Talk:Roscoe Conkling

This guy was no radical!!

Just because he took a hard line against the south means he is radical? He was the head of the conservative stalwart faction. YankeeRoman(70.187.232.85 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Yes indeed the radicals were the ones taking a hard line against the South, see Radical Republicans for meaning of the term. Rjensen 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The guy refused to be on the Supreme Court!!!!

He was confirmed and everything!Ericl (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible involvement in Garfireld's assanation

There is reason and evidence to think this may be the case. Should it be added to then page? 71.147.49.176 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can substantiate that, sure. I'd be curious to see why you say that. But, umm, work on your spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Campaign slogan

The page List of political slogans gives an unsourced campaign slogan to Roscoe: "A dollar a day, roast beef, and the Chinese must go." Is this for real?

People named after Roscoe Conkling

Roscoe Conklin Giles, General President of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. was also named after him. Marvinacooke (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

ex post facto

"He also championed the broad interpretation of the ex post facto clause in the Constitution (See Stogner v. California)."

The ref to Stogner vs. California needs to be replaced with one that points to something that supports this claim. There is already a link to an article on the generic concept of ex post facto. Linking to a case from the 1990s that has nothing to do with anything Conkling took an interest in, is link cancer. I don't doubt the truth of the statement, but it should be supported by specification of exactly what was "championed". I am tentatively of the opinion that this sentence should be removed if it can't be improved. But, if it is true, & I suspect it is, I'd rather see it supported. But a link to a 1990s case when there is already a better link to explain the concept, is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Complete re-draft

Hello!

I have been extensively re-drafting this article over the past few months, using the only available biography of Senator Conkling. Unfortunately, this biography was written by his own nephew and leaves a lot to be desired in terms of objectivity.

I think this redraft is highly necessary, as Conkling is absolutely one of the most influential figures in American history, certainly indispensable for understanding his own era. This article simply isn't up to snuff as it stands. However, because of my draft's size and its over-reliance on just one source, I will not be overwriting the article yet. I am posting it here for review and hopefully improvement before it can be fully transposed here. Please, feel free to edit it for quality and add reliable sources.

In particular, I want to highlight two issues I'm struggling with:

• Because of their historically sensitive nature, I've almost entirely avoided citing the biography on his conflict with Garfield and his post-retirement relationship with Arthur.
• The structure of the article is tricky; Conkling's primary role in history was at the 1876 and 1880 Republican National Conventions, so I've given them their own section, but this messes with the structure and chronology of the article. Any attempt to detangle/integrate the "U.S. Senate" and "Presidential politics" sections would be appreciated.

Obviously, I'm going to reserve the right to undo edits but since my goal is to make this suitable for use here, I don't expect to do that much.

-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)