Talk:Alexander Ramsey

Untitled

March-July 1863 how was he both a US Senator and Governor at the same time ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.38.11 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Dakota history

This article favors Ramsey over the Dakota. I added a POV template because a reliable source exists to correct this. Dr. Anderson is a Pulitzer nominee. I hope someone will look into the problem and fix it. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Also here is former Governor Mark Dayton's statement that repudiates Ramsey's position. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• SusanLesch: I have removed the unsourced statement. A preliminary view of the book you cite does not make the claim given in the article. As Superintendent of Indian Affairs, Governor Ramsey was tasked with making treaties with the Indians (the Mdewakanton are frequently noted) to sell their land to the U.S. government for settlement. The Indians had accrued debts, which Ramsey initially sought to allay in the treaties; however, the Congress passing a law prohibiting that practice, he instead raised the value of land (in the treaties) so that he could recoup the relative surplus for the Indian debts. I have not seen a place in the book where the causation alluded to in the uncited sentence in the article is justified, or even presented—although, of course, I may have missed a passage. (In addition, as this article deals with Ramsey himself, I believe that it is only necessary to dwell on his justifications for denouncing the Indians.) I believe that his actions as superintendent should be noted; but I do not believe that they should be noted in that paragraph. If you could place that statement appropriately, I can remove the template. I see now that the statement of Governor Dayton makes those claims; but he is not a historian, but rather a politician; and I see more rhetoric than historical analysis in that statement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Hello, TE(æ)A,ea. I'm sorry but am in school right now and unable to re-read the book for you at this time. Maybe someone else will step up. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Without reading more, it is an obvious and sourced fact that Ramsey and others diverted funds to themselves (pp. 26–33). For example, "Ramsey had few intentions of using the massive appropriations for removal; he mostly planned to give the funds to himself, traders, and others who assisted in getting the agreements."-SusanLesch (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• I see now that I was reading a different chapter. Reading over some more of it, this seems like (unfortunately) routine levels of government corruption; a subject for another paragraph, perhaps, although the coverage in the book is quite negative and more limited to the effect on Minnesota, but I think it not appropriate in justifying the inclusion of that paragraph. Officers charged by the government to safeguard and properly distribute moneys not properly distributing them is not really surprising, no matter the intended final destination of the appropriations, especially at the time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I restored the sentence. This time I cited it. Thanks for drawing attention to an uncited claim. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I have changed around some of the wording, and added a better source for his quote. How does it look? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks very nice. I'm trying to track down the Wingerd ref at the end of the paragraph. Those "ccc..." page numbers come from Google Books and not from the printed book. Thank you for your contributions to this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• That paragraph is sourced to General Order No. 44 and a History of Minnesota. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you've fixed it thanks. Correction, her name is not Wingard, it is Wingerd. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)