Talk:1868 United States presidential election

message: I am reverting the changes of anonymous User:70.58.55.96 as to the end of the introductory paragraph:
* 6 points is not "close".
* I am quite willing to believe that Seymour did in fact beat Grant among white voters.  However:
** I'd like to see a reference for this.
** It does not follow from the mere fact that the election was close, unless you postulate that there were in excess of 300 000 non-white voters and that they voted 99+% for Grant (or that there is an even larger number of non-white voters and a slightly smaller tilt toward Grant among them).  Neither fact is in evidence.
— DLJessup 01:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant's margin of victory. 

message: Georgia was the last state to be re-admitted to the union july 15, 1870. why did it take part in this election then? --Astrokey44 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgia? 

message: The map on the right shows Kentucky having 6 electoral votes, a link provided shows Kentucky having 11 votes.  If you add up the votes for Seymour, you only get 75 total (per the map), not the 80 it mentions, so I think Kentucky must have had 11 votes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.44.107 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map error 

message: "The Radical Republicans regarded black suffrage as a way to ensure that the Republicans would not become a minority party of the restored Union." 
This seems unlikely, given that the RRs had an ideological commitment to abolition, and citizenship (and thus suffrage) flowed directly from that, at least for African-American men. Any source verifying that this was a power play on the part of the RRs, rather than a result of their ideology? Even if so, why would the Republican Party--which won all but two presidential elections between 1860 and 1912--be worried about falling into minority status?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.127.24 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill also add that I doubt that in 1868 the Republicans knew they were only going to lose lose two elections until 1912. 76.22.97.102 (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: Do I even need to point out that this quote from the article violates the NPOV policy?
"...his [Horatio Seymour's] conduct of the campaign did his country and the institution of free elections great good, helped to keep alive the two-party system when the opposition was determined to remain the only party that could hold power."
This came from the 1944 They Also Ran.  Irving Stone is an excellent author who bashed BOTH Democrats and Republican candidates in his wonderful book.  Just because this happens to praise a Democrat, it does not mean it is not a neutral point of view.  Seymour did not sling any mud and the Republicans wanted to hold power indefinitely.  What is your point?--71.79.242.111 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Irving Stone should not be a source chosen over academic sources. There has been so much writing about the Civil War and Reconstruction, someone more reliable must have addressed this election.Parkwells (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As others have said.  The article as it stands has more than a whiff of magnolias to it, as it were. Lots of talk about "permitting" white southern Democrats to control the South, about the corruption and hunger for power of the Republicans.  Very little about the virulent racism of the Democrats. Seymour's victory would have been bad not because he would have abandoned any attempt to provide civil rights for the freed slaves, but because the Republicans were so power-hungry they would have destroyed him.  This kind of stuff is really unacceptable in 2012. john k (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - it uses a very odd assortment of sources - Stone, a novelist. Seymour's dated biography and other old histories, not particularly notable on the period. More contemporary sources are identified in References, but not cited at all as sources. Really needs work.Parkwells (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There's a lot of speculation going on in this section which may or may not be well founded. I suspect it's in the cited references, but not having those, I'm reluctant to assume that and edit towards a more neutral POV (e.g. "Author so-and-so claims..." as opposed to simply stating author so-and-so's conclusions as indisputable fact, as is the case now).
The final paragraph ("If Seymour had carried all four October states ...") in particular is highly speculative (I don't want to go so far as to claim it's actually wrong; it's certainly not inconsistent with what happened in the Hayes-Tilden election) and appears to be based on a single secondary source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.71.75 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General election / results 

message: With all of the rhetoric in this article I feel as if I'm reading someone's opinion paper, not an encyclopedia.174.97.189.56 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: chunks are pasted from Stone's They Also Ran, which covers Seymour. see copied Rjensen (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone dispute this article? 

message: Nothing is mentioned about Grant's controversial General Orders No. 11 that deported Jewish families from Union military zones.  Grant had to "woo" the Jewish voter to get elected. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish vote 

message: A 1938 biography of Seymour is limited material on which to base so much content. At least editors should try to reduce the bias in the material, delete reportorial comments and stick to what appear to be facts verified by other sources. Others must have written about the election, if not in detail about Seymour.Parkwells (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional sources are needed

message: It seems odd to say Grant "benefited from his popularity in the North" as if it were a fault. I tried to tone it down - every politician "benefits from his popularity", so that seems like a not very substantial statement. Again, better sources have to be found on this election and the political context.Parkwells (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: A 1945 review of Stone's book in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography noted that he had numerous errors of fact related to several men, did not reflect the consensus of many historians on several candidates; and that these factors minimized its value as a reference.Parkwells (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone noted as inaccurate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States presidential election, 1868. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20132120194800/http://www.wvculture.org/history/blachist.html to http://www.wvculture.org/history/blachist.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The state results of this presidential election are missing from this article. Nearly all of the remaining US Presidential Election (besides 1792-1820 for some reason) articles have tables showing the popular and electoral votes coming from the states. Could a table containing this info be added to the article? --73.149.152.16 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Results by State Missing/Edit Request 12/2/2016

message: At the Ulysses S. Grant main article two editors want to include mention of President Grant signing an act establishing national holidays and two editors oppose. Opinions for and against are numerous and can be found at Talk:Ulysses S. Grant. Outside opinions are needed and welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside opinion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1868. 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/20132120194800/http://www.wvculture.org/history/blachist.html to http://www.wvculture.org/history/blachist.html
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) 01:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified