Talk:James Ezekiel Porter

message: I took a look at some of the linked sources in the sections dealing with Porter's Reconstruction assignments, and the USMA Reunion piece doesn't say that he fought the Klan. In any case, I'm not sure that it should be considered a reliable source, as it's more of a laudatory obituary based on an unnamed officer's recollections about Porter's career. Better sourcing, tied directly to historical works about Reconstruction, would help this section. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It said he served on Ku Klux duty in the Reconstruction South. I can add some more sources if you would like.Swampyank (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still a pretty generic statement, and doesn't mean that he "fought" the Klan. I agree with TheBanner below, actually. It would be better to see something relating to the Seventh's garrison duty coming from studies of the Reconstruction that could document his time there. Intothatdarkness 18:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some references.  There's many about the 7th fighting the KKK accross the South. I'm surprised at all this interest. Swampyank (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If Porter's as notable as you contend, then it stands to reason that his article should be well-rounded in terms of sources, not just composed of things related to the Little Bighorn. Sources dealing with LBH tend to focus on either that battle or Custer and can be suspect when dealing with earlier activities of the regiment and its officers. For example, the consistent (and unsupported) claim that the Seventh was somehow elite. It wasn't. There's precious little out there dealing with the activities of the regiment when Custer wasn't present, and its Reconstruction duty is likewise not well covered (except as an aside in works dealing with the LBH). Intothatdarkness 14:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, more sources make an article even better.  Maybe you and Banner would be interested in adding to this article or some of the related ones?  I'd appreciate it, although comments critiquing it certainly have caused me to put a lot of work into this one and make it a better article! lol  If you search "Seventh Cavalry" "Ku Klux Klan" in Google Books, there's actually 391 books which discuss the subject.  Certainly a lot of information to dig into, and several of my sources are not focused on the LB but focus more on the Reconstruction aspect.  Regarding the Seventh being elite or not, I'm not expressing an opinion, certainly many of the officers had elite backgrounds (education, money, connections) at a time when most Americans didn't have those things, but about the entire Seventh being elite or not, I'd have to see the sources, and it is not the subject of this biographical article.  Swampyank (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming back to this one, it's hard to tell what involvement Porter had in Reconstruction activities without knowing what company he was with prior to his assignment with Company I. For example, the Martinez work cited on Reconstruction doesn't mention Porter by name at all. A similar work dealing with Reconstruction in South Carolina (West, "The Reconstruction Ku Klux Clan in York County, South Carolina, 1865-1877") doesn't mention him, either. Intothatdarkness 20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, Porter's notability doesn't stem primarily from this service opposing the Klan as far as I know, but it would be interesting to further research the particulars. Several of the sources mention the areas in the South where he was stationed, and there are general descriptions of the 7th's actions in those areas opposing the Klan and moonshining. Swampyank (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To do that, we'd have to find out what company Porter was assigned to prior to being promoted and shifted to Company I. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This source states that he was in Troop C for at least part of the time prior to his promotion to First Lieutenant http://digital-library.usma.edu/libmedia/archives/cullum/VOL3_PART0001.PDF. Swampyank (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the entry for Porter in Cullum gives his postings, not his company assignment. That's still really useful, but any attempt to line that up with the other reports could stray into OR. I'd feel better if he were directly mentioned in the Reconstruction stuff, but the best book on the subject focuses on MAJ Merrill's efforts and doesn't seem to mention Porter at all. Intothatdarkness 14:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting the Klan? 

message: Source: Biographical register of the officers and graduates of the U.S ..., Volume 3 By George Washington Cullum, United States Military Academy. Association of Graduates , pg. 133
It took me a while to locate this, but finally I did at . First thing I did was trying to look at James. E. Porters entry at page 133. Why was it not surprised it was not there? Finally located the entry at page 397.
Does the entry submit any evidence of Porter fighting the clan? No, it only states where he was based. Perhaps while in garrison in Chester, South Carolina or Rutherfordton, North Carolina. Even so, Force Acts#Acts after the Civil War does not give much evidence of fighting the Ku Klux Klan, more severe prosecution. So fighting the clan sounds like puffery to me.
The second source Annual Reunion of the United States Military Academy in 1877 is far more a personal reflection than a reliable source. In the trying and difficult "Ku-Klux" duty his energy and discretion formed a combination sufficiently rare and valuable to give him a name among his fellows. is also not really saying he was fighting them. Puffery again.
To my opinion, Annual Reunion of the United States Military Academy in 1877 is not a reliable source at all. Because the other source Biographical register of the officers and graduates of the U.S does not give evidence about "fighting the clan", all refrerrals to the clan should be removed as either puffery or unsubstantiated. The Banner talk 17:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree, as I indicated above, with the comment about the Annual Reunion piece. It's an unofficial obituary. Intothatdarkness 19:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see your addition about the same subject until I had posted it. The Banner talk 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I added several references regarding the 7th Cavalry suppressing the KKK across the South in places where Lt. Porter was stationed under President Grant's orders. It is very well-documented despite your skepticism. I can add a couple dozen more sources if you really need them to believe me or you can google them yourself if you're really interested. Also, regarding your unnecessarily sarcastic question:Why was it not surprised it was not there? Finally located the entry at page 397. It is on page 133, in the 1891 Hougton Mifflin edition, which I just made clear, sorry for any confusion. Feel free to check again. Swampyank (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More puffery? The Banner talk 11:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite sure what you're referring to with this comment, but I respect the construction comments! lol! Swampyank (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect his reference is to the implication that Porter was stationed in the South "under President Grant's orders." It wasn't Porter who was stationed there under orders of the president...it was elements of the Seventh Cavalry. Which gets back to the complaint that I have had about this article...Porter is notable for his association with a particular event (LBH in this case) and not for any specific achievements of his own. It would make the article more neutral if that simple fact were acknowledged instead of trying to conflate that notability with Porter. He was, honestly, a minor character in the regiment...one of a number of lieutenants expected to fill in for company commanders when they were absent on detached service or leave (a not uncommon event in the Frontier Army). Available sources (without going to the regimental returns) don't even make his company assignment clear until he was promoted and joined Company I. Intothatdarkness 15:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I never said in the article that President Grant sent Porter on a lone, Rambo-like mission in the South.  Sorry if that was miscommunicated in the above comment's prepositional phrase.  Grant sent the entire 7th Cavalry to the South, but I didn't even mention Grant in the article. You're right, Porter was one of the twelve officers killed at the Little Bighorn.  When I created this article as a stub 7 years ago, it was only focused on Porter's notability relating to his service and death at the LB. In response to comments and questions about him over the past couple months (and the failed deletion nomination), I fleshed out the article with some of his other service details and biographical information. Swampyank (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical register of the officers and graduates of the U.S 

message: Banner-I'm not sure why you want to continue leaving tags in this article, but I guess you have a lot of time on your hands. lol There many sources from various perspectives...actually, 59 footnotes.  The sources are all available online in Google Books primarily, if you'd like to do a little work and look them up. You've had over a month to check them since you put the tags there and protested nearly every edit I made. The consensus when you nominated this article for deletion was in favor of keeping this article. If you really are concerned, maybe there's a way to bring in a neutral third party to review the sources or you could be more specific about your criticism?  Swampyank (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 59 footnotes and the most are third hand accounts or passing mentions. Perhaps it is your job to believe fairytales, but I don't. The Banner talk 10:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta love the personal attacks. Always a sign of a strong argument! lol. First of all, I disagree about most of the sources being "third hand accounts." Maybe you should read through them. And secondly, what exactly am I fictionalizing as a "fairtale"? Swampyank (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, accusing of personal attacks. Always a nice way to say that you are out of arguments. The Banner talk 03:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags