Talk:Black Friday (1869)

Untitled

Found this very interesting, looked this up after reading an article in MENA paper on the black cohosh plant that flowers, which mentioned a lady that made a remedy for female conditions Lidia Pinkham she had to find a way to support her family during the this crash, she made millions by todays standards, looking up the economic crash of 1873 lead me here http://www.revelation13.net/economy.html jabborwock2001@aol.com

The following comment was made in the article by 68.53.82.200. I have moved it here.

This is a VERY interesting subject; not endowed with the details it deserves. It seems there are many ambiguities and/or lack of information concerning the "Black Friday" phenomenon. I know this isn't exactly a "forum", however I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with this(simplified) explanation. But, as a disclaimer: it seems these days >->history as well as reality is only a perception.

Moved by 12.116.162.162 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gold price correction

This paragraph was incorrect:

On September 20, 1869, Gould and Fisk started hoarding gold, driving the price higher. On September 24, the price of an ounce of gold was $30 higher than when Grant took office. But when the government gold hit the market, the price of gold plummetted within minutes. Investors scrambled to sell their holdings, and many of them, including Corbin, were ruined.

I changed it to:

On September 20, 1869, Gould and Fisk started hoarding gold, driving the price higher. On 24 September the premium on a gold Double Eagle (representing one ounce of gold bullion at $20) was 30 per cent higher than when Grant took office. But when the government gold hit the market, the premium plummetted within minutes. Investors scrambled to sell their holdings, and many of them, including Corbin, were ruined.

I think this is more accurate but needs further research by an expert. --mervyn 15:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I made a minor edit so the names of Fisk and Gould appear in the same order throughout the article as in the name of the scandal - just a minor OCD twitch (wasn't signed in, redoing sig)--Legomancer (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Funky title

The accompanying article is one of either

9 7 that have as title "Black Friday" ...

5 2 that have as title "Black Saturday" ... or

1 that have as title "Black Monday" ...

... (in each case) disambiguated by a parenthesized year. Since this is in contrast to all the other days of the week, that style probably is unneeded and reflects either ignorance of the acceptability of Dab-page entries like

Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001 attacks

or something like a lack of persistence in weighing possible titles. I have not investigated them individually; instead, i suggest review, of each article, by one or more editors with prior interest in its corresponding topic, with an eye to finding a title that either avoids the "Black ...day" or disambiguates it with something more evocative than a year. Years are good tools for helping users who happen to have seen a brief reference to "Black Friday" and have at least rough idea of the year involved, but giving priority to that case in titling the article, rather than letting the Dab page handle that job, is almost always an impediment to most users seeking the article. Almost certainly, most of the 15 10 should be renamed.
--Jerzy•t 06:16 & 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing the Point?

Just trying to understand what this black friday was about, and i don't understand it.

On September 24 the premium on a gold Double Eagle (representing 0.9675 troy ounce of gold bullion at $20) was 30 percent higher than when Grant took office. But when the government gold hit the market, the premium plummeted within minutes.

So the goverment was selling gold before, then it started selling more gold and the market crashed. What was the scam, and why did the goverement selling more gold break it?

Gould was buying up tons of gold, that means it would of taken a lot of capital to do that, yet he survived the market crash and others didn't. Why? Did he just lose money and nothing else, where as the others had over extended their finances and couldn't tolerate the loss, or did Gould sell his gold off before the crash?

And i still don't see what his objective was by raising the price. Unless i'm being dim, this article seems to be written with the readers already knowning what black friday was about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.222.222 (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gould wanted to make money on gold by cornering the gold market. He manipulated many people into the plot. The crime was not that the price of gold was raised, the crime was predatory manipulation of the United States government. Gould wanted Grant and Boutwell to not sell anymore gold in order to make huge profits. Gould and his partner Fisk willfully intented to defraud the United States Treasury. Grant became suspicious of their manipulation and increased the sale of government gold to stop the scam. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Change title

The title should be changed to Gold Panic (1869). It accurately reflects the events that led to the price of gold crashing in September. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Steely Dan

The title may come from the event, but seems unlikely it was "written about this event". There were no 14th floors out of which to jump in 1869 nor any planes on which to fly to Musswellbrook (though I'll buy 'fly' in the more general meaning of 'flee') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.197.189 (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Presidents manipulating gold market

A clarification of the following was requested. "Also, Grant's order to release gold in response to gold's rising price was itself a manipulation of the market. Grant had personally declined to listen to Gould's ambitious plan to corner the gold market, since the scheme was not announced publicly.."

Actually, it was the president's duty to stabilize the price of gold. When the country is on the gold standard, the reserves should be sold when the price goes up, bought when the price goes down. This was trivial compared to Franklin Roosevelt's doubling the price of gold during the depression. Start with Executive Order 6102. Student7 (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Friday (1869). 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/20111029162426/http://24blackfriday.com:80/ to http://24blackfriday.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources

@Cmguy777: Looks like the article is shaping up nicely. My only reservation at this stage would be that we're relying heavily on one source -- White, 2016. There's nothing wrong (that I can see) with White in of itself as a source but I'd recommend at this point that we try to use other sources to cite and add content with, or at least to corroborate some of the items White is used for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Will look into some older sources to see if there's any significant difference of opinion with modern sources, esp in terms of any allegations of complicity in the scandal aimed at Grant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

There are alot more sources on the subject. White is being used as a narration context structure source. McFeely, Smith, and Brands can be used as sources too. Adding alot of sources at the same time can be confusing. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Best to get a good cross section of sources -- not too many of course. Don't want to be confined to 21st century accounts entirely. Also, it would be good to get one older source in there, if anything, just as a check against how far astray any modern source may have gotten with its conjecture and with what facts it chose to include or ignore. However, this has proven difficult. Almost all the older sources concentrate on Grant's military life, treating his presidency, if at all, as a secondary subject. So far as I've found not one covers Black Friday -- not even Badeau, 1887 or Church, 1897. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

All I am saying that it is best to edit one source at a time into the article to have a more concise narration. Jumbling in mulitiple sources or referernces into the narration potentially at the same time can muddle the narration. In my opinion it's still difficult to completely understand this scandle and how the ring actually worked. There is a modern book on the subject: The Gold Ring, Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, and Black Friday, 1869 Kenneth D. Ackerman (2011) The book was originally been published in 1988. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Okay, you express reservations about adding other sources yet introduce one at the same time. I don't have any problem with confusion or "jumbling". If a source is introduced to quickly for you and causes confusion please feel free to mention it. If one source happens to contradict another source, we can mention this in the narrative, a practice that's commonly employed in president's articles, esp where controversy and scandals may be involved -- like the Grant and Jefferson articles of which you have contributed to for the last four+ years. Will be looking into Ackerman also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Most of the sources seem consistent where the chronological layout of established facts are concerned. Soon we should look into the idea of any complicity Grant may have been involved with, but given his character, forged by the many trials he endured during the Civil War, I would assume he was far from complicit, even though he may have not personally set the dogs out on members of his administration or any others that were involved in the conspiracy. The Investigation and aftermath section says Grant was not personally involved, which seems true enough but the section still has a and tag therein. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

First, Grant was not complicit or profited from the Gold Ring. He was though, as most historians agree, careless in his association with Gould and Fisk. Part of that was not Grant's fault. Presidents had to ride on private railroads to travel. Second, Grant never told Boutwell directly not to stop selling gold. He told Boutwell that not selling gold would be helpful to farmers. There is no evidence that Grant knew of the Gold Ring buying gold in New York. It is also unknown the complete conversations he had with Corbin, Gould, and Fisk. I am not against adding more sources. It is just that adding them all at the same time would make the article confusing. I wanted to use White for the structure of the narration. Then add other sources seperately. Grant and Boutwell like detectives figured out what was going on and acted immediately. Something rare for Grant. Also Grant returned gifts given to him at the White House without his consent bought by the Gold Ring. I think what is important for the reader to understand is the ruthlessness and ambitiousness on the part of Gould and Fisk, and in essense shows the morality of the Gilded Age. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, as I thoroughly explained, Grant was not complicit, given his solid down to earth character. I only entertained the idea that there might be other views, perhaps Mcfeely's, that might raise a few questions, and if so, would be worth mentioning. You can stick with White first if you like. I chose not to confine myself to such at this point. I don't anticipate any confusion and don't regard the sources as works that were authored on different planets. Between the two of us, our edits have complimented the other while the article is shaping up nicely. The only problem I foresee are those that might get invented on talk pages, so I'd recommend keeping up the good work, AGF in other's ability and proceed undaunted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• The context you mentioned above is interesting. Let's get it into the narrative if it isn't there already. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the catch. There may have been a grain of truth in what Gould said concerning farmers getting a better deal selling their goods overseas having a higher gold price, but Gould cared nothing for farmers, and he knew Grant did. I don't know the exact date but Boutwell did actually stop sometime in September selling gold from the Treasury. In other words, Grant did not want to continue to keep gold artificially low. So in that sense he made have been influenced by Gould. However, once Grant and Boutwell figured out that Gould and Fisk were cornering the Gold Market, Grant took decisive action ordering Boutwell to release the Treasury gold. Yes. Thanks Gwillhickers. The article is looking great. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

New York Times

Here is a great New York Times article on how the Gold Ring was viewed in October, 1869: The Gold Ring New York Times (October 18, 1869) Cmguy777 (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Great find! Caught this on my way out the door. Will catch up this evening. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This article gives information on the Tweed Ring, who actively campaigned along with Fisk and Gould, attempting to bring down Grant and Butterfield. The article says there was no evidence against Grant and defends Butterfield from criminal activity. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Article name change

I believe this article needs a name change. If one looks at the viewership for November it is obvious this article gets mixed up with Black Friday after Thanksgiving. I suggest either Gold Panic (1869) or Gold Ring (1869). Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777, Coemgenus, Rjensen, and Alanscottwalker: That's something to consider. When you begin to type in 'Black Friday' in the WP search window a list of article titles beginning with 'Black Fri ...' appears, with Black Friday (shopping) at the top, while Black Friday (1869) appears a number of places down the list. Don't know if this is causing problems for readers looking for this article. Bear in mind that topics such as this are usually 'discovered' (esp by students and those new to American history) in the course of reading the main, well known subjects, such as Ulysses S. Grant. Having said that, I noticed that the number of views for this article maxed out at approximately 4000 on November 25, Black Friday shopping day. I wonder how many of those 'shoppers' looked into the article while they were here. I would suspect not many. Normally this article gets about 300 views a day. Tough call. We might want to get other opinions. A name change could result in fewer views. Seems like 'gold panic' is even a less familiar term. Wish there was a way to determine how readers come to the page. It would seem most arrive here by clicking on a link while reading the main article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but that's the name the event is commonly known by. McFeely and Smith even have Black Friday in their indexes (White may, too, my copy doesn't have an index). I suspect it will end up like the many days known as Bloody Sunday. But unless there's some other common name for the event, I think we're stuck with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The chapter title in White (2016) is Gold Panic and represents the most current research. To me that is all encompassing of what went on. Black Friday is only about one day when Grant and Boutwell broke the Gold Ring. As mentioned, practically speaking readers mistake Black Friday (1869) for Black Friday (shopping) article. In my opinion this would warrant a name change. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to change the title but keep the Black Friday (1869) link. Maybe Rjensen could help in this matter. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• A renamed (moved) article will create a redirect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Did a google search for 'Black Friday' and reference to this subject doesn't even show up. Did another search for 'Gold Panic' and most of the results were for video games, with one reference (listed as Black Friday) to the WP article here. Still not much of a showing. The NYT's article that Cm' found is titled 'The Gold Ring', and Ackerman's book is titled 'The Gold Ring: Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, and Black Friday, 1869. Apparently there isn't any one prevailing title, and subsequently it won't make much difference which title we choose, so perhaps we should just leave it. If we want to bring more viewers to this article it seems we should link to it in other appropriate articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Just added a link to this page in the 'See also' section of the following articles :
  Ponzi scheme  • List of Ponzi schemes  • Denver Depression of 1893  • Panic of 1857  • Panic of 1893.
  These articles are viewed hundreds of times a day and should increase the number of views to this article. After about a month we'll see for sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If people are looking for a shopping guide then they will take under 3 seconds to decide "Black Friday 1869 " is not useful for them. Let's keep a historically accurate title that will not fool an 8th grader. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. Looks like I am getting outvoted, but apparently about 3,500 people were mistaken by the article title on 11/25/2016. To me that is signifigant. I prefer to call the article The Gold Panic (1869) since that is what White (2016) calls the scandal. The Gold Ring: Jim Fisk, Jay Gould, and Black Friday, 1869 by Ackerman was originally published in 1988 although it has a 2011 copyright. Black Friday only refers to September 24, 1869 the day when the Gold Ring got broken. The speculators in the Gold Ring are called the Gold Pool. I can go by editor concensus on this one. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: -- Yes, I have split feelings on this one, but prefer we keep the existing title. To help matters I just created redirect pages for Gold panic of 1869 and Gold conspiracy of 1869 and also listed this article on the Gold ring disambiguation page. I also linked this article in about eight other articles, some of them named above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede

Cm' is your last edit to the lede the best? White mentions that Grant's association with Gould and Fisk helped their efforts in the gold scandal, but is he "critical"? What about Brands and Smith? I'll have to double check. Seems a blanket statement about historians may not be that accurate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Smith (2001) page 484 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• White (2016) page 482 Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Both Smith and White contend that Grant's appearances with Gould and Fisk gave them both clout on Wall Street. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but again, does this amount to criticism? The last sentence in the lede more than suggests that Grant was complicit in the eyes of historians and is not consistent with the sentence that comes before it and in the body of text in that Grant & co foiled the efforts of Gould and Fisk. Even if White and Smith were actually "critical" of Grant on this note, are they representative of all historians? 'Critical' is too obtuse and misleading of a term. I'd recommend editing the last sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This is what makes Grant difficult. He stopped the Gold Ring but he also met with the leaders of the Gold Ring several times giving them clout. I believe Boutwell actually stopped selling gold in September from the Treasury, because Grant took Gould's bait believing it would help farmers in the West. Grant himself is not consistant, although he did not profit in anyway from the Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes -- Grant met with Gould and Fisk. But does White, Smith, et al "criticize" Grant to the extent, as the current lede more than suggests, he was 'knowingly' complicit in the conspiracy? We need a more inclusive and neutral statement here. Don't know of any source that nails Grant's hide to the door of the Tenth National Bank on this idea. What does McFeely and Ackerman say? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes to the lede...I reworded the part about Grant being seen with Gould and Fisk...I tried to summarize the events in the lede section. Feel free to make changes. It is a difficult scandal to summarize in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Much better! Bear in mind however, that "historians note" everything, not just the "clout" afforded to Gould and Fisk from Grant's reputation. The established facts shouldn't be difficult to summarize. However, trying to summarize overall historical consensus on this one topic may prove difficult, as many of Grant's biographers concentrate their coverage on Grant's military life and overall presidency, if that. Of the ones that cover it, none seem to mention that Grant was complicit, though I'm not sure what McFeely or Ackerman says here. Any ideas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• There are a couple of items that needed attention. Added a point of context, and mentioned The Gold Ring in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Looks like we have a Good Article on the horizon. Will start considering ideas for a DYK statement. With the idea that a DYK statement should be especially interesting, if not unusual, we should come up with something in the near future. Meanwhile we can tend to the details, included any needed content/context and make any needed tweaks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No biographers say Grant was complicit, even Gould said Grant was an honest man. But I believe Ackeram does point out that Boutwell did stop his weekly gold sales in September because apparently Grant took Gould's bait of helping farmers in the West. Had the gold market been driven freely without the Gold Ring monopoly, farmers would have been helped. I suppose there is a grain of golden truth to every lie. It was not until mid September that Grant realized Gould and Fisk were corning the gold market and cared nothing about farmers. This would go along with Grant being too trusting of Gould and Fisk on face value. The article should mention that Boutwell stopped his weekly gold sales in September. Two or three weeks went by without any gold sales from the Treasury. That was enough time to corner the market. The Gold Ring was Fisk, Gould, and Corbin. The Gold Pool were all the speculators. The Gold Panic was what economic turmoil that ensued after Boutwell released $4,000,000 in gold on September 24, 1869 aka Black Friday crushing the Gold Ring monopoly. A Good Article nomination would be great. What is a DYK statement ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ackerman

Ackerman's book appears very informative and cover's Tweed's involvement in the conspiracy in depth, but the online viewing doesn't reveal its page numbers, at least not from my end. Ackerman's book describes the various personal relationships between Gould, Fisk, Corbin, Butterfield, etc in great detail. e.g.Butterfield was a Civil War hero, served at Gettysburg and served under Sherman when he marched on Georgia and was a personal friend of the Corbin family. Am tempted to use this source by citing the chapter name/number, but this would certainly cause issues when the article goes through a GA review, if not before. Am off to the library to order it. Hope to have it in hand in a matter of days. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ackerman source is a good addition for the article. Some online books don't have page numbers and the only way to get page numbers is actual purchase of the book. Amazon online edition may have the page numbers. That would have to be checked. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Content

Cm' one of your last edits is getting a bit tangential:

In October 1871, a group of New York reformers called the Committee of Seventy, including Grant's future Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont, shut down Boss Tweed's corrupt Tammany Hall.

While interesting this occurred two years later in late '71 and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the gold scandal. Unless we can show a direct relationship between the gold scandal, Gould's foiled efforts and the closure of Tammany Hall we should keep this out of the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Gould was part of Tammany Hall. Corrupt judges from Tammany Hall kept Gould and Fisk from being prosecuted. This institution was shut down in October 1871. Also Tammany Hall spread rumors that Grant was profiting from the Gold Ring. There was no evidence given Grant was complicit. The Tweed Ring and Tammany Hall are one in the same. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, but Tammany was not closed down because of the gold conspiracy or Gould, and the statement in question has links to subjects not related to Black Friday. Again, the statement is tangential. Tammany was not shut down because some of its members spread rumors about Grant. Also, Tammany Hall existed into the 20th century and was closed down during the 1960's (!) so I'm not sure where you're getting your information from -- the statement doesn't have a citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Otoh, I'd welcome a little context about Gould being a member of Tammany, and how its corrupt judges shielded him from prosecution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The content is that Judge Albert Cardozo shielded Fisk and Gould from conviction. [Smith (2001), page 490] I gave the reference in the article. Cardozo and Gould were part of the Tweed Ring or Tammany Hall. In other words Tammany Haul kept Fisk and Gould from being prosecuted. That is how Tammany Hall is involved in the Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Great. Tammany closed down in the 1960's. Black Friday had nothing to do with it. Let's get the right stuff in there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Albert Cardozo was part of Tammany Hall or the Tweed Ring. I did get it right. I gave the Smith reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Tammany closed down in the 1960's. Black Friday had nothing to do with it. The edit in question (posted above) links to Pierrepont, not Cardozo, and wasn't sourced, with Smith, or anyone. As I said, content about Gould being a member of Tammany, corrupt judges, etc is welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The Tweed Ring that ran Tammany Hall protected Fisk and Gould from prosecution. Cardoza was a Tweed Ring judge. This was shut down in 1871. I added two references. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the ring was prosecuted and shut down in 1871, not the Hall itself. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Stopped sale of gold

I believe Boutwell actually stopped the sale of Treasury gold in September and did not resume until September 24. This was because Grant felt it would help farmers in the West sell their crops. I believe this needs to be in the article. I believe Ackerman is the source that says Boutwell stopped selling gold from the Treasury. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. As long as we're not adding items that are tangential, controversial, fringe, etc I have no issues with anyone adding content, context without checking with editors on the talk page first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I added this information, but there is no page number for the Ackerman (2011) reference. As as been mentioned there are no page numbers on Google Books for Ackerman's book. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Cm', assuming this is you, you apparently forgot to log in. We can use Ackerman by citing chapter numbers, but we'll of course have to supply page numbers soon before someone (or a bot) comes along and tags (w/ ) these items. Unless the info is unique and can't be found in other sources, I'd recommend we use our existing sources to add any additional content until one or both of us have Ackerman's actual book. This way we won't have to fish through the article and cite the same items again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ackerman can tie this article together. But the actual book is needed for the page numbers. Grant's letter to Boutwell vetoing Boutwell selling gold is important in September. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

We will need the actual book for page numbers. Ackerman's work is dedicated to the subject -- looking forward to its arrival. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Other sources

Found some older publications about Jay Gould and James Fisk that may prove helpful.

• Halstead, (1892)   Jay Gould, how he made his millions, 499 pages

• White, Trumbull (1893}   Wizard of Wall Street and his wealth, or, The life and deeds of Jay Gould, 358 pages
• Northrop, (1892)   Life and achievements of Jay Gould, 542 pages
• Jones, (1872)   Life of James Fisk ... the Great Frauds of the Tammany Ring, 513 pages

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Images

At first the gallery seemed like a practical idea, however it seems some of these images, esp Grant, Gould and Fisk, would be better placed in the appropriate sections where the readers can view them as they go along through the narrative, while the pictures of currency, and the cartoon should give way to these and be in the gallery or elsewhere. The lede image should be kept where it is. With this in mind, I have tentatively arranged them so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Looks great. Should Garfield be paired with Butterfield in the photos ? It might look like Garfield is a conspirator since he is linked to Butterfield. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Rivals are often paired. Perhaps we can clarify matters with some caption work. Better yet, we can put Boutwell's mug next to Garfield's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Rivals ? Butterfield and Garfield were not rivals. Gould and Fisk are good paired because they were partners. Boutwell tesitified at the Congressional hearing. I am not sure that is a good pairing. I would pair Boutwell and Grant. They worked together to destroy the Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I paired Boutwell up with Grant. They were the team the broke up the Gold Ring. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Creating the Breaking the Gold Ring section was a good idea also. I tweaked Garfield's image a tad smaller so as not to suggest he had more prominence over the others. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind if Garfield's image is larger since he was in charge of the Congressional investigation. I think that section could be expanded, for example listing persons who testitfied. The book about Fisk says Fisk talked really fast and used profanities at his hearing before Garfield. Fisk wanted Grant's wife and sister to testify at the hearing too. Orville Babcock needs to be mentioned because he speculated and lost money in the Ring. McFeely (1981) mentions that Boutwell in addition to releasing Treasury gold physically shut down the New York Gold Room on Friday September 24 using bank examiners. There is a photo in the Fisk book that shows the Gold Pool speculators outside on the street. This may have been done because the Gold Room was shut down. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Garfield comes in to the picture after the scandal and is less important or as prominent in the story than Grant, Gould, Fisk and Corbin. If Garfield didn't chair the investigation committee it would have been someone else. Also, I've no objection to adding more minor details if they help to exemplify what we've already presented, and keeping in mind that they should be balanced out among other important topics throughout the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The difference with Garfield is that he was actually impartial to Grant, Julia, and Grant's sister, maybe generous. But during the Civil War Grant and Garfield did not get along with each other. As far as I know Grant never offered Garfield a federal appointment. I am all for balance in the article. The signifigance of the Garfield investigation is that it closes the Gold Panic scandal and gives Fisk's, Gould's, and Boutwell's testimony. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are all sorts of differences. The fact remains that if it wasn't for Gould, Fisk and Corbin we wouldn't even be discussing Garfield. Remember, we're talking about image size here. Garfield's pic is, nor should be, no larger than the rest, esp Grant's. It can easily be argued that Garfield may not even warrant his own picture, but I've no issues about that, either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination

Looks like we're getting close to a GA nomination. However, there is one rather important item that needs a citation. The last sentence in the Breaking the Gold Ring section : -- Speculators known as the Gold Pool scrambled to sell their holdings, and many of them, including Corbin, were ruined. -- This statement has been in the article without a cite since 2009. I've looked in White, Brands, and Smith and can't seem to find one that definitively says Corbin was ruined. We know he was in fear of such, but we need to find a source that nails the idea in no uncertain terms. Mcfeely only offers partial viewing on line, with pages 328-346 blocked out, just after the part where Gould is offering Corbin $100,000 to not dump his gold on the market and keep his revealing letter from his wife confidential from other speculators. It would seem any mention of Corbin's ruin came shortly after coverage of this episode. If you have McFeely's book could you check? Also, we'll need the page numbers for the Ackerman cites. I've ordered the book from the library and expect to have it any day now. Last, let's make sure there's no close paraphrasing to speak of. After that I suspect that the only thing that may get in the way of a GA article are the images in the gallery. Let's hope the reviewers don't go robotic on us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I think Ackerman used the term Gold Pool. I don't have a copy of the book so I can't cite what page number. Corbin was ruined on September 24 and he refused to take Gould's $100,000 check. What should be mentioned is how much Gould and Fisk made from cornering the gold market. Gould made a profit since he was secretly selling his gold having insider information from Corbin. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We still need a source that definitively says Corbin was ruined, or the passage will have to remained tagged or removed. From what I've read, Gould and Fisk came away from the investigation "unscathed ", (Smith, p. 490) but he doesn't mention how much profit, if any, they walked away with in terms of actual dollars and cents. I think it's safe to assume Gould and Fisk profited but we can't assume and say so unless we have a source that supports this assumption. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC).

McFeely

@Coemgenus and Rjensen: Do either of you happen to have McFeely, 2012? We're looking for a source that supports the idea that Abel Corbin, who was married to Grant's younger sister, was actually "ruined" by the Black Friday scandal. Can't seem to confirm this idea with any of the current sources used here. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

sorry, no. Rjensen (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have the 1981 edition, not the 2002 reprint. McFeely says of Corbin, "Because of the collapse, Corbin could not realize enough on the sale of his gold to cover the loan he had taken out to buy it. Although not altogether ruined, he did find himself in greatly diminished circumstances. The Corbins moved to Jersey City." That's page 328 in my edition, I don't know if the pagination was changed in any later reprints. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If we have to we can add your edition to the bibliography, and mention that Corbin could not make good on his loans, and let the readers decide if this amounts to actual 'ruin'. I just got Ackerman's book from the library today. Will look to see if he sheds any light on this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

McFeely (1981) does not say Corbin was ruined. Remember he had made money as a real estate speculator and lived in a mansion. He lost money on the loan. He was impoverished but not ruined. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: The other day I asked if you could check McFeely's (actual) book, hoping that you had it and am still wondering if you do. In your last edit, are you using McFeely 1981 or 2002? Our bibliography indicated 1981 but linked to the 2002 edition. (I've since corrected the date.) In any case, could you quote the passage you are referring to. Does Mcfeely actually say Corbin "lost money on his loan" or are we assuming this based on the idea that speculators in general lost money? At first your edit seemed okay but checking the source on line, Mcfeely 2002, p. 328, is not available for viewing. The original unsourced statement (added in 2004) said Corbin was "ruined", so I'm not sure if there is a source out there somewhere that says this. Still digesting Ackerman. So far as I've read he doesn't refer to Corbin directly regarding losses. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

McFeely (1981), a reliable source, says Corbin lost money on his loan. I gave the page number. I do not know if there is any difference between the 2002 text and the 1981 text. Copyrights are renewed because copyrights expire. McFeely (1981) says "...Corbin could not realize enough on the sale of his gold to cover the loan he had taken out to buy it...", on page 328. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

McFeely (1981) on page 328 says Corbin moved to Jersey City. I take this to mean that Corbin had to sell his New York mansion to make up the loss on his loan. However, McFeely does not specifically say this. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to imply that I said McFeely '81 is not a reliable source, I didn't even imply it wasn't. In any case, I removed "not completely impoverished", as the source doesn't say to what degree Corbin lost money in terms of 'ruin' or 'impoverishment'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Copyrights are renewed because copyrights expire." I should note that the 1981 edition of McFeely's Grant is under copyright still. The different date represent different editions, which sometimes mean that the pages aren't the same, but sometimes doesn't. But it's the same work, same copyright. It will remain under copyright until we are all dead. Don't know how relevant this is to your discussion, but it's a good thing to know when editing Wikipedia. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyrights expire 70 years after an authors death normally. Why? This prevents the work from going into public domain so publishers can make more profits and potentially the heirs of the author. McFeely made money on Grant, let's be honest here. I don't know how much, and I don't really care. His Pulitzer Prize, stamped on the front cover of his book, increased sales. I would like to view historians living in an ivory tower neutrally writing works without influence from money, fame, or publication. Why the 2002 copyright? Was that to extend his work to be in copyright status for another 20 years ? I don't pretend to be an attorney, but are their copyrights that last forever ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources: How Long Does Copyright Protection Last? ; Duration of Copyright Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In most cases the publisher owns and controls the copyright. Copyright law allows us to make "fair use" excerpts of a few hundred words but we cannot put the whole book on line. [the federal law on copyright fair use favors Wikipedia usage; we are helping sales not hurting them]. Rjensen (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"In General. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death." U.S. Copyright Office § 302 . Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978 Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Source: Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, of course we can exerpt, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It would be hard to publish any decent scholarship if you couldn't ever quote anyone! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is only my opinion, but I believe Wikipedia is more neutral then published biographies. There are no profit motivations, just educational, and any POV issues are disputed by editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Gould had made his fortune as a cotton smuggler during the Civil War?

The article reads "Gould had made his fortune as a cotton smuggler during the Civil War" - however, there's no mention of cotton smuggling in Gould's page. Fisk's page on the other hand, does mention cotton smuggling. Is there a mixup here? Does anyone have an actual copy of White that they can refer to in order to clear this up? --.froth. (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)