Talk:Mark Hanna

Untitled

6-29 Major changes by RJensen, some of which are based on copyright material for which Jensen holds the copyright.

---

I believe there's a mistake about Mark Hanna, the political strategist, and the congressional medal of honor and it's repeated across the internet.

http://www.lighthousedepot.com/ALF/capeelizabeth.html

There are 2 Marcus Hannas. The one in the link above was a lighthouse keeper in Maine in the 1880's...something the other Hanna obviously couldn't have been doing who had been both a medal of honor winner and who had as lighthouse keeper saved several people.

Note that the Ohio, Mark Hanna's biography mentions brief service in the civil war and never specifies what he alleged did to win the congressional medal of honor. I guess someone needs to consult a real historian....but awarding the guy the medal 1895 30 years after the war would certainly have been politically controversial given who he was. I can't find any evidence that there was any dispute or controversy about a high level republican being awarded the Medal of Honor under the democratic president Grover Cleveland...

www.chancelucky.blogspot.com for my webpage

Modern campaign

This is one of several claimants to the title of first modern campaign. It differs in degree, not in kind, from earlier campaigns; it differs equally from modern campaigns. For one thing, the tradition of "Aw shucks, I'm not running for office; my friends are too kind" was still retained.

Both wording here, as "first modern" and "forerunner", really need a source, and a real explanation. In fact, the only use of sources since 1922 seems to be in two sentences, one about who Hanna went to high school with, and one about Hanna as corporatist; in which our text is weasel-worded, and the quote in the footnote is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

Should his birthplace of Lisbon, Ohio be mentioned?

unreferenced statements

"Expected to run" against Roosevelt is oversimplified at best. Hanna knew he was too old and ill to be president but allowed some of the support for him to go on just as a means of rallying power. ("Theodore Rex" is an excellent source on this and has some great cross reference in the back). The Rove admiration thing is completely unsourced, I'd be surprised if he were so...forthcoming of his admiration of an "Old Guard" republican like Hanna who supported the Protective Tariff among other policies that I'd think would give Rove pause to actually state support seriously... That might be something you say at the gridiron club as a joke. Reboot (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

12-1 outspending?

In the article it mentions McKinley's campaign out-spent Bryan's by 12-1. However, the election of 1896 article, it says 5-1. Huge difference there.... anyone know which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.64.214 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to say. There was no campaign reporting laws in those days. McKinley's 1896 campaign, according to Charles Dawes, raised about 3.5 million. However that did not include such things as the railroads subsidizing parties going to see McKinley speak in Canton. Reporters stated it was cheaper to come to Canton than to stay at home.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

we know more about McKinley's spending thanks to Dawes, a banker, who reported the $3.5 million. The Bryan numbers are vague estimates--even Bryan had no idea. State and local spending is not counted for either man, nor is private spending--such as marching clubs buying uniforms and banners or clubs and local donors pooling money to go see McKinley or sponsor a BBQ for 3000 people coming to see Bryan.. Rjensen (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. By the way, I plan significant work on this article over the next month or six weeks. I'm doing the reading now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

One comment

I was just skimming the article when I came across a confusing phrase in the "Electoral history" section: "All elections by the Ohio General Assembly." I know that you mean that the Ohio General Assembly elected senators, as the 17th Amendment didn't come into effect until 1913, but it took me a while to figure that out. Mentioning the 17th Amendment would help clarify things, I think.

Earlier in the article (under the "McKinley partisan" section) we find this sentence: "Hanna spent much of his time working to secure Sherman's re-election by the Ohio Legislature (senators were elected by state legislatures until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913)". Adding something along those lines to the note at the top of the "Electoral history" section would be helpful, I think, as well as making it a complete sentence. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Done/--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Expulsion from college

I would be interested to find out why he was expelled from college. Mikenlesley (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Croly's book is PD in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

little suggestion

User:Wehwalt's work are always fascinating, but I have a little suggestion to this article:

I understand people mostly remember Mr. Hanna because his associate with president McKinley, but even so, some of the sections here are still too long, too many unnecessary detail. Start at "Early relationship", and go all the way to "Campaign of 1896", especially the latter, consider we already had wonderful articles like William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896 (which I have just done translating few weeks ago), I think most part about McKinley's strategy, feelings and details about this campaign but not directly invole Mr. Hanna should be cut off. For example, "McKinley had, in 1878, voted for the Bland–Allison Act, which required the government to purchase large quantities of silver bullion to be struck into money, and in 1890 had voted for the Sherman Silver Purchase Act. Despite the candidate's past friendliness towards silver currency..." We could least consider cut this line to something like "McKinley had vote for congressional act that friendliness towards silver currency"? My English is not well, hope I expressed my opinion correctly.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It was my first on the 1896 era, so it is probably a little long and detailed. But I think you need a lot of what McKinley did to explain what Hanna did. Let me give the matter some thought. The idea the distinctions between silver, gold, and paper currency are probably lost on a present day audience so I hesitate to cut too much.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

All I'm asking here is something more like William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896, section "Background", first paragraph: "William McKinley was born in Niles, Ohio, in 1843. He left college to work as a teacher, and enlisted in the Union Army when the American Civil War broke out in 1861. He served throughout the war, ending it as a brevet major. Afterwards, he attended Albany Law School in New York state, and was admitted to the bar in Ohio. He settled in Canton, Ohio, and after practicing law there, was elected to Congress in 1876, and except for short periods served there until 1891. In 1890, he was defeated for re-election, but was elected governor the following year, serving two two-year terms." I'm so impressed by this paragraph, using mininum words to summerize more than 50 years of his life, I think consider there's already main article covered, this is so much better. --Jarodalien (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Wehwalt: I'm still translating this article, but I just have a problem, what's the meaning for "Had it been usual, the freedom of Cleveland would have been conferred upon him"? I'm not quiet familiar with history of the city, and I can't see any relevant with that president, so could you help me out?--Jarodalien (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What is meant by that is Freedom of the City. That is, he was a hero in Cleveland (at least, I suppose, among those who did not favor Bryan). I haven't forgotten your other point, I've spent the last few hours sleeping. I will cut some during the course of the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of it now, do you think more needs to be cut?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient, I think those part needs to be cut, but not entirely, just reduce:

1. In 1890 McKinley was defeated for re-election to Congress. This was not seen as a major setback to his career; he was deemed beaten by Democratic gerrymandering in redistricting, and because of his sponsorship of a tariff bill—the increased tariffs had caused prices to rise. In 1891, McKinley proved the consensus choice for the Republican nomination for governor.
2. Although Harrison refused to believe that McKinley would oppose him, his political managers, dubbed the "Twelve Apostles", were less trusting, and arranged for the governor to be permanent chairman of the convention in Minneapolis—upon the podium, McKinley could be watched. They observed McKinley as the Ohio governor presided over delegates who cheered him loudly any time he spoke—his keynote address sparked wild applause. This popularity did not translate into delegate votes; Harrison's supporters were in control of the convention throughout.
3. Despite Harrison's success, McKinley was carried from the convention hall to his hotel by supporters after he adjourned the convention.

In general, I've cut the description of the 1892 convention to about half its present length.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Harrison and his adherents were unimpressed by McKinley's conduct, recalling that he had cut off talk of a candidacy in 1888, but had not done so in 1892. When McKinley led the delegation of Republican dignitaries sent to formally advise Harrison of his convention triumph, the President, angered over the "profusion of McKinley buttons, placards and streamers that littered [his] path to victory", had only a cold formal greeting for the Ohio governor.
2. McKinley campaigned loyally for President Harrison, who was defeated by former president Cleveland in the November election, and according to the governor's secretary, Charles Bawsel, "[McKinley] is bound to be the nominee for the presidency, and the very fact of the defeat this year will elect him the next time."

I've cut back part of what you quote and associated text in the above two.

1. McKinley was easily re-elected as governor in 1893. Despite the poor economic times in Ohio, he remained popular, and spoke across much of the nation for Republican candidates. He followed the usual Ohio custom and stepped down at the end of two two-year terms, returning home to Canton in January 1896 to municipal celebrations. The Canton Repository stated, "It is just plain Mr. McKinley of Canton now, but wait a little while."

I think this is necessary exposition to move into the campaign.

1. McKinley expected the election to be fought on the issue of tariffs; he was a well-known protectionist. The Democrats met in convention in July in Chicago; former Missouri congressman Richard P. Bland was deemed likely to be the nominee. As McKinley awaited his opponent, he privately commented on the nationwide debate over silver, stating to his Canton crony, Judge Day, that "This money matter is unduly prominent. In thirty days you won't hear anything about it." The future Secretary of State and Supreme Court justice responded: "In my opinion in thirty days you won't hear of anything else."

I think of this needs to be said. The Day anecdote is well-known, or at least once was, and demonstrates how mistaken McKinley (and probably Hanna) were. If anything, the nationwide fervor over silver is understated, given that it was the silver issue the Democratic Party was in the course of being taken over about.

1. Any delegation was welcome in Canton, so long as its leader wrote to McKinley in advance and introduced himself and his group. Delegations ranged up to thousands of people; if possible, delegation leaders were brought to Canton in advance to settle with McKinley what each would say. If this could not be arranged, the delegation was met at the train station by a McKinley agent, who would greet it and learn what the leader proposed to say in his address. The agent would suggest any fine-tuning necessary to make it fit within campaign themes, and send the information ahead by runner to McKinley, giving him time to prepare his response. The delegation would then march through the streets of Canton to McKinley's house, where by the end of the campaign the lawn was bare, the plants were dead, and the front porch, from which McKinley spoke, was in a state of decrepitude from souvenir hunters. McKinley was given no relief by the fall of night; delegations continued after dark thanks to the introduction of electric street lighting on the route.

--Jarodalien (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've cut this pretty heavily. It seemed good at the time, now I think it's overkill.

• Still translating, feels this line should also be cut or reduce:

1. McKinley took six states that Bryan had taken in 1896 while holding all the states he had won. Although the majority was not large by later standards, according to historian Lewis L. Gould in his study of the McKinley presidency, "in light of the election results since the Civil War, however, it was an impressive mandate."--Jarodalien (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I will look at these over the next few days but it's important to remember that Hanna was the campaign manager for the 1896 and 1900 elections, and how those campaigns were conducted were Hanna's responsibility. It's not possible to say "Hanna did this" or "Hanna ordered that" for every piece of it because the documents never existed because Hanna and McKinley preferred not to write stuff down if they didn't have to. Nevertheless, I see that some prose can be dispensed with, but it's a balance and rather subjective. And since I tried not to repeat myself in other articles, those articles might have to be adjusted--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

translation done few minutes ago, I will do the doublecheck tonight, then took a day off and look thourgh the whole article again. Thank you for consider my suggestion. After all, this is already a splendid article.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for translating. I will finish the work on what you said today. Sorry to be slow. I appreciate your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

On the last one, the Gould matter, I think that should stand. That is Hanna's accomplishment as well as McKinley. I think that is everything, though I will be happy to continue discuss matters with you. I admire you for translating, I could not do that, there is no language where I am comfortable enough to translate, it is a very impressive accomplishment by you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. When I suggest remove or reduce some sentences, I'm actually suggesting move some detail to another article, like the "Any delegation was welcome in Canton" matter above, because this part already covered in the Campaign article (also "It is just plain Mr. McKinley of Canton now, but wait a little while" & "McKinley campaigned loyally for President Harrison" etc.), so back to the Gould matter, I think sentence before this part (summerize the result) is fine, but the part I quote feels little detail, so I suggest reduce the quote. But I believe you know what's best for this article, so if you think this should keep, I'm fine with it. I may have another suggestion follow, let me think for a little while and get back to you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

There are many ways to build an article. In a decade of reviewing others' work, I have learned there is a great temptation to recast it as one would do it, but that doesn't recognize the other valid paths. I tried to strike a balance between information on a rather dull subject, the gold standard, which people don't understand, and keeping them interested so that the article isn't too dry. I do not say it is the only way, but it is a way.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Then I trust your judgment.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede is too long

The Lede needs to be summarized more. Parkwells (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)