Talk:Benjamin Tillman

Terrorist?

Ben Tillman also threatened black voters that if they voted Republican, he would kill them. He gained political office using the 'Hamburg Massacre' within his speeches as a means to gain support. I understand tht this occured during the reconstruction era, but is it fair to call Osama Ben Ladin a terrorist and not Benjamin Tillman? Is it not biased? I agree though that paramilitary is a objective word, but it is amazing and I dont hold you responsible that Ben Ladin is called a terrorist but not people such as Benjamin Tillman.

• No he is merely the closest thing the U.S. has had to Hitler.. probably would have been worse if he had the same power that Hitler obtained!

• • We Americans should acknowledge that the most successful and one of the most violent terrorist organizations in history is the KKK. Tillman was a beast. 69.180.49.229 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle.

the article explicitly calls it "terror" several times: eg his violence on behalf of the white Democrats in the Hamburg and Ellenton riots in the summer of 1876 secured his prominence among the state's white political elite and proved to be the deathblow to South Carolina's Republican Reconstruction government."[2] The takeover, by fraud and terror, of South Carolina's government became known to whites as the state's "Redemption".[31] Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ben "Pitchfork" Tillman

I do believe he also threatened to impale president Roosevelt with a pitchfork once in a fit of rage. Since he was on the congressional floor, they couldn't do much about that one. There's no reference to this in the article. There is also a public domain political cartoon somewhere exemplifying this. Perhaps that would be a nice addition. I'd do it myself, except I'm hardly an expert on him. Perhaps a curator from a political museum in Columbia, SC would be a good resource for this.

Also, what distinguishes Tillman's tenure in congress isn't particularly his blatant racism (that was par for the course in those times), but his firey temper and hotheadedness. He stepped on a lot of toes, and didn't care who he made mad.

My two cents JD 04:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also no source for that. It was added numerous times to various articles, but no source could be found that he actually made the threat: Tillman was also known as "Pitchfork Ben," either for his defense of farmers' interests or because he wanted to "stick" a pitchfork "into President Grover Cleveland" [1]. Though he "wanted to", it doesn't detail whether or not he actually made this threat, or just said he would "like to". More information would be appreciated, unfortunately it's 4:40 a.m. and I just don't have the drive to stick anything else in this article (pun intended). Zchris87v 08:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Eye-damaging disease?

I'll take 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count.

It begins with 's', ends with 's', and rhymes with 'iphylis' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.174.202 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, that is one of the best talk page comments I have ever read.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Biography train wreck

Can anyone explain what "Tillman, of the murder of a number of black militiamen who had conducted a celebratory parade through the mostly black town of Hamburg, South Carolina, four days earlier." means? I would fix it if I had a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.75.145 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tillman as Governor" to be reread

Quote: "...and win the were able to in their nomination of a candidate for governor. Hugh S. Thompson had been elected for governor in 1882, succeeding Johnson Hagood. Elected as Lieutenant Governor with Thompson in 1882, was John C. Sheppard.[23] In 1886, Thompson had resigned making Richardson governor. Now Sheppard was running for re-election as governor in the election of 1886. Running against Sheppard was John P. Richardson, whose family had supplied South Carolina with four governors throughout history."

It seems that Sheppard became governor in success of Thompson, as he then run for re-election. Also the first sentence is not clear at all. Regards!

(Tasmer (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

"Tillman as Governor" question

The sentence "A quarrel between Wade Hampton and one of his lieutenants—Johnson Hapgood—led to the defeat of Wade Hampton as governor in 1880 and the election of Hapgood." is erroneous because Hampton resigned as governor in 1879 to take a seat in the U.S. Senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.29.242 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources

This article is overly reliant on Simpkins 1944 book; it should have more material included from more recent interpretations, such as Kantrowitz (2000). More scholarship needs to be reflected from sources other than Simpkins.Parkwells (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I added some details from Kantrowitz. However, As one reviewer on Amazon pointed out, "This book is not so much the biography of Ben Tillman but really the biography of white supremacy as a political idea and ideal." Simkins (a liberal opponent of Tillman and of white supremacy) covers the biography so well that Kantrowitz does not try to repeat his work and instead focuses on images of manhood & Race. Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is noticeably short, especially for such a remarkable subject. (Admittedly, I removed a sentence about university trusteeship, but that's hardly crucial, in comparison to his other "achievements".) zzz (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm gearing up to doing some work on the article. Still doing reading on Tillman though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Subscriptions?

I strongly dislike the "subscription" tag for articles because it warns readers away. In fact most people with university connection can click on the URL and get it directly. Practically every reader can get nearly every book and article for free by going to the local library and using interlibrary loan. In this regard, journal articles coded subscription are just as accessible as the books which are not coded subscription. Rjensen (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I suppose that people figure out fairly quickly that anything on JSTOR post-1922 is going to need a login.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I acquired access to JSTOR through Wikipedia Library and one of the conditions was that users were supposed to indicate "subscription required" so that's where some of those have come from.Parkwells (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me the conditions? I'm feeling in the middle here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the page: [2]

JSTOR Pilot Collaboration - suggestions for Citations -Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a JSTOR article, per WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT -Editors should not provide bare links to non-free JSTOR pages - Editors should credit JSTOR and denote the registration requirement by adding |registration=yes and |via=JSTOR parameters to {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) or {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) templates as appropriate, or by using the standalone template,  – via JSTOR (subscription required) Parkwells (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically, I do not have JSTOR access through the Library but through George Mason University, as the Wikipedia affiliate for them, but still that's a Library project. My concern is that there's going to be a disagreement about this that will distract from the merits of the article (assuming it has some).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Would using the two fields in the cite template be acceptable to all?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

the "JSTOR Pilot Collaboration" are merely "suggestions" and I think the subscription suggestion will not help anyone (it is not explained anywhere). The subscriptions involved are for libraries (or Wiki editors), not Wiki readers.Rjensen (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wehwalt, I agree with your suggestion. Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Details of Hamburg Massacre

There are specific accounts of this that describe black militia being captured by whites about midnight after they fled the armory; one black was said to have been killed in the street. The captives were later taken about 2 am to a spot near the river, where the whites forced them into what was called a "dead ring." The whites killed four or five men, deliberately, one at a time. Three others were severely wounded. This is glossed over in the Kantrowitz account, which says seven or so in total were killed, as if it happened earlier and as if they were all taken from the armory. The details of the dead ring indicated the cold-bloodedness of the event. It was described in accounts cited in the "Massacre article," including the state AG's report, quoted and cited in Allen. (also Budiansky, Stephen (2008). The Bloody Shirt: Terror After Appomattox. Viking Penguin. ISBN 0-670-01840-6. Section VI - pages 221-254) Did Kantrowitz disagree with this account, or just not bother with the details?Parkwells (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned that several were identified to be killed by a local white man. It is unclear what Tillman was doing at this point, so there's only so far we can go to lay this one at his door. Do you think additional detail is needed in this article? I consider it damning as it is, and there's such a thing as gilding the lily (or the negative equivalent I suppose)--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point; it's not clear if Tillman was part of that, although he seemed to brag about it - almost all of the African-American men who died at Hamburg were killed in the 2 am incident near the river. A friend had told me that his great-grandfather had left a memoir that recounted the "dead ring"; that and accounts I read made a strong impression on me.Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tillman said "we" a lot of times. He wasn't real specific on what precisely he was doing. He wasn't a fool.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Put family info together

His marriage and family were in a couple of different sections (his wife joined him in FL); put it together for a paragraph.Parkwells (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sensible. Though look out for the sources. I went back through the history and restored the references.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

The lead states "During his four years in office, 18 African Americans were lynched in South Carolina." I imagine most people, myself included, would not have any idea whether this is a high or low figure for this historical period. Could some context be provided clarifying whether this number is considered typical or not among South Carolina Governors of the era? --Philpill691 (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Wehwalt: Thanks for taking note of my suggestion and acting upon it. But I actually don't think that the edit you made accomplishes what I had hoped for. I think Tillman's performance on the lynching issue relative to other contemporaneous SC governors is more relevant to Tillman's biography than the amount of lynchings in the 1890s as a whole. The main reason I'm suggesting this is that the raw number of lynchings during Tillman's governorship is provided, but lacks the relevant context which would make this figure meaningful to readers. I don't think that comparing the decade as a whole to other decades expands readers' understanding of Tillman himself in the same way (not that I think this information should necessarily be removed). --Philpill691 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources don't go into that sort of detail. That would be a raw number in a way as well, as nationwide trends were probably at work. If lynchings went up in South Carolina, they probably went up in Alabama.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Confusing Wording

Tillman tried to prevent lynchings, but spoke in support of the lynch mobs, stating his own willingness to lead one. This is confusing; can someone look at the facts and try to word it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.46.84 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as confusing. Like most politicians, he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

When is "summer", exactly?

Tillman spent the summer of 1890...

What exactly does that mean? Our article points out correctly that even within the temperate zone of the Northern Hemisphere, there are at least three definitions of summer. It can be June, July, and August, it can be May, June and July, or it can be 21 June to 21 September. Which is meant? It really would be easier just to give actual dates. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

the RS use summer and the exact sates are a trivial non-encyclopedic issue. Rjensen (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the reader has a common understanding of what summer is. I think the article as it stands adequately informs the reader of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

So it was some time between May and September? Is that really the best we can do? --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, please look at these two sentences and tell me how you think they fit with criterion 1a:

• Tillman biographer Stephen Kantrowitz wrote that the violence in the summer of 1876 "marked a turning point in Ben Tillman's life, establishing him as a member of the political and military leadership".[33] Historian Orville Vernon Burton stated that "his violence on behalf of the white Democrats in the Hamburg and Ellenton riots in the summer of 1876 secured his prominence among the state's white political elite and proved to be the deathblow to South Carolina's Republican Reconstruction government."[2]

• Don't you find the repetition rather jarring? I took out the first "summer" and left the quoted one in. You restored it. Are you sure that was an improvement? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I can see both schools of thought on that one. On balance, I think the repetition is worth it because there is no adequate paraphrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The Hamburg massacre was in early July, and the Ellenton Riot was in late September. The run of violence continued into November, regardless of what the sources imply with imprecise language. Our article should not replicate the imprecise language, but should go with either the factual "from July to November" or (more likely) "late 1876" or just "1876". I strongly suggest. To do otherwise is to risk giving the impression that we are minimising the duration of the incidents. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Is this the sole point of contention between us? I can see agreeing to "Kantrowitz wrote that the violent events of 1876 "marked ...""--Wehwalt (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think that'd be a reasonable compromise. My instinct that "summer" was being used in a very vague manner was correct, as it often is. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Should 84th be added?

Should he be referred to as the 84th governor in the opening paragraph? That is how it is worded in other governor articles, but I wanted a consensus. FinnSoThin (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Some refer that way and some do not. It's one thing to refer to LBJ, say, as the 36th president because that is a common descriptor. There is a lesser need to refer to a govenor in that way, and the statistic is already in the infobox, and need not be also in the text as the reader is capable of looking slightly to the right. We should not waste the precious space at the top of the article on non-essentials, given how little room we get inn Google previews and similar. Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The US states do number their governors. Some do so via individual, regardless of non-consecutive terms. While others multiple number, for those who've served non-consecutive terms. Then there's the strange case of Fielding Wright, whose state numbers him as the 49th & 50th governor, because his first term was the completion of his predecessor's term. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)