Talk:1880 Republican National Convention: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:45, 10 March 2023 editHarfarhs (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,851 edits →Sentence that doesn't make sense: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:09, 19 December 2023 edit undoHog Farm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators55,504 edits →Source-text integrity concerns: new sectionTag: New topic Next edit →
Line 101:		Line 101:

	I don't know whether that's an extraneous "who" or whether there was meant to be another half of the sentence after "Blaine". For now I'll go with the first of those choices. ] (]) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)		I don't know whether that's an extraneous "who" or whether there was meant to be another half of the sentence after "Blaine". For now I'll go with the first of those choices. ] (]) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

			== Source-text integrity concerns ==

			This article has been ] for TFA next year, so looking over this one as source-text integrity concerns have arisen at other featured articles by this nominator. See ], ], and ] and ], among others. Spot-checking some references to Ackerman below. Text from our article is in green:
			* {{green\|As President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes had caused tension within the post-American Civil War Republican Party. In an effort to aid post-war Reconstruction, he had offered government appointments to Southern Democrats, most of whom were former Confederates.}} - mostly okay, but this is spread out on a few more pages than the citation is to. Although I don't understand the reference to aiding post-war Reconstruction; the Reconstruction period as it is generally understood ended almost immediately after the inaugaration of Hayes, as that was part of the general agreement that got him in office in 1876
			* {{green\|Hayes's actions drew heavy criticism from party loyalists, including Roscoe Conkling of New York, leader of the Stalwarts, and James G. Blaine of Maine, leader of the Half-Breeds. Hayes had known since the dispute over the 1876 election that he was unlikely to win in 1880, and had announced at his 1877 inauguration that he would not run for a second term}} to Ackerman p. 18. The oppostion by Conkling & Blaine and Blaine being the leader of the half-breeds is mentioned on pp. 18-19, but the only info about Hayes' announcment not to run is that it had been made earlier (before 1880) or that this is solely due to the 1876 bruhaha. Instead, Ackerman's comment on this issue is {{red\|Badly weakened, Rutherford Hayes had earlier chosen not to seek re-election in 1880}} after discussing a fight with Conkling over an example of the spoils system involving future president Chester Arthur
			* {{green\|Without an incumbent in the race, the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds each hoped to nominate their candidate}} - checks out, but it should be noted that this is referring to Grant, not Conkling for the Stalwarts
			* {{green\|On the Sunday before balloting was to begin in Cincinnati, Ohio, Blaine collapsed at the steps of Washington Congregational Church. He was unconscious for two days, and as a result, he lost supporters who were doubtful over his health and whether he was capable of handling the presidency. Blaine was also ridiculed by opponents, who accused him of faking illness to gain sympathy; the New York Sun headlined "Blaine Feigns a Faint".}} - okay
			* {{green\|After five more ballots resulted in no consensus, on the seventh ballot Conkling and other candidates switched their support to Hayes to ensure Blaine would not be nominated. Hayes defeated Blaine by 384 votes to 351}} - sourced to Ackerman, p. 17. Ackerman p. 17 states that Conkling switched his support to Hayes on the 7th ballot, but does not mention other candidates doing this or the 384-351 vote total
			* {{green\|On the first ballot of the 1876 convention, Blaine received 285 votes, while Conkling was in second place with 99.}} - sourced to Ackerman p. 17. I'm assuming this is a citation placement error; the citation before this one is Ackerman p. 74 and this info is on that page
			* {{green\|After Blaine's failure in 1876, his supporters believed that he needed to be nominated in 1880 if he was ever going to be president, reasoning that if he tried for the nomination twice and failed, he could not count on another opportunity. As his campaign manager, William E. Chandler, put it: He must be nominated at Chicago in June, or else forever give up any idea of gaining the Chief Magistry of the nation... I think he owes it to himself and to his friends all over the country who are ready to sacrifice everything for his success to do all that is in his power to win at Chicago}} - the quote checks out to Ackerman p. 75. I guess the rest is an inference drawn from this statement
			* {{green\|Despite the Mulligan letters scandal, Blaine had succeeded remarkably in his 1880 campaign, attracting nationwide support for his candidacy. He argued for the gold standard, support for big business, a tariff to protect American jobholders, civil rights for freed Blacks and Irish independence}} - to Ackerman p. 75. Is {{red\|support for business enterprise}} from Ackerman a direct reference to big business, or a general support for increased industrialization in a nation whose west, midwest, and south were still heavily agricultural at the time? I'm not sure; I don't know enough about the politics of the Gilded Age to be confident on this. Additionally, "a tariff to protect American jobholders" is close paraphrasing of {{red\|a strong tariff to protect American jobholdersr}}, even down to the use of the unusual word jobholders
			* {{green\|In private, he was "reserved, self-contained", a personality with which many Americans were uncomfortable. If elected, Sherman intended to continue his support for the gold standard. Prior to the start of the convention, papers had predicted him to receive 110 votes in the balloting. Sherman felt that he still had a chance at the nomination if Grant's supporters broke apart after five or six ballots}} - I see the 110 votes prediction on Ackerman p. 99, but I can't find the expecation that Grant's people would break apart after five or six ballots. The "reserved, self-contained" quote is apparently on p. 30. That is the prior citation; again I suspect a mis-placed citation but there' also the issue of where the five or six ballots is coming from
			* {{green\|Garfield did not want to leave the army, so he personally visited President Abraham Lincoln for advice. Lincoln told Garfield that he had more generals than he could handle, and what he needed was political support, so Garfield took his seat in the House in December 1863.}} - checks out
			* {{green\|In January, local district caucuses picked delegates to state Republican conventions. The state conventions then selected delegates to the national convention. The candidates engaged in behind-the-scenes maneuvering, including Sherman's use of Treasury employees from Southern states who owed him their jobs taking part in local caucuses that elected state delegations loyal to Sherman. Each state-level leader then used state conventions to pick delegates loyal to the leader's candidate. In the New York state convention, which took place in Conkling's hometown of Utica, Grant's supporters won a 217–180 majority over Blaine's, but Conkling oversaw passage of a resolution declaring that, "the Republicans of New York believe the re-election of Ulysses S. Grant as presidential candidate of urgent importance, and the delegates this day assembled are called upon and instructed to use their earnest and united efforts to secure his nomination}} - mostly fine, but the pagination is slightly off (should be pp. 32-33 not just 33) but a couple quibbles - the source notes that this process began in January, not that it entirely occurred in January, and "each state-level leader then used state conventions to pick delegates loyal to the leader's candidates" isn't quite right when the source states {{red\|State conventions then chose the at-large members}} and the material about selecting loyal candidates doesn't square well with the defections and need for the unit rule noted elsewhere in the article and Ackerman.

			That's all I have time to check for now. The ideas are for the most part supported, but I do have concerns about the tendency for some details to not be supported and about the pagination and/or ref placement issues. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:09, 19 December 2023

1880 Republican National Convention is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

1880 Republican National Convention is part of the 1880 United States presidential election series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 31, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 4, 2007	Today's featured article	Main Page
March 2, 2017	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 25, 2007.The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that after thirty-five ballots, Republican presidential candidates James G. Blaine and John Sherman withdrew their campaigns to support a dark horse candidate named James Garfield at the 1880 Republican National Convention?
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chicago Mid‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Illinois Mid‑importance

	Illinois portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

GA Nomination Success

Okay, this seems very easy for me, this passes on all fronts. It is written extremely well and complies with manual of style. It is fully referenced inline from reliable academic sources. It has a good broad coverage while staying on topic. Is presented in a neutral, factual, manner and seems largely stable being primarily written by a single editor with only limited activity since nomination. All images are PD with appropriate captions.

In terms of improvement, there isn't much I can say. Some areas could be made a bit smoother and double checked. For example, the last paragraph of Presenting the nominees uses "Garfield" over and over and over which I think impedes the flow a bit. Other than such minor points, I hope you take it up to FA. -- J Logan /_c: 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the evaluation, JLogan. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hayes

According to this article, "Hayes knew that he was not likely to win in the 1880 election, so he chose not to seek re-election."

I remember reading in several places (although I cannot find a source at the moment) that Hayes had pledged long before that he would only serve one term, effectively making him a lame-duck president from the start of his only term. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Seleucus (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/secretaries/jsherman.html
- In 1880 Republican National Convention on 2011-05-25 02:10:09, 404 Not Found
- In 1880 Republican National Convention on 2011-06-01 23:26:49, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism?

I removed a banner pointing to the WikiProject Conservatism which was placed by Lionelt in February 2011. The banner was restored by Toa Nidhiki05.

I do not see any connection to conservatism in this article. It cannot be the Republican Party which was progressive in 1880. Please prove a connection to conservatism. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Still no connection demonstrated between this article and the topic of conservatism. No improvements have been made by any member of the WikiProject Conservatism. I am once again removing the project banner. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The 306 Stalwarts.

It is perhaps not known to editors of this article that the Three Hundred and Six Guard society included among themselves items of distinction, items that identified one member to another. It happens that one such item was a pocket watch, manufactured by the Elgin National Watched Company. The case of each watch was engraved with a commemoration, reading in one example as follows:

"THE NEW YORK FRIENDS OF Genl Grant to John M. Moltz of Fredricksburg Va Chicago Ills June 2nd 1880"

I will provide later set of photographs of this watch. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

source problem

footnote NO. 17, "Cleveland Herald, May 31, 1880.", what's the title for the source, who's the author?
footnote NO. 21, "Grant (1975), p321.", what's this stand for?
footnotes NO. 23 & 79, "Diary entry for James Garfield on May 23, 1880." & "Diary entry for James Garfield on May 25, 1880.", where could I found those diary entries?
footnotes NO. 131 & 132 seems exactly the same, but they're actually two different books when you open edit page, still don't know how's this happened.

--Jarodalien (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This article was featured a few years ago, and the sourcing is probably not up to today's FA standards. Let me look it over this week and see what I can do. I've got tons of books on the period already. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There's more, I'm thinking maybe needs a FAR.--Jarodalien (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited all six problem footnotes -- 17, 21, 23, 79, 131 and 132. If someone has suggestions for additions, deletions or edits, please let me know.

Billmckern (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes 126: "The exact majority in the popular vote is known to be below 10,000 votes, but the exact number is disputed. One election results source puts the number at 9,457 votes. Another puts at 7,368, and another has it at 1,898 votes." This needs to be clarify, which source indicate which number, and footnotes 131 & 132 seems still had same problem.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I've started re-citing it and doing some clean-up. Most of the newspaper citations actually come from Ackerman, who cites those newspapers in his book. I've changed them to cite the book directly, which is more in line with our policies. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks much better now, thanks. Meantime, I feel that if "those newspapers" were cited at Ackerman's book, and editor could verify them directly, it should still remain in this article, cause looks now, the whole article is a little bit, too much depended on this one book. My English is not well, hope you can understand what's my talking about here.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I became clear to me during the editing that he editor who wrote this almost certainly was just reading Ackerman's book, not tracking down the newspapers on microfilm or something. I've added in a couple of other sources, as Billmckern did, so it's less unbalanced now. Still needs some work, but I think it's a lot closer to the current FA standard now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentence that doesn't make sense

"However, in Chicago, a number of New York delegates who went against the resolution and expressed support for Blaine."

I don't know whether that's an extraneous "who" or whether there was meant to be another half of the sentence after "Blaine". For now I'll go with the first of those choices. Harfarhs (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Source-text integrity concerns

This article has been informally proposed for TFA next year, so looking over this one as source-text integrity concerns have arisen at other featured articles by this nominator. See Talk:Stede Bonnet, Talk:Thomas C. Hindman, and Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1 and Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, among others. Spot-checking some references to Ackerman below. Text from our article is in green:

As President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes had caused tension within the post-American Civil War Republican Party. In an effort to aid post-war Reconstruction, he had offered government appointments to Southern Democrats, most of whom were former Confederates. - mostly okay, but this is spread out on a few more pages than the citation is to. Although I don't understand the reference to aiding post-war Reconstruction; the Reconstruction period as it is generally understood ended almost immediately after the inaugaration of Hayes, as that was part of the general agreement that got him in office in 1876
Hayes's actions drew heavy criticism from party loyalists, including Roscoe Conkling of New York, leader of the Stalwarts, and James G. Blaine of Maine, leader of the Half-Breeds. Hayes had known since the dispute over the 1876 election that he was unlikely to win in 1880, and had announced at his 1877 inauguration that he would not run for a second term to Ackerman p. 18. The oppostion by Conkling & Blaine and Blaine being the leader of the half-breeds is mentioned on pp. 18-19, but the only info about Hayes' announcment not to run is that it had been made earlier (before 1880) or that this is solely due to the 1876 bruhaha. Instead, Ackerman's comment on this issue is Badly weakened, Rutherford Hayes had earlier chosen not to seek re-election in 1880 after discussing a fight with Conkling over an example of the spoils system involving future president Chester Arthur
Without an incumbent in the race, the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds each hoped to nominate their candidate - checks out, but it should be noted that this is referring to Grant, not Conkling for the Stalwarts
On the Sunday before balloting was to begin in Cincinnati, Ohio, Blaine collapsed at the steps of Washington Congregational Church. He was unconscious for two days, and as a result, he lost supporters who were doubtful over his health and whether he was capable of handling the presidency. Blaine was also ridiculed by opponents, who accused him of faking illness to gain sympathy; the New York Sun headlined "Blaine Feigns a Faint". - okay
After five more ballots resulted in no consensus, on the seventh ballot Conkling and other candidates switched their support to Hayes to ensure Blaine would not be nominated. Hayes defeated Blaine by 384 votes to 351 - sourced to Ackerman, p. 17. Ackerman p. 17 states that Conkling switched his support to Hayes on the 7th ballot, but does not mention other candidates doing this or the 384-351 vote total
On the first ballot of the 1876 convention, Blaine received 285 votes, while Conkling was in second place with 99. - sourced to Ackerman p. 17. I'm assuming this is a citation placement error; the citation before this one is Ackerman p. 74 and this info is on that page
After Blaine's failure in 1876, his supporters believed that he needed to be nominated in 1880 if he was ever going to be president, reasoning that if he tried for the nomination twice and failed, he could not count on another opportunity. As his campaign manager, William E. Chandler, put it: He must be nominated at Chicago in June, or else forever give up any idea of gaining the Chief Magistry of the nation... I think he owes it to himself and to his friends all over the country who are ready to sacrifice everything for his success to do all that is in his power to win at Chicago - the quote checks out to Ackerman p. 75. I guess the rest is an inference drawn from this statement
Despite the Mulligan letters scandal, Blaine had succeeded remarkably in his 1880 campaign, attracting nationwide support for his candidacy. He argued for the gold standard, support for big business, a tariff to protect American jobholders, civil rights for freed Blacks and Irish independence - to Ackerman p. 75. Is support for business enterprise from Ackerman a direct reference to big business, or a general support for increased industrialization in a nation whose west, midwest, and south were still heavily agricultural at the time? I'm not sure; I don't know enough about the politics of the Gilded Age to be confident on this. Additionally, "a tariff to protect American jobholders" is close paraphrasing of a strong tariff to protect American jobholdersr, even down to the use of the unusual word jobholders
In private, he was "reserved, self-contained", a personality with which many Americans were uncomfortable. If elected, Sherman intended to continue his support for the gold standard. Prior to the start of the convention, papers had predicted him to receive 110 votes in the balloting. Sherman felt that he still had a chance at the nomination if Grant's supporters broke apart after five or six ballots - I see the 110 votes prediction on Ackerman p. 99, but I can't find the expecation that Grant's people would break apart after five or six ballots. The "reserved, self-contained" quote is apparently on p. 30. That is the prior citation; again I suspect a mis-placed citation but there' also the issue of where the five or six ballots is coming from
Garfield did not want to leave the army, so he personally visited President Abraham Lincoln for advice. Lincoln told Garfield that he had more generals than he could handle, and what he needed was political support, so Garfield took his seat in the House in December 1863. - checks out
In January, local district caucuses picked delegates to state Republican conventions. The state conventions then selected delegates to the national convention. The candidates engaged in behind-the-scenes maneuvering, including Sherman's use of Treasury employees from Southern states who owed him their jobs taking part in local caucuses that elected state delegations loyal to Sherman. Each state-level leader then used state conventions to pick delegates loyal to the leader's candidate. In the New York state convention, which took place in Conkling's hometown of Utica, Grant's supporters won a 217–180 majority over Blaine's, but Conkling oversaw passage of a resolution declaring that, "the Republicans of New York believe the re-election of Ulysses S. Grant as presidential candidate of urgent importance, and the delegates this day assembled are called upon and instructed to use their earnest and united efforts to secure his nomination - mostly fine, but the pagination is slightly off (should be pp. 32-33 not just 33) but a couple quibbles - the source notes that this process began in January, not that it entirely occurred in January, and "each state-level leader then used state conventions to pick delegates loyal to the leader's candidates" isn't quite right when the source states State conventions then chose the at-large members and the material about selecting loyal candidates doesn't square well with the defections and need for the unit rule noted elsewhere in the article and Ackerman.

That's all I have time to check for now. The ideas are for the most part supported, but I do have concerns about the tendency for some details to not be supported and about the pagination and/or ref placement issues. Hog Farm _Talk 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 01:45, 10 March 2023 editHarfarhs (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,851 edits →Sentence that doesn't make sense: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:09, 19 December 2023 edit undoHog Farm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators55,504 edits →Source-text integrity concerns: new sectionTag: New topic Next edit →
Line 101:		Line 101:

	I don't know whether that's an extraneous "who" or whether there was meant to be another half of the sentence after "Blaine". For now I'll go with the first of those choices. ] (]) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)		I don't know whether that's an extraneous "who" or whether there was meant to be another half of the sentence after "Blaine". For now I'll go with the first of those choices. ] (]) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

			== Source-text integrity concerns ==

			This article has been ] for TFA next year, so looking over this one as source-text integrity concerns have arisen at other featured articles by this nominator. See ], ], and ] and ], among others. Spot-checking some references to Ackerman below. Text from our article is in green:
			* {{green\|As President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes had caused tension within the post-American Civil War Republican Party. In an effort to aid post-war Reconstruction, he had offered government appointments to Southern Democrats, most of whom were former Confederates.}} - mostly okay, but this is spread out on a few more pages than the citation is to. Although I don't understand the reference to aiding post-war Reconstruction; the Reconstruction period as it is generally understood ended almost immediately after the inaugaration of Hayes, as that was part of the general agreement that got him in office in 1876
			* {{green\|Hayes's actions drew heavy criticism from party loyalists, including Roscoe Conkling of New York, leader of the Stalwarts, and James G. Blaine of Maine, leader of the Half-Breeds. Hayes had known since the dispute over the 1876 election that he was unlikely to win in 1880, and had announced at his 1877 inauguration that he would not run for a second term}} to Ackerman p. 18. The oppostion by Conkling & Blaine and Blaine being the leader of the half-breeds is mentioned on pp. 18-19, but the only info about Hayes' announcment not to run is that it had been made earlier (before 1880) or that this is solely due to the 1876 bruhaha. Instead, Ackerman's comment on this issue is {{red\|Badly weakened, Rutherford Hayes had earlier chosen not to seek re-election in 1880}} after discussing a fight with Conkling over an example of the spoils system involving future president Chester Arthur
			* {{green\|Without an incumbent in the race, the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds each hoped to nominate their candidate}} - checks out, but it should be noted that this is referring to Grant, not Conkling for the Stalwarts
			* {{green\|On the Sunday before balloting was to begin in Cincinnati, Ohio, Blaine collapsed at the steps of Washington Congregational Church. He was unconscious for two days, and as a result, he lost supporters who were doubtful over his health and whether he was capable of handling the presidency. Blaine was also ridiculed by opponents, who accused him of faking illness to gain sympathy; the New York Sun headlined "Blaine Feigns a Faint".}} - okay
			* {{green\|After five more ballots resulted in no consensus, on the seventh ballot Conkling and other candidates switched their support to Hayes to ensure Blaine would not be nominated. Hayes defeated Blaine by 384 votes to 351}} - sourced to Ackerman, p. 17. Ackerman p. 17 states that Conkling switched his support to Hayes on the 7th ballot, but does not mention other candidates doing this or the 384-351 vote total
			* {{green\|On the first ballot of the 1876 convention, Blaine received 285 votes, while Conkling was in second place with 99.}} - sourced to Ackerman p. 17. I'm assuming this is a citation placement error; the citation before this one is Ackerman p. 74 and this info is on that page
			* {{green\|After Blaine's failure in 1876, his supporters believed that he needed to be nominated in 1880 if he was ever going to be president, reasoning that if he tried for the nomination twice and failed, he could not count on another opportunity. As his campaign manager, William E. Chandler, put it: He must be nominated at Chicago in June, or else forever give up any idea of gaining the Chief Magistry of the nation... I think he owes it to himself and to his friends all over the country who are ready to sacrifice everything for his success to do all that is in his power to win at Chicago}} - the quote checks out to Ackerman p. 75. I guess the rest is an inference drawn from this statement
			* {{green\|Despite the Mulligan letters scandal, Blaine had succeeded remarkably in his 1880 campaign, attracting nationwide support for his candidacy. He argued for the gold standard, support for big business, a tariff to protect American jobholders, civil rights for freed Blacks and Irish independence}} - to Ackerman p. 75. Is {{red\|support for business enterprise}} from Ackerman a direct reference to big business, or a general support for increased industrialization in a nation whose west, midwest, and south were still heavily agricultural at the time? I'm not sure; I don't know enough about the politics of the Gilded Age to be confident on this. Additionally, "a tariff to protect American jobholders" is close paraphrasing of {{red\|a strong tariff to protect American jobholdersr}}, even down to the use of the unusual word jobholders
			* {{green\|In private, he was "reserved, self-contained", a personality with which many Americans were uncomfortable. If elected, Sherman intended to continue his support for the gold standard. Prior to the start of the convention, papers had predicted him to receive 110 votes in the balloting. Sherman felt that he still had a chance at the nomination if Grant's supporters broke apart after five or six ballots}} - I see the 110 votes prediction on Ackerman p. 99, but I can't find the expecation that Grant's people would break apart after five or six ballots. The "reserved, self-contained" quote is apparently on p. 30. That is the prior citation; again I suspect a mis-placed citation but there' also the issue of where the five or six ballots is coming from
			* {{green\|Garfield did not want to leave the army, so he personally visited President Abraham Lincoln for advice. Lincoln told Garfield that he had more generals than he could handle, and what he needed was political support, so Garfield took his seat in the House in December 1863.}} - checks out
			* {{green\|In January, local district caucuses picked delegates to state Republican conventions. The state conventions then selected delegates to the national convention. The candidates engaged in behind-the-scenes maneuvering, including Sherman's use of Treasury employees from Southern states who owed him their jobs taking part in local caucuses that elected state delegations loyal to Sherman. Each state-level leader then used state conventions to pick delegates loyal to the leader's candidate. In the New York state convention, which took place in Conkling's hometown of Utica, Grant's supporters won a 217–180 majority over Blaine's, but Conkling oversaw passage of a resolution declaring that, "the Republicans of New York believe the re-election of Ulysses S. Grant as presidential candidate of urgent importance, and the delegates this day assembled are called upon and instructed to use their earnest and united efforts to secure his nomination}} - mostly fine, but the pagination is slightly off (should be pp. 32-33 not just 33) but a couple quibbles - the source notes that this process began in January, not that it entirely occurred in January, and "each state-level leader then used state conventions to pick delegates loyal to the leader's candidates" isn't quite right when the source states {{red\|State conventions then chose the at-large members}} and the material about selecting loyal candidates doesn't square well with the defections and need for the unit rule noted elsewhere in the article and Ackerman.

			That's all I have time to check for now. The ideas are for the most part supported, but I do have concerns about the tendency for some details to not be supported and about the pagination and/or ref placement issues. ] <sub> '']''</sub> 00:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)