Talk:John Rutledge

Death

How did he die? Jsaurman (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

This text originally from http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/south_carolina.html

and should be in the public domain in the US.

Did he resign?

In Thomas Johnson (Maryland), it says Rutledge resigned. On this page, it sounds like he was rejected over the chief justice nomination but remained as an associate justice (later resigned or retired). What's the whole story? -- Toytoy July 2, 2005 04:06 (UTC)

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States says he resigned March 5, 1791. Later, of course, he was reappointed as Chief Justice, but it was a recess appointment and his term ended as soon as the Senate refused to confirm the appointment. — Phil Welch 3 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)

---

There are inconsistent dates in Wiki for when Rutledge began as Chief Justice. I see 1 July, and 12 August. What is the correct date?

Norm

---

John Rutledge, elder brother of Edward Rutledge, signer of the Declaration of Independence, was born into a large family at or near Charleston, SC, in 1739. He received his early education from his father, an Irish immigrant, and physician, and from an Anglican minister and a tutor. After studying law at London's Middle Temple in 1760, he was admitted to English practice. But, almost at once, he sailed back to Charleston to begin a fruitful legal career and to amass a fortune in plantations and slaves. Three years later, he married Elizabeth Grimke, who eventually bore him 10 children, and moved into a townhouse, where he resided most of the remainder of his life. In 1761, Rutledge became politically active. That year, on behalf of Christ Church Parish, he was elected to the provincial assembly and held his seat until the War for Independence. For 10 months in 1764, he temporarily held the post of provincial attorney general. When the troubles with Great Britain intensified about the time of the Stamp Act in 1765, Rutledge, who hoped to ensure continued self-government for the colonies, sought to avoid severance from the British and maintained a restrained stance. He did, however, chair a committee of the Stamp Act Congress that drew up a petition to the House of Lords. In 1774, Rutledge was sent to the First Continental Congress, where he pursued a moderate course. After spending the next year in the Second Continental Congress, he returned to South Carolina and helped reorganize its government. In 1776, he served on the committee of safety and took part in the writing of the state constitution. That year, he also became president of the lower house of the legislature, a post he held until 1778. During this period, the new government met many stern tests. In 1778, the conservative Rutledge, disapproving of democratic revisions in the state constitution, resigned his position. The next year, however, he was elected as governor. It was a difficult time. The British were invading South Carolina, and the military situation was desperate. Early in 1780, by which time the legislature had adjourned, Charleston was besieged. In May it fell, the American army was captured, and the British confiscated Rutledge's property. He ultimately escaped to North Carolina and set about attempting to rally forces to recover South Carolina. In 1781, aided by Gen. Nathanael Greene and a new Continental Army force, he reestablished the government. In January 1782, he resigned the governorship and took a seat in the lower house of the legislature. He never recouped the financial losses he suffered during the war. In 1782-83, Rutledge was a delegate to the Continental Congress. He next sat on the state chancery court (1784) and again in the lower house of the legislature (1784-90). One of the most influential delegates at the Constitutional Convention, where he maintained a moderate nationalist stance and chaired the Committee of Detail, he attended all the sessions, spoke often and effectively, and served on five committees. Like his fellow South Carolina delegates, he vigorously advocated southern interests. The new government under the Constitution soon lured Rutledge. He was a Presidential elector in 1789 and Washington then appointed him as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, but for some reason he apparently served only a short time. In 1791, he became chief justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. Four years later, Washington again appointed him to the U.S. Supreme Court, this time as Chief Justice to replace John Jay. But Rutledge's outspoken opposition to Jay'sTreaty (1794) and the intermittent mental illness he had suffered from since the death of his wife in 1792, caused the Federalist-dominated Senate to reject his appointment and end his public career. Meantime, however, he had presided over one term of the Court. Rutledge died in 1800 at the age of 60 and was interred at St. Michael's Episcopal Church in Charleston. this is all factual... I just copied my report and put it on here By unknown

Is that even worth keeping?

All of the trivia about who is related to who is honestly quite cumbersome, and not encyclopedic at all. I'm going to take it out in a few days unless anyone objects. I'll put it here, so that none of you have any reason to be distressed if you'd like to put it back. Captain Scotch 00:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

.....

I am doing a report for social studies on John Rutledge and none of the places I have been going to have his religion. So...what's his religion?

--71.50.213.145 15:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Talisha

Anglican. He is buried at St. Michael's Church in downtown Charleston. Gamecock 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Eating habits

Is there a citation for the bit about him eating gavels? If not, how can this be in the entry?

Response: That was in America the Book by Jon Stewart and was a joke. It has been edited out and whoever wrote that in the article either wasn't aware it was a joke or thought that they were funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.134.176 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

constitutional convention???

im doing a civics project and i dont know what his role was in the

constitutional convention. dose any one know or know where i can find

the info. if so plese tell--- thanxs!!

Mental illness

As Chief Justice, he was insane: John Adams explained that the Senate feared his "accelerated and increased ... Disorder of the Mind."[Laboratory of Justice, The Supreme Court's 200 Year Struggle to Integrate Science and the Law, by David L. Faigman, First edition, 2004, p. 34; Smith, Republic of Letters, 501] due to severe depression of his wife's death. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

End of term as Chief Justice

The infobox said that Rutledge's recess appointment ended on December 15, 1795, but that is incorrect. It is the date the Senate rejected his appointment, but under Article II Section 2 a recess appointment ends at the expiry of the next session, which was June 1, 1796 (see 4th United States Congress#Dates of sessions). This article (see "Later years") states that he left office on December 28 (and gives a source), so he must have resigned -- so I have amended the date to December 28. Richard75 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this defy the laws of science?

"However, the fort’s walls were made out of soft palmetto palm trees, and the British cannonballs simply sank into the logs without doing any damage. Some bounced off the sponge logs and bounced back hitting the very British ships that fired them." A cannonball can be fired from offshore, hit a palmetto log and rebound the same distance from which it was fired? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.218.195 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

References

This article has references and the exclusion of Find a Grave, that is considered unreliable as a reference, will not hinder the article nor deprive it of any pertinent information. Otr500 (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a source at least for a picture and the location of the gravesite ONLY. It would seem that is the essential function of Find a Grave, and by and large they do it quite well. It was NOT being used for any other purpose (although they did have an OK article on John Rutledge). I also put it back as an external link. This whole "unreliability because it is a wiki" argument is ironic considering where we are debating it. In any event, it is essentially cumulative (except for the picture). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with external links. Regardless of a debate, that has not yet found any consensus to remove as an external link, Find a Grave fails as a reliable source. I do have a problem with a source being used that consensus "has" so far shown to be unreliable. I have added some back as external links and have tagged some. Articles I tag I plan to revisit when I can. I think that more should be involved in correcting mistakes so thanks. Otr500 (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Remove reverted reference

I missed that Find a Grave was being added back as a reference. IMBD is considered an unreliable source even though it has certain managerial editorial control that Find a Grave lacks. The statement, " This whole "unreliability because it is a wiki" argument is ironic considering where we are debating it. ", has nothing to do with any wiki arguement concerning references. Find a Grave is under discussion as an external link, but those discussions aside, Find a Grave fails:

• 1)-WP:SOURCES; Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• 2)- WP:NOTRELIABLE; Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.
• 3)- WP:SELFPUBLISH; Find a Grave is user edited and uses anonymous or pseudonymous editors.
• 4)- WP:SPS]; This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Find a Grave is not currently specifically named as is IMBd but falls under "and so forth" but we can (and probably will) seek inclusion by name as it may be necessary for clarification.
• Add to this the fact of:
• 5)- WP:CHALLENGE; This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation.
• 6)- WP:BURDEN; The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.

The use of Find a Grave as an external link is acceptable but not as a source or reference. While I understand, "This is a source at least for a picture and the location of the gravesite ONLY", the fact can not be ignored that it is considered unreliable, by policy and guidelines. Find a Grave is even considered unreliable by some proponents of the Find a Grave project, other editors, as well as the Find a Grave project page, Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people#When adding information to articles, that states, " Find-A-Grave is not considered a reliable source ", as well as, " If you add facts from Find-A-Grave into the article, add Find-A-Grave as an external link, not a source,...."

I challenged the reliability of the reference that I removed. It is the burden of an editor that restores such material to provide proof of reliability and Find a Grave clearly fails numbers 1 through 4 above. I am removing this reference again and it can be added back and we can seek dispute resolution, or we can bring this to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for consensus, but I feel I have provided clear and ample supported reasoning for the removal as a reference. It should be noted that the information is not lost as it was duplicated in the external links and is still included. Otr500 (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an old story. The fact is that you have bowdlerized the discussion, and ignore the fact that where Justice Rutledge is buried is corroborated by good sources. Find a Grave is a good sourcee for the location and pictures of a gravesite. It is routinely used in Wikipedia, and the discussions on this issue so reflect. You have chosen to disregard that and the limited usage. There is no consensus, and you -- gentle editor -- are not the arbiter, nor does ipse dixit apply. Show all of us where this Find a Grave article is unreliable, and stop youir sloganeering 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your verbiage is very impressive. I am especially touched by your use of "gentle" pejoratives. However, all the big words you choose to use does not circumvent the facts that I did add to the discussion the numbered reasons that you apparently chose to ignore when replying. Your statement, Show all of us where this Find a Grave article is unreliable, and stop youir sloganeering, simply appears (to me) to be words with no meaning. I did not miss the fact that you stated "...this Find a Grave article is unreliable,..." and I can appreciate the fact that Find a Grave has merit. I can also state with certainty that you did not address any of the reasons stated that provides that Find a Grave is not acceptable as a reference, more especially since it is addressed by the Find a Grave project and other editors. Either you did not see what was stated or simply decided to ignore the facts. You also did not provide any instances where there are exceptions (limited usage) to allow the use of Find a Grave as a source. The fact that Find a Grave has been "routinely used" as a source or reference on Wikipedia does not make it any less wrong. I read, "It is routinely used in Wikipedia, and the discussions on this issue so reflect" and would like to challenge you to point these discussions out to me. The on-going discussions are concerning use as an external link and I support this. It is "not" as use as a source. I would also, again for the record, state that I like Find a Grave and IMBd. However, just as Wikipedia is not an acceptable source (with exceptions on self usage) neither Find a Grave not IMBd (that has more editorial control) are acceptable, by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as a source or reference. I did not make the guidelines and because I choose to follow those does not make me anything less than a good editor. This is not an old story but one editor that is following what is listed in the guidelines. If we would like to change them then lets do that. If you or another editor can show me exceptions (valid) then I will amend my thoughts accordingly. Until then I would suggest reading the guidelines I listed (and the Find a Grave project page) one more time and using rationale to explain any misinterpretation I may have in applying those to Find a Grave as a source. Otr500 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I had missed your edit. I would only respectfully suggest that I was not maligning you or your work as an editor. I understand your principled position, and I continue to recognize WP:civil as being a mutual obligation. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Chief Justice of ... ?

I've reverted a recent edit to the info box. While it is true that at the time Rutledge was Chief Justice, the position was called "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court", that position was re-named after the Civil War to "Chief Justice of the United States" by Congress (the Constitution makes no direct mention of what the title should be, other than "chief justice"). Since the info box is listing him as the second in a long line of what are currently called Chief Justice of the United States, and since Jay, Ellsworth, Marshall, and Taney all have info boxes conforming to the idea of calling these people by the current title, I've modified the info box accordingly. I have, however, left the text in the first paragraph alone; it's not clear that that correctly states the title at the time, but it is at least clear in its meaning. Doug (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Rutledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c20_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930024116/http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=88b753b45880a010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD to http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=88b753b45880a010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

First or 31st

Apparently Rutledge was the first governor under the first SC constitution under the U.S. Constitution but 31st governor going back through colonial times. I changed the text of the article to "first" after someone else made the same change in the inbox. I don't really much care which is used but the article should be consistent and it sould be made clear in the article how the numbering is determined. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Rutledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202044045/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/history/supremecourthistory_history_chief_002rutledge.htm to http://www.supremecourthistory.org/history/supremecourthistory_history_chief_002rutledge.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Chief Justice of South Carolina

Despite having many other responsibilities, and preferring to work on Virginia articles, I added this to the infobox after hearing it on an audiobook (based on a book by a recently deceased U.S.Supreme Court justice), and confirming it with both the Brittanica.com article about this man, and the admittedly grossly incomplete list of chief justices of South Carolina. I noticed that the numbering in the infobox was odd, but do not have the time to check if someone removed this material. BTW, the backward list of Chief Justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court only does back to John Belton O'Neall who began serving shortly before the American Civil War and died in 1863 (during the conflict--the article is extremely sketchy), the wikipedia's list of South Carolina supreme court justices says (and is) sketchy. I added Aedenus Burke as his successor because that man's term as Chief Justice in South Carolina began in 1796, the year after this man began his ill-starred term on the U.S. Supreme Court, and noted that the other two men currently on that list from the 1790s have articles stating that they were only associate justices on that court. I suspect that court was actually named the Court of Appeals, as in Virginia of that day, and one of those articles has a mistaken link to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which as in Virginia of the present day, is an intermediate appellate court, not that state's highest court. Anyhow,this man's biography is not available in the library where I'm writing right now (which is closing in 5 minutes), and I don't know when I'll be able to look at it.Jweaver28 (talk) Jweaver28 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)