Was Benjamin Harrison the last Radical Republican President? I suppose Ulysses S. Grant would be the first. One source states he was a Radical Republican, Anne Chieko Moore, Hester Anne Hale (2006), Anne Chieko Moore, Hester Anne Hale pg. 29. Maybe Harrison should be referred to as a Radical Republican somewhere in the article and certainly explains his prosecution of voting rights violations in the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Harrison was fairly moderate. That quotation from Moore & Hale doesn't say that he was adhered to the radical faction, only that his father, a conservative Whig, thought of all Republicans as radicals. If you look at the source they cite, Sievers v.1 pp. 127-128, you'll see that "radical" is Hale's & Moore's formulation, not John Harrison's or Fr. Sievers's. See here. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I know Moore & Hale called him a Radical Republican and both sources imply that his family knew he was outside the Harrison family political arena by joining the Republicans. His attorney General, I believe was one of the last U.S. Attorney Generals to prosecute African American voting violations in the 19th Century. True the Radicals were a loose bunch in terms of their ideals, but Harrison persisted in passing a Voting Rights bill. I suppose my whole point is that Harrison was attempting, like President Grant, to get rid of the last vestiges of slavery. I was going by the Moore & Hale statement and Harrison's actions as President and that many African American historians view Harrison's policies were anti-racist. Maybe President Grant's prosecution or the Klu Klux Klan from 1871 to 1873 influenced Harrison. I am not saying that Harrison was a radical like a Charles Sumner, but Harrison did place a signifigant importance on prosecuting Civil Rights cases. I am for editor consensus on this, but I would say compared to someone like James Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, William McKinley, and Grover Cleveland that Harrison was a Radical. Thanks for your response Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that Harrison was more leftist on civil rights than Arthur and Cleveland, but there were really no Radicals in government in the late 1880s. The faction was marginalized. None of Harrison's biographers call him radical, either. For us to add that characterization would be to add our own opinions rather than the scholarly consensus, which we may not do, of course. Further, I find it a better writing style to describe a man's actions and quote his words and let the readers make what judgments they will. For us to hang a label on him is too simplistic, and only invites editwars over something none of us can prove. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Moore & Hale source referred to him as a Radical, however, you are correct, Coemgenus, the reader can decide that issue. I referred to Harrison as a Radical since he seemed to have that spark of aggressivism on Civil Rights similar to the Radicals during the 1860's and early 1870's and he was also a Union Civil War general. Is there enough information in the article that sets him apart as being more progressive on prosecuting civil rights voting violations and promoting civil rights agenda then say Arthur and Cleveland? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's pretty well covered. Be careful about assuming that being a Union general makes a man a Radical; many of the most prominent were Democrats (McClellan, Hancock) or non-Radical Republicans (Sherman). --Coemgenus (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the War changed the outlook of men, some more then others. Possibly Harrison, viewed that giving up on African American civil rights would be kind of a surrender to the former Confederates. This was something Harrison would not allow. As a Union Civil War General, maybe he had some fight still in him in terms of civil rights. I agree that the article covers his civil rights agenda well. I believe a sentence that states Harrison was more aggressive then Arthur and Cleveland on persueing Civil Rights would be appropriate for the article. However, this would be done only with editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a suggested sentence: President Harrison persued Civil Rights agenda progressively more then his predecessors Chester A. Arthur and Grover Cleveland. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Alternative suggestion: President Harrison was more progressive in promoting a national civil rights agenda then his predecessors Chester A. Arthur and Grover Cleveland. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this would be best placed in the Legacy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- What do the sources say about how his civil rights agenda compared to his predecessors'? --Coemgenus (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am taking this from the book American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom (2000), pages 200-201. Harrison is classified as "anti-racist" in terms of civil rights. Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and Benjamin Harrison are linked by "anti-racist" legislation and Executive actions. For example, Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, Grant and the Force Laws and the destruction of the Ku Klux Klan, Harrison and his Voting Rights act in addition to prosecuting voting rights violations by his Attorney General. Grover Cleveland and Chester Authur were considered racially neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I think it's better to let the president's actions speak for themselves, rather than repeating some author's opinion. The idea of classifying 19th-century presidents as "racist" or "non-racist" strikes me as facile, anyway, but I've not seen the book so I can't really judge its seriousness. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the term racism was popularly used during the 1930's describing Hitler's anti-semitism. The term "anti-racist" means that President Harrison's actions as President were designed to signifigantly reduce or stop opposition by conservatives to African American citizenship. Like Lincoln and Grant, Harrison wanted to get rid of the vestiges of slavery. Harrison was more pro active in this area then Arthur or Cleveland. I used the term civil rights then "anti-racist". Harrison desired that blacks be able to vote in the South without infringement of their citizenship rights. I believe this was Harrison's legacy as President and worthy of mentioning in the legacy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed modified sentence:
- Harrison as President has been recognized for his proactivism in attempting to protect African American voting rights through the Justice Department and advocating civil rights legislation. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think the civil rights section we wrote together before conveys all of this already. Anyone reading that section would conclude that Harrison favored equal voting rights and civil rights for black southerners. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not mean adding the sentence to the Civil Rights section, rather, the legacy section. His civil rights record distinguished himself from other Presidents. One could even state that Presidents who followed Harrison were more conservative until Harry Truman. From Harrison to Truman there was a lack of effort or interest in Civil Rights. Maybe simplifying the statement would be best. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Harrison's presidency was distinguished by his advocating voting and civil rights for African American southerners. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fine. Find a reliable source to cite to it and let's do it. I can't tell you how much I hate that Legacy section. We only added it in the first place to appease that postage maniac. For a president like Harrison, who has no real legacy in the popular mind, the section is pointless except to advance the authors' opinions of the man's work. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe you are referring to Gwillhickers, who can be extremely resistant to working together with other editors on an article or even to have a conversation on a talk page. I read the legacy section and I believe much of the information is not legacy, but rather, memorials. I believe Harrison does have a legacy. He kept America out of war, he passed the Sherman Anti-trust bill, and he protected African American civil rights. I would have to go through the section more to see if any memorials are neccessary for the article. The section could use a narration tweak. Thanks Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, the language you want to add is far more relevant to Harrison's legacy than the memorials are. Like I said, I'm on board with adding it, so long as you add some source citation with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)