Talk:James Ezekiel Porter

Content dispute

Let us solve the content dispute is a good manner.

1) To my opinion, it is completely irrelevant to the subject of this article that his ancestors moved over 200 year earlier to what is now the United States. I guess 99% of all Americans can trace his ancestors coming in from abroad. (The rest are descendants of the original inhabitants of America.)

2) The section on the possible escape and suicide is information out of third and fourth hand and complete speculation. These sources can not be used to support facts. There is not the slightest evidence that the quote is referring to Porter Keogh, Calhoun, Crittenden, had died along the skirmish lines; Smith, Porter, and Reily were found with their men; so were the surgeons, Lord and De Wolf; so, too, were "Boston" Custer and the Herald correspondent; but two bodies were never recognized among the slain -- those of Lieutenants Harrington and "Jack" Sturgis. Down a little "cooley" some thirty men had made a rush for their lives; the Sioux had simply thronged the banks shooting them as they ran. One trooper -- an officer, said the Sioux -- managed to break through their circle, the only white man who did, and galloped madly eastward. Five warriors started in pursuit -- two Ogalallas, two Uncapapas, and a Brulé, all well mounted. Fear lent him wings, and his splendid horse gained on all but an Uncapapa, who hung to the chase. At last, when even this one was ready to draw rein and let him go, the hunted cavalryman glanced over his shoulder, fancied himself nearly overtaken, and placing the muzzle of his revolver at his ear, pulled the trigger, and sent his own bullet through his brain. His skeleton was pointed out to the officers of the Fifth Cavalry the following year by one of the pursuers, and so it was discovered for the first time. Was it Harrington? Was it Sturgis? Poor "Jack's" watch was restored to his father some two years after the battle, having been traded off by Sioux who escaped to the British possessions; but no mention was made by these Indians of a watch thus taken. Three years ago there came a story of a new skeleton found still further from the scene. Shreds of uniform and the heavy gilding of the cavalry buttons lying near, as well as the expensive filling of several teeth, seem to indicate that this too may have been an officer. If so, all the missing are now accounted for.

Why you think this covers his failed escape (if this was Porter at all) is a total mystery to me! The Banner talk 18:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My source is peer reviewed as the "most accurate account" http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_24_e.pdf Sorry, but we are here talking about a book review! The Banner talk 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1) Describing ethnic context and noting the origin of a notable American's surname is common in various American biographies on wikipedia and elsewhere, but if you really insist on having your way...fine leave this one out; Although Porter is one of the earliest surnames in colonial New England;

2) I'm not stating explicitly that Porter was the unidentified officer who narrowly escaped before committing suicide, but the witnesses state that there was an unidentified officer who rode off from near Porter location (Company I's) in the eastern area in the final moments of the battle, which is relevant to describing the action of Porter's company in the last moments. My sourcing for describing the last actions of Company I is hardly unreliable, as you stated when you removed them. Even leaving out Captain Charles King's account, with which you obviously take issue, there is the 2008 Donovan book (Little, Brown, & Co.) which is accepted in the academic community as a trustworthy source.

In fact Donovan's "A Terrible Glory: Custer And The Little Bighorn" is reviewed in Canadian Army Journal Vol. 12.2 , and the book review states that my source is "by far, the clearest, best researched and most accurate account of Custer’s last stand and its aftermath. It is probably the most objective." See: Canadian Army Journal Vol. 12.2 Summer 2009 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_24_e.pdf

Other reviews are similarly supportive of the work as authoritative: California Literary Review, Ed Voves, September 25th, 2008 http://calitreview.com/1189,

University of Nebraska, 1-1-2009, Great Plains Quarterly, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2199&context=greatplainsquarterly and more....Swampyank (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly Notable

1) Dozens of secondary sources discuss Porter, see the footnotes and Google Books.

2) Porter was one of only eleven officers leading the troops at the Little Bighorn, one of the most famous battles in U.S. History

3) Porter commanded troops in significant action at the Little Bighorn. Regarding Porter's significance as cited in the article, Thomas Hatch writes: "Lt. Porter actually commanded I Company on the battlefield." And further Dr. Charles Kuhlman, writes about "the intervention of Lieutenant Porter in bringing up Troop "I" and posting it so that the first platoon stood massed above the entrance to the ravine. This placed it squarely in the rear of the warriors Calhoun and Crittenden were fighting, compelling them to seek cover and putting them out of the fight." Both of these published sources describe Porter's leadership in significant action at the Little Bighorn based on physical evidence and Native American testimony analyzed by secondary source authors.

4) Multiple historical fiction novels have characters based on Porter, and a US Army Battery and GAR Post was named after him.

5) U.S. Congress awarded his widow a larger pension than normal because of his significant service at this famous battle

6) The totality of the circumstances, not just any one of these criteria, strongly favor his notability.

7) Other comparable officers and Native American leaders at the battle have wikipedia articles and merging them all is impractical and of no utility

8) How is eliminating or merging this well-sourced article beneficial? Swampyank (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How is eliminating or merging this well-sourced article beneficial?

1) There is no proof that the dozens of secondary sources are not based on the same dodgy sources already used in the article

2) There is no proof that Porter commanded troops in a significant action on the battlefield. No one survived to tell the real story.

3) There are more soldiers with the name Porter, so there is no proof that streets, Batteries and GAR Post were name specifically after him.

4) There is no proof that his widow received a bigger pension because of his actions. Awarding pensions was at the discretion of the Congress and happened more often. A relation with the number of dependent children is more likely.

5) The only claim for fame is his death, there is no proof of any actions.

6) Every article is judged on its own merits, so no need to compare with other articles.

The Banner talk 02:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

1) The sources in the article are published in secondary sources. I'm not sure why you think they are "dodgy" because of your POV on this article. The sources are found on Google Books, in libraries, bookstores, reviewed by Journals, quoted by others, etc....The Donovan book with which you take issue, "A Terrible Glory: Custer And The Little Bighorn" is reviewed in Canadian Army Journal Vol. 12.2 , and the book review states that this source is "by far, the clearest, best researched and most accurate account of Custer’s last stand and its aftermath. It is probably the most objective." See: Canadian Army Journal Vol. 12.2 Summer 2009 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_24_e.pdf Also, the California Literary Review, Ed Voves, September 25th, 2008 http://calitreview.com/1189, Also, University of Nebraska, 1-1-2009, Great Plains Quarterly, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2199&context=greatplainsquarterly and more...

2) People did survive the battle, unless you don't consider Native American witnesses to be people. They were interviewed extensively, and their interviews have been published and analyzed and deserve as much credibility as Euro-Americans. There is also physical evidence, locations of bodies, weapons, etc... which again historians have extensively researched and interpreted. True, there were no videos by white men, which would undoubtedly be the only evidence you find persuasive, but circumstantial physical evidence is routinely used by historians, police investigations, judges, etc...In fact most older history is written in this fashion.

3) You're right, it would be confusing it they were just named "Porter," but they are named "James E. Porter." I highly doubt the historical novels about the Little Bighorn are referring to another "James E. Porter" of Maine. The GAR post is located in Porter's home county in Maine. Fort Hunt in Virginia contains "Battery Porter, in honor of 1st Lieutenant James E. Porter, 7th U. S. Cavalry, who was killed June 25. 1876. in action with Sioux Indians at Little Big Horn River, Montana." (See: Elihu Root collection of United States documents: Ser. A.-F.] General Orders, No. 78 (1903), pg. 6)

4) You're right Porter's wife was an invalid with a child, like many other military widows, but the the U.S. House of Representatives' 1882 committee also specifically wrote in its report "First Lieut. James E. Porter, of the Seventh United States Cavalry...was killed in action June 25, 1876, while engaged with the Sioux Indians on Little Big Horn River, Montana Territory (Custer massacre)....The battle in which Lieutenant Porter lost his life was one of the. most heroic struggles that has ever cast luster on American arms. Every man was killed. Every man literally fought until he died, and died at the hands of merciless savages. In consideration of the extraordinary circumstances attending this case, the committee recommend that the pension be increased to $30 per month, and report herewith a substitute for bill H. R. 483d, which provides for an increase of pension as above stated."

5) Again, for Porter's actions at the battle see both Dr. Charles Kuhlman and Thomas Hatch's published works which analyse Porter's actions on the field based on testimony and physical evidence. They discuss Porter leading his men in fighting Indian warriors in the rear in an attempt to save comrades.

6) You were arguing for a merger, so discussing the merger targets (all the 7th's officers and the Native American fighters) is certainly a valid point to critique as unwieldy and unrealistic.

7) Again, the totality of the circumstances, not just any one of these criteria, strongly favor his notability.

8) Again, how is eliminating or merging this well-sourced article beneficial? Swampyank (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fighting the Klan?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Biographical register of the officers and graduates of the U.S

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 [1]. 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)

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)

I did not see your addition about the same subject until I had posted it. The Banner talk 22:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

More puffery? The Banner talk 11:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Tags

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)

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)

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)

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)