Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 4 May 2010

United States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. 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.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: Biography / North America / United States / American Civil War C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

United States Presidents C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents 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.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Tammany Hall

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

Popularity

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

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

To do

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

1829 or 1830

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

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

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

Chester A. Arthur v. Chester Alan Arthur

Why was this moved to Chester Alan Arthur? --Jiang 01:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because User:Neutrality decided to move it unilaterally.--Kross 10:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just moved it back.--Kross 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Canada

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

Cause of Death

According to

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

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

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

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

WhiteHouse.gov

Which Newport?

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

Quote?

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

Introduction

Does anyone think this intro is too long?

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

Spoils system

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

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

Citations

I see very few citations here, especially for bits of trivia. For example, the information about four women proposing to him, the 80 pairs of pants thing, the way his middle name was pronounced.. do these come from verifiable sources? If someone was writing from memory or general knowledge, he should have tracked down a source to add here. (Oh, and this goes for the Mark Twain quotation as well.) --Fadedhour 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some famous quotes

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

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

Presidency section, possible copyvio?

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

He was very stupid and weird.

Why didn't he have a vice president?

I don't see it in the article --AW 13:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't have one because the constitution didn't provide for the replacement of a VP prior to the 25th amendment. No VP who ascended to the presidency had one prior to Gerald Ford.Montco 15:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly: Garfield was elected President and Arthur Vice President, so when Garfield died and Arthur became President, there was now no Vice President in office and no mechanism for selecting a new one until the next election. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Break with Conkling

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

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

Die Hard reference

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

Canadian??

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

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

Actually, these days you do indeed need to be born in the United States to run for President. However, this rule was not always so and has changed over time. During President Arthur's time, it was not so. It is not an "Urban Legend," it is just something that has changed and may change again. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe you are completely in error about that. The constitution calls for presidents and vice-presidents to be "natural-born citizens," but that does not and has never been legally construed to mean only persons born on the physical land of the United States or its territories. Rather the distinction is between naturalized citizens (those who go through the legal process of joining the citizenry of the U.S.) and those who do not need to be naturalized because they were "natural born," i.e., they were BORN citizens, not naturalized as such. Even if Arthur were born in Canada, he'd still have been a natural-born citizen, eligible for the presidency, because his parents were U.S. citizens. He could have been born on the moon to U.S. parents and still been a natural-born citizen. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

My understanding is that there is some dispute as to what constitutes a "natural born citizen," and that, in the past, this has been interpreted to exclude people born outside the country, even if their parents were U.S. citizens, and has always been a source of discussion and confusion. john k (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly a topic of dispute in Arthur's presidency. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, one might claim that the USA had an unconstitutional President in the person of Chester A. Arthur. In light of such a claim, maybe we should go easy on McCain and Obama. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Twain quote potentially misleading.

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

pre-political

Is being Collector of the Port of New York in the 1870s really not political? I can think of few things more political than a pre-civil service reform port collectorship. john k (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Early career" is better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whig Party (United States)

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

Claim of birth in "Quebec, Canada"

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thing claims he was born in Vermont, but that his father was not yet American at his birth. The guy is of using this to draw attention to his suit claiming that Obama does not qualify for the US presidency. However, some kids of this marriage were indeed born outside the US, so the naturalization of Chester Arthur may have been a somple clerical error. In fact, if Chester's father was not American at his birth, it would mean that the Arthur presidency is actually a good precedence for the belief that being born in the USA means you are a natural born citizen and therefore eligible. Woodrow Wilson may be another precedent. Not only was his mother British at his birth (whether she was alos US citizen is doubtful), at least his father later switched allegiance to another country. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have misunderstood - apparently there is no claim that Chester Arthur himself got naturalized (forget the thing about other kids born in Canada and the clerical error I assumed). However, now I do not understand the whole argument anymore, since: Chester Arthur was not a naturalized citizen, he was not a US citizen born abroad to US citizens or a US citizen and, according to the poker guy with the lawsuit he was not a natural born citizen either. So what was he? I can imagine why the guy is getting compared to Obama - the article here may need some strong and long protection to keep the nutwingers and birthers away. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Chester Arthur was in fact only a naturalized citizen. At the time of his birth there was no Wong Kim Ark yet, not even the 14th Amendment, only the federal law, which was later codified under Section 1992: "All persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the US." Arthur was a natural-born subject of the British monarch by jus sanguinis, but also a subject of Vermont, provided he was born there (but the only record is the Arthur family bible, so we can't know for sure), and normally Arthur would have become a citizen of the US simply by virtue of being a citizen of a US state, but the above federal restriction on foreign subjecthood (Section 1992) overruled that automatism. A minor's citizenship followed the father, if the parents were married, and Arthur only became a US citizen by co-naturalization, as a minor, whose father naturalized (Section 2172, originally from the Naturalization Act of 1795): "The children of persons who have been duly naturalized , being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents, shall, if dwelling in the US, be considered as citizens thereof." Therefore, Arthur was definitely not eligible, because the laws at the time wouldn't allow him to be a citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen. PS: What the above "former election lawyer" states, is flat out wrong. The laws at the time were pretty clear. If Arthur was indeed born abroad (which is uncertain and impossible to prove or disprove), the language established in the Naturalization Act of 1795 would also have been the relevant law. Then Arthur wouldn't have been a citizen at birth either, because the NA1795 specifically states that only children born abroad of US parents (plural) are citizens. Even if Arthur's father had been a naturalized citizen at the time, Arthur would not have been natural born. Natural born citizenship by foreign birth of two US citizen parents only existed from 1790 to 1795, when Congress specifically removed "natural born" from the Naturalization Act. So what it says in the WP article is one of the usual WP hogwash opinions we can find everywhere in this place. I quote: "If Arthur had been born in Canada, some believe that he would not have been a natural-born citizen (interpreting the law to mean that to be a natural-born citizen one must be born on U.S. territory)". Read the Naturalization Act of 1795 and compare it to the one from 1790. Search for "natural born" in both of them, then come back and tell us which one had legal effect at the time of Arthur's birth. (A little hint: the later act did change something substantial). "Some believe", "interpreting the law" — wiki blah blah. It's amazing that this article even mentions that Arthur's father didn't naturalize until 14 years after Arthur's birth. (You deserve a little applause for that, despite my criticism.) But in any case, the law at the time is clear: Either way (whether born in the US or not) Arthur was not eligible. For a better understanding of the later law, i.e. during Arthur's presidency, before Wong Kim Ark, please refer to this expert assessment in the American Law Review. Does anyone of you folks "believe" that the laws were less strict and more liberal decades before, when Arthur was born? —85.178.109.63 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ash pole...

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

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

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

Middle initial in the title

Is it necessary to title this article "Chester A. Arthur"? Is that really more common than just "Chester Arthur"? Funnyhat (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A search of Amazon book titles indicates that the vast majority of biographies of Arthur use the name Chester A. Arthur in the title, which is indicative. Or you could check with the Chester A. Arthur Society (www.chesteraarthursociety.com) :-) Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

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

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

Category added. —ADavidB 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated citation format

Over twenty citations in the article are from Reeves' book Gentleman Boss, with most of them cited separately for a varying page number. I'm thinking the use of the {{rp}} template for these may be more efficient. It would display a colon followed by the applicable page number after the reference number, as follows this sentence. This would allow the 20+ citations from this one source to display with a single entry in the References section. Thoughts? —ADavidB 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this was implemented correctly. At the very least, it doesn't perform as advertised, a complete entry for each page number utilized now appearing in the reflist. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

With no argument against the change, I applied the rp template first to one section, then the rest of the article. You viewed the article between my two edits, though 'rp' is now fully applied for the repeated Reeves citations. —ADavidB 23:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks great now. I'll read up. Thanks for showing me something new. BusterD (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

As per Misplaced Pages policy, the reverts, called edit warring, be stopped immediately per WP:3RR. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 15:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

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

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

Scots Irish

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

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

http://www.answers.com/topic/scottish

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

• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• United States presidential elections articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• C-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• C-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class American Civil War articles
• American Civil War task force articles
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• Unknown-importance United States Presidents articles