Talk:William W. Belknap

Biographical expansion needed

Parents?

Wives (I think he was married twice)?

Children?

Thanks 68.197.49.1 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I see his daddy and wives must have been added since the above message, but so far, no mommy. Did he have any other kids besides the one? Any reference for that information? Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to update W.W. Belknap's bio article starting with photos. He had three wives. One child died. I am currently writing a Wikipedia article on his involvement with the Indian tradership post scandal (1876). Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

His mother has been added to the article. So far one son. I believe he had other children that can be listed. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated photos

Updated improved photo replaced older photos. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Added photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Who removed the improved photo? Why can't an improved photo be used for the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of War

The Secretary of War section needs expansion. This was Belknaps most signifigant position next to his American Civil War service record. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana reconstruction

I have been attempting to add information on the Louisiana reconstruction; Belknap's and the War Department's involvement. Any help would be welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Breach loaders

Historian John Koster (2010), The Belknap Scandal Fulcrum to Disaster, on page 58 contends that breach loaders and 300 repeating rifles sold to Indians at trader posts were a factor in the defeat of Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Koster I believe had based this theory on the investigation afterwards that U.S. Military breach loaders had jammed on the third round. Sec. William W. Belknap (1874), Annual report of the Secretary of War, on pages XVII-XVIII stated he gave his troops superior top of the line Springfield breach loaders. How much did the arming of Indians contribute to the defeat of Custer? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved sentence: Sec. Belknap allowed the sale of high quality breach loaders and repeating rifles to hostile American Indians that led to a fire power disadvantage for the U.S. Army and Col. George A. Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Indians might not have been "hostile" until they were attacked. Some Native Americans might view that particular wording as a form of bias.Gulbenk (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Belknap Resignation

Did President Grant really ask for Belknap's resignation? There seem to be reports to the contrary. Specifically that Belknap begged the President to allow him to resign, and that the President (evidently moved by Belknap's plea) accepted, and helped him draft the resignation letter. If this is true (and not some sort of ex post facto 19th century spin, to cover up the fact that Grant asked for the resignation in order to protect his brother, who was also involved in trader post payoffs) then the article needs to be reworded. Gulbenk (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The article currently says Belknap asked Grant to resign. Grant accepted his explanation and accepted his resignation. Politically that helped Grant not having a cabinet member under investigation and impeachment charges. It also helped Belknap not get impeached by the Senate. It also probably helped the soldier who was forced to buy goods at the suttler forts. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Name entry

I wonder why the article is called "William W. Belknap" instead of "William Worth Belknap" or "W. W. Belknap". Is this a WP style thing? He was just as likely, if not even more so, to be called "W. W. Belknap" in his lifetime. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

William Worth Belknap is a possibility. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on William W. Belknap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111123061817/http://www.artofthepossibleonline.com/2009/07/james-webster-smith-and-henry-o-flipper.html to http://www.artofthepossibleonline.com/2009/07/james-webster-smith-and-henry-o-flipper.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Illegality of kickbacks

This may be a moot subject, but did the 1870 law directly exclude kickbacks from the traderships ? Belknap was charged by the House for taking illegal payments. Of course what Belknap did was accept extortion payments, but I don't think he was charge with extortion. Is there any clarity on this issue ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, in May, 1876, the federal grand jury returned a true bill against Belknap, and he was indicted. These were the indictments that Judge Arthur MacArthur dismissed in early 1877. The indictments specifically charged Belknap with accepting bribes from Caleb Marsh and John Evans with respect to the tradership at Fort Sill. In all, there were six or seven counts -- one for each time they could verify that Belknap had accepted a payment from 1873 to 1876. My primary source for this summary is a newspaper story -- "The Belknap Indictment", which appeared on page 1 of the "Cincinnati Star" for May 10, 1876.

In short, I conclude that taking kickbacks for the traderships was illegal, even by the lax standards of the times. If Belknap's actions had not been illegal, the grand jury would not have voted a true bill.

Billmckern (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Billmckern. Bribery makes sense although he had the power by law to make sutler appointments. Seems like he was extorting money rather then bribery. His third wife was never indicted I presume. Grant apparently had his Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont, known to be a reformer, look to find criminal activity but apparently did not find any. It may help the reader to know what exactly he was impeached for and what he was indicted for. Also, why didn't Pierrepont find any criminal activity ? Political reasons ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I found the articles of impeachment in the Senate trial record, which is available on Google Books. The articles against Belknap included: making an illegal contract with Marsh and Evans; illegally receiving payment from Marsh; and illegally appointing Evans to the Fort Sill Tradership. The specifications in the articles of impeachment listed every payment from Marsh to Belknap that could be verified between 1870 and 1876.

If I read the witness testimony in the Senate trial record correctly, Belknap's wives were not accused of wrongdoing even though there was evidence of payments to them, because the wives were presumed to be "middle men" between Belknap and Marsh, and Belknap was the one who was committing the illegal acts.

Sources I checked, like William Worth Belknap: An American Disgrace indicated that Pierrepont put a guard on the Belknaps after William Belknap had resigned -- in order to make sure they didn't try to flee the country before investigations could be completed and charges filed. Several state that Grant directed Pierrepont to investigate Belknap, and that Pierrepont decided there was not enough evidence to sustain an indictment. They don't lay out Pierrepont's rationale.

If I had to guess, maybe Grant didn't want Pierrepont to push too hard on the Belknap investigation -- trying to demonstrate loyalty and contain the damage like he had during the Whiskey Ring prosecutions. Or maybe Pierrepont being nominated for Minister to England short-circuited his investigation of Belknap. Those are only guesses though -- I couldn't find anything definitive in the sources I checked.

Billmckern (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting. The court indictment had to with bribery and the Senate trial had to do with receiving illegal payments. I am not sure there is much difference. Both seemed to be after Belknap, rather then Marsh or Belknap's wives. That would suggest possibly some political motivations in Belknap's indictments and charges of corruption. I don't know if Marsh was charged with anything or he may have received immunity for being a witness. The responsibility for all of this does belong to Belknap and it also explains why his reputation was utterly ruined. Maybe it should be mentioned Pierrepont put a gaurd on Belknap from fleeing the country. It would be good to know why Pierrepont did not prosecute Belknap or if his nomination as Minister to England had anything to do with the Belknap indictments. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I made some changes to the lede in the first paragraph trying to make the wording more neutral. I used the term "illegal payments" that was used by the House but kept the Kickback (bribery) link. I added political motivation from Democratic party, Belknap's support of Grant's Reconstruction policy. Belknap was in charge of money as an Internal Revenue collector in Iowa. There were no scandals while he held this position. Only when he got to Washington did he become corrupted apparently. Feel free to make any changes to lede or revisions. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I rewrote the lede to say "...illegal payments, known as kickbacks,..." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

8000 salary

Was it possible for any Cabinet member, including Belknap, to live off $8,000 a year in Washington D.C. ? I don't know if there are any sources. I know Judge Hoar, Grant's U.S. Attorney General, an honest man free of corruption, had trouble coming up with paying expenses to live in Washington D.C. It may help the article neutrality if readers knew $8,000 was not enough or a least the minimum to live at the Capitol. The other issue is that Cabinet members were subject to being fired at will by President Grant. I don't think Cabinet members, including the President, had any retirement pay at that time. There is also the issue of abandonment by wives and families. Was it common for wives to leave husbands if husbands went broke in the Gilded Age ? Cmguy777 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

According to The Inflation Calculator, $8,000 in 1876 was equal to more than $183,000 in 2016. The current salary for cabinet secretaries is $205,700. I believe that most cabinet secretaries are well off enough that a salary of over $200,000 is probably low compared to what they're used to making, but even so, the equivalent of $183,000 in 1876 seems to me to be pretty good pay.

I would also assume that Belknap made more as the federal revenue collector in Iowa, since individuals in those positions received a percentage of what they collected. For officials in such positions, like the collectors of the ports, the moiety system made them wealthy. For instance, as Collector of the Port of New York, Chester Arthur was making $50,000 a year above his $6,000 salary -- the equivalent of over $1.1 million today -- before customs collectors were placed on straight salaries. Some of the sources I checked are not explicit, but seem to indicate that Belknap's salary as the federal revenue collector in Iowa was $6,000 annually. During his time in that position -- over three years -- he was able to acquire real estate worth more than $15,000, and stocks and bonds worth about $8,000. To me, this is a pretty clear indication that the percentage he collected was much more than his salary.

Bottom line -- I would think Belknap could have managed on $8,000 a year as Secretary of War. In addition to that, it seems to me that his savings and investments from his time as the revenue collector in Iowa should have sustained him if his salary wasn't sufficient.

As for the third Mrs. Belknap (Amanda) deserting her husband, I don't have any sources, but my first thought is that she fled to escape prosecution. My second thought is that she fled with the loot, so that it wouldn't be seized by the authorities.

I read newspaper accounts about the settling of Belknap's estate; his wife renounced her right to administer it, and allowed his son Hugh to do so. The estate amounted to about $2,000 in insurance policies, shares of stock in several companies, an ownership interest in a DC newspaper, and an ownership interest in an invention for removing obstructions on street railways. There's no total value placed on Belknap's property, but I would assume that it must have been $10,000 or more. I'd guess the Belknaps weren't poor, even after his resignation as Secretary of War.

I know Amanda and William Belknap remained married, and Edward S. Cooper's book and other sources I checked indicated that she and her husband saw each other periodically -- she didn't stay in Paris permanently, but spent time in the Catskills, on Coney Island, and at other resorts and vacation spots. In addition to that, Belknap and his second and third wives are buried together at Arlington National Cemetery. He died in 1890, and newspaper accounts I checked indicate that Amanda was present at his funeral. Amanda died in 1916 -- if she had totally deserted him, and wanted to be buried elsewhere, she certainly could have done so.

Billmckern (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Billmckern for the signfigant informaton on Belknap. That makes a lot of sense. I would think that Belknap would have plenty of money as a tax collector coming into Washington D.C. probably more then Judge Hoar. $183,000 sounds reasonable in modern value. That would be $15,250 a month modern standard or about $667 dollars a month during Belknap's time. But then what was the cost of living in Washington D.C. per year or month ? Did it require the purchase of a home ? Grant as President had the White House. His secretaries had to find their own places. Hamilton Fish, Grant's Secretary of State, was super wealthy but I believe he lived very modestly in Washington D.C. working late hours. I guess this boils down to a matter of lifestyles rather then not enough money to pay the bills. All of the reformers on Grant's cabinet seemed to have a tendency to be humble, where money did not have a high priority on their lifestyles, or there was some sort of honesty in them, that Belknap, Carita, and Amanda lacked, that kept them from taking bribes. It seems there was some split between Belknap and Amanda after his Senate Trial. Maybe their marriage was hurt by the scandal, but somehow reconciled in later years. I ask these questions in an effort to keep the article neutral. It appears the only motive for taking the bribes was to live a lavish lifestyle, or at best there was some sort of peer pressure system in the city to see who could live the most lavish lifestyle, a competition among society couples. It might help to put in the article what Belknap's current salary equalled in today's standards. That way the readers can understand that he was making decent money, and apparently coupled with savings from his days as Iowa tax collector, could pay the bills, even the purchase of a house. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there's something to that. I know that the president and the cabinet secretaries and their wives used to hold large receptions during the social season; to accommodate this expectation, Belknap and his second wife leased the mansion that had previously been the residence of William H. Seward. When he married his third wife, they leased an even bigger house in a different part of town.

Billmckern (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source that says cabinet secretaries and wives held lavish parties ? Not to excuse just plain dishonesty and criminal behavior on the part of Belknap and the sister wives. It would help the reader understand 19th Century way of life or decadence. I don't think the article should put blame on his wives. Belknap did take the bribes for three years on his own without any influence from wives. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

William Worth Belknap: An American Disgrace mentions that Belknap and his second wife leased the mansion that had been Seward's residence.

The Life and Times of Benjamin Helm Bristow mentions that Belknap and his third wife moved to another large house in a different part of town.

William Babcock Hazen: The Best Hated Man describes the expectation that cabinet members and their wives would have parties and receptions; the Belknaps hosted one with over 1,200 guests.

When I have time I'll try to dig up some press accounts of the various parties and receptions; I'm sure they were covered in the newspapers and magazines of the day.

Billmckern (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Cooper (2005) says that $8,000 could not support this party lifestyle in Washington D.C. That is motivation for bribery. The lease of the mansions in addition to the party lifestyle added up. Any descriptions of the Belknap's 1,200 guest party would be great for the article. It is understandable why the Democrats would be envious and suspicious of how Belknap ran his War Department. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I think Belknap's biography would be worthy of a Good Article nomination. It might increase viewership to the Belknap article. Belknap was in office over six years and his policies were controversial. Any suggestions on how to get Belknap's biography to Good Article status ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead was too long and other editing changes

I've reduced the Lead, which is probably still too long. It is supposed to be summary of most important material and was too detailed. Legacy and review of entire career does not belong here and is being moved to later. I'm also editing other sections for proportionParkwells (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Reputation

I had thought Belknap's reputation, at the War Department, and among Union veterans, remained intact. That was my intent of the edit that was removed. Publically, his reputation was damaged for the rest of his life. No need to revert the previous edit. Just giving some clarification. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: I think you're right that Belknap was held in high regard by Union veterans. But his misconduct at the War Department was the reason for his resignation and impeachment, so I believe that aspect of his career was considered a mark against his reputation.

Billmckern (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes Belknaps reputation was marred by misconduct at the War Department. I was referring to the person's at the War Department who worked under Belknap. Did the actual War Department ever condemn Belknap's misconduct under successive administrations? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A History of the War Department of the United States (1880) Ingersoll talks about the reputation of Belknap. Found on Google books. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Interesting question. As far as I've been able to find out in this afternoon's research, the allegations of bribery against Belknap, which were corroborated after an investigation, originated with General William Babcock Hazen. Hazen was backed up by Army officers George Armstrong Custer and Benjamin Grierson, though General William T. Sherman defended Belknap.

Overall, I'd say there's something to the idea that people in the War Department contemporaneous to Belknap were critical of him.

Billmckern (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The Army, including Hazen and Custer were critical of Belknap for misconduct. Yes. I was referring to the War Department, unless Hazen worked at the War Department. Ingersoll (1880) said Belknap was abused. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the article should include Ingersoll (1880) as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A History of the War Department of the United States Cmguy777 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoted Ingersoll (1880) Seems like Belknap had both defenders and detractors in 1880. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)