources would possibly add different view points. Thanks, Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How about this:


 * Interior Secretary Carl Schurz carried out Hayes's American Indian policy, beginning with preventing the War Department from taking over the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Hayes and Schurz carried out a policy that included assimilation into white culture, educational training, and dividing Indian land into individual allotments.  Hayes believed that his policies would lead to self-sufficiency and peace between Indians and whites.  The allotment system was favored by liberal reformers at the time, including Schurz, but instead proved detrimental to American Indians as most of their land was later resold at low prices to white speculators.


 * Hayes dealt with several conflicts with Indian tribes. The Nez Perce, led by Chief Joseph, began an uprising in June 1877 when Major General Oliver O. Howard ordered them to move on to a reservation.  Howard's men defeated the Nez Perce in battle, and the tribe began a 1700-mile retreat into Canada.  In October, after a decisive battle at Bear Paw, Montana, Chief Joseph surrendered and the tribe was transported to Kansas, where they were forced to remain until 1885.  The Nez Perce war was not the last conflict in the West, as the Bannocks rose up in Spring 1878 and raided nearby settlements before being defeated by Howard's army in July of that year.  War with the Ute tribe broke out in 1879 when the Utes killed Indian agent Nathan Meeker, who had been attempting to convert them to Christianity.  The subsequent White River War ended when Schurz negotiated peace with the Utes and prevented the white Coloradans from taking revenge for Meeker's death.


 * Hayes also became involved in resolving the removal of the Ponca tribe from Nebraska to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) because of a misunderstanding during the Grant Administration. The tribe's problems came to Hayes's attention after their chief, Standing Bear, filed a lawsuit to contest Schurz's demand that they stay in Indian Territory.  Overruling Schurz, Hayes set up a commission in 1880 that ruled Ponca were free to return to Nebraska or stay on their reservation in Indian Territory.  The Ponca were awarded compensation for their land rights, which had been previously granted to the Sioux.  In a message to Congress in February 1881, Hayes insisted he would "give to these injured people that measure of redress which is required alike by justice and by humanity."


 * I added sources, more detail about the Nez Perce War, and formatted everything to match the existing article's style.--Coemgenus (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coemgenus. Yes. That is a good overview of Hayes Indian policy. Discussion of the allotment system is important. The Nez Percé war information is a good addition. Why was the U.S. Military so adamant that the Nez Percé did not escape to Canada? From a readers view I am not sure that is answered in the proposed section. One other issue that could be added was Shurz licencing Indian traderships and making the Indian agency system more accountable. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * From reading the article on the Nez Percé war, President Hayes turned down Chief Josephs plea to go to the Indian Territory. Maybe mentioning the Sherman was the person who ordered them to Kansas would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to duplicate too much of the Nez Perce War article here, but I'll look into it and Schurz's views on accountability at the Bureau. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the Indian section. I'll look into that other stuff later in the week.  --Coemgenus (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Coemgenus. I appreciate your work on the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Coemgenus. That was an appropriate cartoon addition on Schurz. Good editorial. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Factual Error
On this wikipedia page it claims that Rutherford B. Hayes was the first African-American to hold the office of president. I know for a fact that Rutherford B. Hayes was not African-American, so this information is incorrect. It should be changed unless I am misunderstanding the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.133.190 (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That was the work of a vandal. It's been fixed.  --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This article mentioned in the media
Tony Reali just mentioned this article on Pardon the Interruption. His mentioned concerned the fact that people have been messing with what his middle name has stood for  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Page is under protection BUT...
Some random croatian name is at the end of the first section saying BLAH BLAH is best. Could someone from wikipedia take care of this since how it is on the first page and is under protection so we can't take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.234.3 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you (by a couple of minutes), but thanks for your vigilance :) By the way, the page is only move-protected, not edit-protected. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hayes and the telephone
A popular story about Hayes claims that, when presented with the newly-invented telephone, he said “It’s a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?”. The story implies that Hayes was not welcoming of new technology.

Neither the quotation nor the implication is true, according to the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Fremont, Ohio. In fact, Hayes was the first president to have a telephone in the White House, the first to use the typewriter, and he had Thomas Edison come to the White House to demonstrate his phonograph.

HamJohn (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC) --Pawyilee (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation.


 * Apparently we use more reliable sources than politicians and their speechwriters. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Civil service reform perspective
I believe the article needs perspective on Civil Service Reform. Mentioning that President Grant was the first President to establish Civil Service Reform in 1871 would improve the article. The Civil Service Commission was created by President Grant and lasted for two years, however, Congress, especially the Senate who relied heavily on patronage or the spoils system discontinued the Commission. President Hayes was attempting to reestablish Civil Service that President Grant had started. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's already among the largest sections. That the Commission was created by Grant would be a good addition -- to the Grant article.  This article is a bio of Hayes, not a complete explanation of everything that happened in his administration and everything that led up to that.  The fits and starts that led to Civil Service reform would be an excellent addition to the United States Civil Service Commission article, which is quite short and says nothing of Grant.  Readers who are curious about that group can easily click the link. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Civil Service Commission was in legal existance while Hayes was President, having been started by President Grant, as President Hayes stated in his 1877 First Message to Congress. The issue was funding the Commission, that had already been implemented by President Grant from 1872 to 1874. President Hayes was in fact using the Civil Service Commission started by President Grant. The current article does not acknowledge that the Civil Service Commission was in legal existance and leads reader to believe the Pendelton Act was the first Civil Service Reform. Yes. The United States Civil Service Commission needs expansion and mention of President Grant.
 * According to President Hayes:
 * "I ask the renewed attention of Congress to what has already been done by the Civil Service Commission, appointed, in pursuance of an act of Congress, by my predecessor, to prepare and revise civil-service rules. In regard to much of the departmental service, especially at Washington, it may be difficult to organize a better system than that which has thus been provided, and it is now being used to a considerable extent under my direction. The Commission has still a legal existence, although for several years no appropriation has been made for defraying its expenses. Believing that this Commission has rendered valuable service and will be a most useful agency in improving the administration of the civil service, I respectfully recommend that a suitable appropriation, to be immediately available, be made to enable it to continue its labors." Rutherford B. Hayes First Annual Message December 3, 1877 Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

At least the article needs to mention that President Hayes attempted to renew the Civil Service Commission started by President Grant. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added information on President Grant in the United States Civil Service Commission article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Had he actually convinced Congress to do it, I'd agree, but nothing happened until Arthur's administration (and that article does discuss Arthur's appointments to the CSC). Presidents have many goals, but we must limit articles to a summary of the most relevant and notable facts about the subject.  I don't see this as rising to that level, especially since we already devote significant space to Hayes's actual accomplishments in civil service reform.  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My concern is whether from reading this article that the reader will conclude that President Hayes was the first President to initiate or promote Civil Service reform rather then President Grant. The United States Civil Service Commission started in 1871. In fact, the Civil Service Commission was legally in existance during President Hayes administration, as President Hayes stated in his 1877 Annual Message to Congress. What about mentioning that President Hayes sought Congressional funding for the Civil Service Commission? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe this sentence could be modified in the article:
 * "For the remainder of his term, Hayes pressed Congress to enact permanent reform legislation, even using his last annual message to Congress on December 6, 1880 to appeal for reform." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Modification:
 * "''Hayes throughout his presidency called for permanent civil service reform legislation, advocating the federal funding of the United States Civil Service Commission." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Grant is not mentioned, but the link to the United States Civil Service Commission would give more explanation. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to double-check the source material first, but something like this might work:
 * "For the remainder of his term, Hayes pressed Congress to enact permanent reform legislation and fund the United States Civil Service Commission, even using his last annual message to Congress on December 6, 1880 to appeal for reform." --Coemgenus (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coemgenus. Your above sentence, I believe would be appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good edit, Coemgenus. Reading through President Hayes' State of the Union Addresses, he spoke on Civil Service reform in 1877. President Hayes apparently did not speak on Civil Service reform in 1878. He did mention briefly Civil Service reform in 1879. Then in 1880 President Hayes expands on Civil Service reform. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

File:President Rutherford Hayes 1870 - 1880 Restored.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:President Rutherford Hayes 1870 - 1880 Restored.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 2, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoogenboom - A Quote, a Pic and Query re Links to Ref.
The following is the biographer's concluding quote in part which might be appropriate for inclusion in the article: "Hayes was a precursor of the Progressive movement. Profoundly believing in equal rights and deeply concerned over the threat of plutocracy, he had faith that federal regulation would restore a balance in society and save American democracy...Near the end of his life, Hayes perhaps most accurately assessed his own position, concluding, 'I am a radical in thought (and principle) and a conservative in method (and conduct).' " Hoppyh (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be nice to squeeze in at the end. I don't think we should rely too much on Hoogenboom, but he's really Hayes's only modern biographer.  --Coemgenus (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I don't know. Actually, we already have Hayes' own words on the plutocracy - maybe just add the Hayes quote - 'I am a radical in thought (and principle) and a conservative in method (and conduct).' Hoogenboom p.540 The end of the article is a nice variety. Hoppyh (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, on p.194 Hoogenboom has a great pic of Congressman Hayes. I haven't succeeded in finding it anywhere. It would be a good substitute for the Johnson pic in the Congressman section. Hoppyh (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

At Lincoln, somewhere in the GA process we were told/decided to remove all the multiple links to Donald (the primary source like H here) in the footnotes (see reference section). I wouldn't mind doing it here IF it's a potential issue. Apparently it hasn't come up. Hoppyh (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which Hoogenboom do you have? All my cites are to Warrior and President.  I didn't read Presidency, since I figured it would be duplicative. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * there is limited overlap between the two Hoogenboom books, & both need to be cites as the best recent scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't object to using both, it's just going to take a while for me to change every Hoogenboom footnote to include the year. Might have time this weekend.  --Coemgenus (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mine is Warrior and President also; it appears the other book is not in play at this point. Let me know if there is a link issue and I'll be glad to help. Hoppyhtab (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to add Section
This is really strange. I am trying to add this section just above the "Political career" secton, but when I do, I encounter a problem--it deletes everything below it. Any explanations or suggestions?

12:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hayes' firsts missing
According to the Hayes Presidential Center and other websites:


 * Hayes was the first president to install a telephone or typewriter
 * Hayes was the first president to visit the West Coast while in office: He (along with General Sherman) toured California in 1880
 * Hayes was the first President to have an Easter Egg roll

Why isn't this in the article? p b  p  04:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We usually avoid this sort of trivia. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not supposed to reveal this, but the un-written rule is that Wikipedia should be as boring as possible. Trivia above may over-excite some more uptight readers or editors.Roseohioresident (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned ref
Ref not used

- - MrBill3 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

1845 Pic?
This photo is not of Rutherford B. Hayes, or at least not the Hayes that was the 19th President of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.48.139 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oath
Presidents elect take the oath in the morning, before noon (except in extenuating circumstances). The term then begins at noon that day. Hayes took the oath privately but officially, on Saturday, March 3. Publically on Monday, March 5. He was already president when he did so. Look at the references for confirmation of same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What references, the ones in the article? I read them when I wrote this article. They do mention the two oaths. They mention nothing of his constitutional term being started early because he said the words the day before. I know of no reliable source that says otherwise. Do you? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

,, , for starters. Please use common sense: if he took the oath officially on the 3rd but publicly on the 5th, why take it on the 3rd at all if he didn't start his term on the 3rd? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These sources all say he took the oath on the 3rd and the 5th. This is undisputed. The oath doesn't make a person president, the election does. The term started at noon on March 4, 1877. How does saying the words a day early end Grant's term and start Hayes's? How does it allow him to serve for four years and one day, when the Constitution prescribes a four-year term? Does any reliable source explain your theory? This is just the reverse of the David Rice Atchison fringe theory. The talk page there explains why it's not true in that case, either. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The election doesn't make someone president, the oath does. Read the Constitution. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  06:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously, read Talk:David Rice Atchison and the archives. People have made all of these arguments before. They are not correct, and no reliable source says they are. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Name / linage
Rutherford B. Hayes (President) is the third generation of RBH's. Why is President Hayes not Rutherford B. Hayes III? Is is because his father had died before his birth? All this because I am trying to clarify President Hayes' relation to his various successful Noyes cousins, and the Wikipedia entries on the family history is light. GeeBee60 (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policy is to call people what they are most commonly called. Also, his father and grandfather did not have the middle name Birchard; it was his mother's maiden name. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rutherford B. Hayes. 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/20120429023213/http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/hayes/index.cfm to http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/hayes/index.cfm
 * Added tag to http://archivists.metapress.com/content/b11374522623124h/fulltext.pdf

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) 19:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

American politician
Hey

I think a politician even if he has been president should be mentioned as a politician in his article's catch phrase. Thanks in advance for your response.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)