Talk:Aztec Club of 1847

Lists of members

I disagree with the way these lists of members have been added, and I especially disagree with the "highest rank" associated with each individual, since virtually none of those ranks have anything to do with the individuals as members of the society. I suggest splitting off the list of members into a new article: List of members of the Aztec Club of 1847. By creating a stand alone list, a larger amount of trivia (such as ranks much later achieved) can be better integrated. Unless objection is raised, I'll boldly split this off in a few days. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Second ranking American patriotic society" in age?

Under the heading "Origins", the article states "The Aztec Club of 1847 is, in point of age, the second ranking American patriotic society, coming next after the Society of the Cincinnati." I'm not at all convinced this is accurate. According to its own website, the Aztec Club was founded on Oct. 13, 1847, which was during the middle of that War, and its original name was just "the Aztec Club". Furthermore, the Aztec's website describes its founding thus: "The Club was organized for the purpose of forming a resort for officers, as a promoter of good fellowship, and of furnishing a home where they could pass their leisure hours in social intercourse, and where more palatable and healthful viands could be procured at a reduced price than at the best Fandas of the city". That description is substantially different from the description of the organization today (an hereditary and patriotic society). The main rivals that I know of to that claim are those called "The Society of the War of 1812", which are actually two different groups -- one called "the Military Society...", and the other being a confederation of State organizations that are collected under a national umbrella called "the General Society..." According to the website of the Military Society, "The Military Society of the War of 1812 was formed 03 January 1826 by officers of the War of 1812 to press for pensions and bounty land legislation." Military Society website. According to the website of the General Society, "In 1841 the Defenders [the original name of the veterans of the War of 1812] met to establish a more formal organization. The following year a national encampment was held, with veterans attending from Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia. President John Tyler reviewed the parading veterans. On the 14th of May 1842 the veterans received their first organizational charter in Maryland recorded in the Circuit court of Baltimore as 'The Association of the Defenders of Baltimore' and had as their purposes the encouraging of love of country, commemoration of the war, defraying of funeral expenses of veterans who were impoverished and the education of their children." Gen's Society website Consequently, I think it's difficult to prove the claim that the Aztec was founded first, given that its purpose has totally changed since its foundation, whereas the Maryland chapter of the Society of the War of 1812 had been chartered in 1841 with the same explicit purpose that it retains today. I don't have a dog in this race, but I think that the claim in the Aztec's article should be changed. Thoughts? Bricology (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since an editor needs it explicitly spelled out ...

Specific issues of this article that require to be addressed:

• Second sentence, first paragraph, Origins section: "Included in the roster of original members, which lists some 160 military officers are, in the words of K. Jack Baurer, "most of the major figures of the Mexican War army and a large group whose fame would come a decade and a half later as leaders of the Union and Confederate Armies in the Struggle of 1861-1865." The cite is to "Bauer, page 327," and nothing more. This is a completely inadequate citation and should be corrected or promptly removed.

I added the cite you mention.Info update (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Fourth sentence, first paragraph: "By an Act of Congress, its medal is to this day authorized for wear on America's military uniforms." I challenge this, cited in the one source (and we'll get to that) or no. The DoD Awards Manual doesn't mention this. The Army's regulations on military awards don't mention this. All Frank Foster's very comprehensive guidebook to Army medals and insignias mentions the Aztec Club medal only in the context that the government declined to strike medals for the Mexican War, and that the Aztec Club was one of the entities that did so for its own members. A direct reference to a US government document is required.

I edited and provided the cite.Info update (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Second and third sentences, fifth paragraph: "Of these, three have been elected to and have administered that great office. Two of its members have been candidates for Vice President of the United States, John A. Logan and Simon Bolivar Buckner, and a long line of its distinguished members have held high place in Congress, in the professions and other prominent fields of civic authority and in the Army, Navy and Marine Corps." "Great office?" "Distinguished members?" "High place?" All WP:PEACOCK violations.

• Third paragraph, Hereditary Society section: "Following the War of the Rebellion (America's Civil War), members of the Aztec Club began a series of significant annual meetings which resulted in the Club's evolution into a hereditary society which exists to this day." "Significant?" Says who? Another PEACOCK violation, and uncited.

• Fourth paragraph: "Undoubtedly one of the more memorable annual meetings of this time period, the members gathered on September 14, 1874 at Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. The main focus of this meeting was the growing desire to position the Aztec Club for the future, thereby ensuring its perpetuity." More PEACOCK violations. Undoubtedly, more memorable, according to whom? Also uncited.

• Fifth paragraph: "At 7 o'clock, P. M., September 14, 1874, in pursuance of the invitation of General Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States, a member of the Club, the members present repaired to the White House to dine with him. They were received by the President and Mrs. Grant, and at half past seven were ushered into Dinner in the State Dining Room." Completely aside from the trivial level of detail, this whole paragraph is trivia. So what? It's also a word-for-word copyvio from the Aztec Club's website.

• Sixth paragraph: Also trivia. No doubt any club with eminent members has meetings with eminent members in them. This is also a copyvio.

• Final paragraph: "Attending the meeting was a galaxy of stars from the Civil War, both Union and Confederate, brothers in arms during the Mexican War, many of whom as fate would have it were on opposite sides of the War of the Rebellion. Following the Civil War, they reunited recognizing that yet another burden had been placed upon them—that of bringing the war-torn country back together again." This is completely fan page-ish (quite aside from the heap of PEACOCK terms), and it's little surprise that we see it's wholly sourced from the Aztec Club's website. This is also, unsurprisingly, a copyvio.

Other issues include that there's only one "independent" source, this book of Breithaupt's. I'm quite startled to find that it's not in the collection of any library in central or western Massachusetts, nearly 200 public libraries and including the libraries of ten colleges, including the University of Massachusetts collection. This makes it extremely difficult to verify any statement in the article. Another issue is for a society that claims to still be in existence, there's nothing in this article to suggest that it didn't die out a century ago. What's the society's history after 1885? Where is it headquartered? Are their chapters? How many members does it have? What activities does it hold? How do you become a member? Rather ominously, the cited website doesn't answer these questions either. At all. It's entirely a history site.

I have located and added several cites. The rarity of the book by Breithaupt (sells for -500 on Amazon) perhaps explains why it is not in large circulation, but I found it in several scholarly libraries, including: New England Historic Genealogical Society (Boston), United States Military Academy Library (West Point), New York Public Library, Smithsonian Institution, Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh, Gettysburg College, US Army Heritage & Education Center (U. S. Army War College). Naval War College, United States Naval Academy (Nimitz Library), University of Baltimore Library, Combined Arms Research Library, U. S. Army Command and General Staff College, U. S. Marine Corps Historical Center, St. Louis County Library, Los Angeles Public Library, Huntington Library, UCLA Library, California State Library (Sutro), UC Berkeley Library, Library of Virginia, Roanoke Public Library, etc. As to whether the Club is still in existence, while respectfully seems irrelevant, in 2010 the U. S. Government granted the Club three trademarks. I note on the Club's web site recent publications, a calendar of events, etc. The web site, which is not solely a history site, has several pages about the organization's visit to Mexico in 1997, and there a letter from President Ronald Reagan congratulating the Club on its 142nd anniversary in 1988. The Aztec Club is listed in the Social Register. Rhode Island Criminal Statute § 11-14-4, P.L. 1996, ch. 390, § 1, Unauthorized wearing of organizational insignia, sets forth a penalty for someone not a member of the Aztec Club wearing its insignia. All confirm the organization's existence. Info update (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's all very well and good for Zigzig20s to drop a snippy edit summary and revert legitimate tags. It would've been a great deal better for Zigzig20s to recognize that there are numerous problems in this article, and that they need prompt addressing, and I'm quite startled that an editor with over 67,000 edits failed to notice. (Come to that, I'm going to eliminate those copyvios right now.) Ravenswing 09:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

too biased

How could you not mention Robert E. Lee! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.7.15 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)