Talk:Smedley Butler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Smedley Butler (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Military work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Central America, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 1934 coup

Why "See Also Chesty Puller" ? Sivamo 08:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose because he was also (in his own time) the most highly decorated soldier in the U.S. I'm not sure the link is appropriate. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:51, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it is very appropriate either, but, what I do think would be appropriate would be a link to a page of famous Marines. (As a nitpick, Chesty Puller was a Marine, not a soldier.) However, I am not offering to create such a nice page (of famous Marines), so, there's not so much point in me going on about it, is there ? :) (And to be clear, I don't mean a page of famous people who were Marines; I mean a page of Marine heroes, as it were.) Sivamo 03:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WHY no 1934 coup de etat mention ?

There is:
came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1933 to reveal a plot by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
66.101.11.220 15:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Looks like an effort has been made to delete the Business Plot from Smedley Butler's biography, and from the list of "conspiracy theories" that proved to be true. No explanation for the deletes. What are you afraid of guys? It happened in 1934! How long before we can admit Nero burned Rome?

personally i have a little trouble completely believing something furthered by a rabid isolationist with CPUSA connections. and a guy who thinks that "the military-industrial complex" masterminded World War I. damn financiers! J. Parker Stone 06:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your POV clashes with a suppressed truth here: the Business Plot was planned, then abandoned, in Roosevelt's first year. The military-industrial complex does exist, and was first described by President Eisenhower: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Do you want to go purge Ike's page too?

Again, the only evidence we have of such a plot is from Butler himself, a known isolationist (people who became known for attributing every foreign intervention solely to sinister business interests -- possibly "Jewish financiers") who had associated himself with the CPUSA and other left-wing groups. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 03:29 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez -- and this is from a site that no doubt meets your "standards:" Though Butler was not a member of the American Communist Party he did give speeches at Communist Party meetings in the 1930s as well as many speeches for the League Against War and Fascism. [1] J. Parker Stone 23:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


So using Trey Stone's reasoning, we may assume the following:

1. "Isolationists" and/or "Communists" and/or "People who ASSOCIATE with Communists" and/or "left-wing" groups are all liars, who lie all the time.

2. There are never any sinister business interests for foreign interventions; all said interventions are conducted for their stated rhetorical purposes, as "proven" by examining transcripts of the politicians speeches. Any subsequent benefit by said business interests is purely coicidental.

3. Jews NEVER commit crimes, and are incapable of criminal conspiracies; as opposed to Christians, Buddhists, Shintos, Muslims, etc. Although we have Italian, Russian, Irish, Albanian, Vietnamese, etc. mafias, there is no Jewish mafia, nor has there ever been. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a lying anti-Semite.

4. American left-wingers are Stalinists, approve of Stalin, and condone the crimes of the Soviet Union.

5. Isolationism is never a principled position. Interventionism is always a principled position.

6. Any policies associated with left-wing views are unprincipled/wrong. Right-wing policies should not be subject to the same scrutiny, if any.

From YEEssh.

i'm not sure what to make of your rants. J. Parker Stone 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, J. Parker Stone, I'll spell it out for you. See, this is what you posted was: "Again, the only evidence we have of such a plot is from Butler himself, a known isolationist (people who became known for attributing every foreign intervention solely to sinister business interests -- possibly "Jewish financiers") who had associated himself with the CPUSA and other left-wing groups;" and what I posted were ASSUMPTIONS implicit to your post. I also forgot an extremely important one . . .

7. The only evidence we have of such a plot is from Butler himself. You mean there's no other evidence? What about all the circumstantial evidence, such as the close business and cultural ties between Nazis and American oligarchs? What about the large German-American population with sympathies for the Fatherland?


User Trey completely fabricates an anti-semitic angle here on the talk page in a really clumsy guilt-by-association argument. (Clumsy because he somehow wants to paint Butler as both an anti-semitic isolationist AND a communist business-hater.) There's no reason for any such ad hominem attack against a highly decorated Marine general.

the anti-Semitic thing was just an aside, has nothing to do with my edits. i just know that certain isolationists held a rather conspiratorial view of Jewish "war profiteers." J. Parker Stone 03:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's completely irrelevant to Smedley Butler, isn't it?

putting aside your overanalysis of a minor comment of mine for a second, i think the fact that there is no evidence for such a claim outside of Butler's personal testimony is relevant and should be noted, as should the lack of an investigation. J. Parker Stone 23:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

this version, as suspected, tries to trump up Butler so it sounds like "aww how could a nice guy wike dis lie?" despite the fact that there was no hard evidence presented. and no, the mainstream media did not ignore it. what they did was mock him as a crackpot (and i don't entirely blame 'em) J. Parker Stone 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Clearly there is controversy on this topic. Therefore, I'm changing the last sentence in the second paragraph, the one that begins with "Therefore historians have concluded...", to be more accurate. In the same paragraph, the sentence starting with "Congress in fact refused..." is simply not true, according to the Straight Dope article. Therefore, I'm changing it as well. 69.181.125.71 22:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the person who said Spivak confirmed it

here's a quote:

The leftist magazine New Masses carried an article by John Spivak that included wild claims of "Jewish financiers working with fascist groups." Spivak's article spun an elaborate web involving the American Jewish Congress, the Warburg family, "which originally financed Hitler," the Hearst newspaper chain, the Morgan banking firm, the du Ponts, a truly impressive list of prominent American Jewish businessmen, and Nazi spies! Spivak's article raised some disturbing and legitimate questions about why much of Butler's testimony was left out of the final committee report. But these important concerns were seriously undermined by Spivak's paranoid ravings. [2]

I don't think we should cite this guy as an end-all source. J. Parker Stone 07:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem is that Spivak is the ONLY source that named the big names (DuPont, Raskob, Al Smith...). If you don't use Spivak you havce the story that MacGuire (a bond salesman earning $100 a week) was plotting to raise 500,000 men to take over Washington and install a dictator. Maybe he was--he denied it, then suddenly died. In sum,: without the Big Names there is no story here, and Spivak provides the names. Please read his article to see how he understood the plot. Rjensen 20:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benito Mussolini killed a little girl with his car

Didn't Gen. Butler tell a second hand story illistrating that Benito Mussolini was a monster years before WWII?

i have no idea anon. how is that relevant? J. Parker Stone 01:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

about the "military-industrial complex" -- this was a term introduced by Eisenhower after he left office, soon to be hijacked by the far Left about how every U.S. intervention amounted to sinister corporate interests. it shouldn't just be plopped in the intro, especially when the term wasn't even invented until later. J. Parker Stone 01:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Butler actually coined the phrase "military-industrial complex". Eisenhower used the phrase in the same sense as Butler intended it. I don't know who brought in the Spivak reference, but we've got to stop the anti-semitic angle. It has nothing to do with Butler, but I feel it's being tossed out here to discredit him. Along with the CPUSA stuff. The guy was the most highly decorated Marine at the time of his retirement. He had led many overseas military interventions. I think that lends some credibility to his political opinions about military intervention. Later, powerful interests put out feelers to see if he would lead a coup, he squealed to Congress and the press ran from the story like a live bomb.

if you could point me in the general direction of the source that says Butler coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" i'd appreciate it. in any case, Eisenhower's the one who elevated it to "popular discourse" in select circles.
the CPUSA thing is true, the article says he spoke at the leftist League Against War and Fascism so why can't it also reference the CPUSA? and about "highly decorated," that's great, and we already have it in the intro. J. Parker Stone 05:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Eisenhower couldn't have used the phrase sincerely unless he drank through his Presidency and somehow totally missed the nature of the works of his Administration until the last minute. 21 July 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaizzilla (talk • contribs).

[edit] eat it

"In 1931, Butler talked informally after a speech, and discussed how European conquerors became drunk with power and became "mad dogs." He related an apparently true story told him by Cornelius Vanderbilt Jr. Vanderbilt spent time with Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, and they were driving in an armored car through the Italian countryside, with Mussolini driving. During their drive, Mussolini hit and killed a child. Mussolini did not even stop the car, telling Vanderbilt as he grabbed his knee, "Never look back, Mr. Vanderbilt, never look back in life."[21] Mussolini passed off his hit and run incident with the observation that one life was insignificant when compared to the affairs of state.

Butler's comments caused an international outcry, and Butler was arrested and court-martialed by Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War, and ordered to publicly recant. He never apologized to Mussolini, and instead retired. Today, Butler looks like a prophet. The incident was the first time that Mussolini's image was tarnished in America. Back in 1931, Fascism was the up-and-coming form of government."


http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm

dude you really need to stop with the irrelevance and loaded links. J. Parker Stone 02:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

awwww is some one upset because an anon made them look stupid?

this event took place deal with it.

i'm not upset, i just want you to stop posting irrelevant nonsense on this page. J. Parker Stone 03:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


Hardly irrelevant nonsense.

[edit] Unfounded claims of anti-Semitism

Unless someone can provide a quote from a book Mr. Butler wrote or a transcript of a speech he gave or a sourced remark he made which provide clear proof of anti-Semitism, all such claims based purely on “people in those days who held similar anti-war views were also often known to be anti-Semitic” and similar nonsense are nothing more than biased slander and hearsay.

the article says nothing about anti-Semitism, so i don't really know what the problem is. and sign your posts. J. Parker Stone 03:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
footnote #1 is an unusually nasty anti-semitic essay charging the Jews with taking over the country in alliance with the fascists. Rjensen 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butler as weirdo

Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930. He want to Communist rallies, gave a speech and sold his pamphlets. He told Congress a fantastic story about the richest businessmen in America offering him millions of dollars to stage a coup against President Roosevelt. Only one journalist believed him--Spivak--who wrote a violently anti-Semitic magazine article that the is footnote 1 . Historians have all agreed this was a hoax, and an encyclopedia should say so. Rjensen 20:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Rjensen said: "Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930." Huh? Most of the veterans supported him, are you saying that all the veterans who wanted their pay from the US government and camped out in Washington were all "far left"?
Butler gave one speech to the Bonus March veterans, as did many other people. Butler was a popular speaker among pacifist and church groups as well as far-left groups. He gave his anti-war speech to churches and his anti-business speech to leftists, and sold his pamphlets to both. Butler vehhemently attacked the arms industry (DuPont) which does make it unlikely that DuPont wanted to make Butler a dictator. MacGuire tried to get Butler elected to high American legion office, but Butler could not even get elected as a local delegate. That suggests his popularity was none too deep. So did some vets like him? probably so, especially in 1934-5 when Butler was saying the vets ought to get their 1945 bonus $$ right now. That was a BIG issue that year. (Congress did pass several Bonus bills but FDR vetoed them. Finally in 1935 a $$$$ Bonus was passed over FDR's veto and the issue ended.Rjensen 20:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned above if the "Far left" supports it, then it must be a lie!...how simplistic a world view! Travb 17:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
If the far-left supported it then we have an explanation why the story gets repeated so often. It's a way to attack capitalists. Always look for people's motivations! Rjensen 20:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
This argument is illogical, but a common an Ad Homeniem attack
Argumentum Ad Hominem
(Literally, “Argument to the Man.” Also called “Poisoning the Well” and "Personal Attack"):
Attacking or praising the people who make an argument rather than discussing the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. The statement "2+2=4" is true regardless if is stated by a criminal, congressmen, or a pastor.
This is a fallacy of logic I have noticed that you use often, Rjensen, associating those on the left with the big "C" word, which is a common way for Americans to destory their fellow Americans credibility.
Rjensen words:
"The Russian archives, opened after the fall of Communism, show that Congressman Dickstein, the main person arguing there was a fascist plot, was on the Soviet payroll as a spy. That shoots his credibility."[3]
So your fallicious logic is such:
Congressman Dickstein was arguing there was a facist plot, Congressman Dickstein was found to be on the Soviet payroll as a spy, so everything that Congressman Dickstein said about the plot can not be trusted.
You purposely ignore other Congressman who were involved with the committee, who were never found to be on the Soviet payroll as spies, such as Senator McCormack, who was the head of the house from 1961-1969. Speaker of the House John McCormack (1961-69) saluted the general by saying "In peace or war, Gen. Smedley Butler was one of the outstanding Americans in our history. I cannot emphasize too strongly the part he played in exposing the fascist plot in the early 1930s backed by and planned by persons possessing tremendous wealth."
Let me give you some free advice Rjensen, you come off as an amateur partisan ideologue. You use some borderline ethical tactics in espousing your pet ideologies.[4][5]
In telling the story of history, why not tell the entire story, instead of cherry picking history which supports your pet ideology and ignoring everything else? I believe people are smart, they can read all sides, and come up with a conclusion by themselves, without someone else deciding what they think they should believe.
The way you manipulate history not only is a disservice to the public at large who reads this site, but what should be more important to you:
Cherry picking history seriously weakens your argument. When people realize that you are only telling them one narrow view of the a very rich and complex story, they begin to doubt your credibility, and they will usually disregard your view as inaccurate, incomplete, and/or biased, and seek out another explanation of history which has more depth and contains less ideological blinders.Travb 18:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles

Rjensen wrote:

"Butler as weirdo"

"Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930."

"Butler was a popular speaker among pacifist and church groups as well as far-left groups. He gave his anti-war speech to churches and his anti-business speech to leftists, and sold his pamphlets to both."

Okay, there are a couple of underlying assumptions here, screaming to be said.

1

First of all, you seem to assume those on the far left, who believe in far left views, are "wierdo's". (i.e. they don't share your world views) That is your opinion, which you are entitled to have, like everyone, but it is another illogical Ad Homeniem, guilt by association attack, which I explained above.

2

You seem to fallaciously equate Butler's popularity with the validity of his claims. Another illogical assumption. The validity of his claims are irrelevant to how popular they are.

Argumentum Ad Populum: Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare’s version of Mark Antony’s funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

(Bandwagon Approach):

“Everybody is doing it.”

This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true or the course of action must be the best one.

Example: “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers

rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must

make the best computers.”

3

First you wrote:

"Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930." (emphasis my own)

You then back track and temper your statment, as you seem to do a lot of on these talk pages, by stating:

"Butler was a popular speaker among pacifist and church groups as well as far-left groups. He gave his anti-war speech to churches and his anti-business speech to leftists, and sold his pamphlets to both."

So, if I were to combined the two statements, pacifist and church groups are "far left circles".

First you brush aside the mention of veterans, who Butler was widely popular with, by an incredibly weak argument: "Butler gave one speech to the Bonus March veterans, as did many other people."

So, by your logic, Butler was not popular because he was only gave one speech, and many other people gave speeches too. I saw the speech last night. No one was cat calling him, in fact they seemed genuinly happy, estatic in fact.

You then continue: "So did some vets like him? probably so, especially in 1934-5 when Butler was saying the vets ought to get their 1945 bonus $$ right now. That was a BIG issue that year. (Congress did pass several Bonus bills but FDR vetoed them. Finally in 1935 a $$$$ Bonus was passed over FDR's veto and the issue ended."

So therefore, combining your broad blanket statment above "Butler was "immensely popular" only in far left circles after 1930.", we can now include vets in that category. So vets, pacifist and church groups were all "far left circles".

This is a common theme with you Rjensen, you continually make selective partisan, broad ideological statments, which if held up to further scrutiny, are shown to be questionable at best, possibly dishonest at worst.

I don't have to carry this argument any further, because as mentioned above in my point #2, your entire argument is flawed at its base:

How popular Butler was or was not in America is irrelevant on whether his claims are or are not true.

Calling Butler "a wierdo" when he appealed to a wide swath of working class people (vets, pacifist and church groups) is an irrational Ad Homeniem attack.

Since labeling Butler a "weirdo" does not benefit the historical debate, it only is helpful in one respect:

It warns others of your own personal biases. Travb 18:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


RJ comments. I stand by my statements. (and indeed I have looked at the original documents.) Butler went on the lecture circuit in 1931 and spoke before many groups. He was lionized by the far left that made him their hero and kept alive his charges. He ran for office (GOP Senate Primary 1932) and was defeated in a 2-1 landslide, showing the limits to his popularity. He himself said he was unable to get elected as a local delegate to the veterans convention and joked that maybe far-off Hawaii would make him a delegate. What does that add up to? He was immensely popular in far left circles --that seems clear. His popularity among veterans is problematical. I very much doubt it. Was Butler a weirdo? He repeatedly made wild exaggerated allegations that got him in deep trouble. While the #2 Marine he charged in a major speech that Mussolini killed a pedestrian in a hit and run accident. That caused an international incident. (Butler's evidence: someone told him the gossip in conversation.) He was the only Marine general ever to be court martialled, which suggests an extreme personality indeed. Other wild charges: President Coolidge betrayed him when he was head of police in Philadelphia because Coolidge was in cahoots with the gangsters. His judgment is problematical--for example Butler was a leading dry and as a general once court martialed a marine colonel who got drunk at an after-hours birthday party. (Heavy drinking, I might add, was rather common in military circles.) Spookiest of all: Butler was denouncing the rich capitalists and bankers all over the copuntry in 1933-34 as evil war mongers. Then he announced the very same people had chosen him to be America's dictator because he was so popular with veterans. Did he really belive that? He swore to it under oath. Maybe he was tricked into believing this by this fellow MacGuire a mid-level bond dealer, in which case his credulity level is at the 99.9%ile. Is it true that weirdos can be popular? well yes, have you noted Governor Ventura of Minnesota for example? How about Michael Jackson as popular weirdo, perhaps? Butler's popularity is central to the hoax: the hoaxers have to answer the question of why the Big Capitalists like DuPont selected Butler as their dictator. The hoaxers answer, because he was immensely popular, especially with veterans. But I think only the far left strongly supported him. I see no evidence whatever that he was a hero to vets. Rjensen 23:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Excellent points. I did the wikipedia site on a similar colorful character Jacob H. Smith. I need to go. Travb 06:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butler's popularity among veterans

"Even when toleration for dissent narrowed with the coming of war in the late 1930s, he remained a popular spokesman on the veterans' circuit" p. 249 Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History by Hans Schmidt

Smedley retained his stature as a red-blooded patriot; the Marine Corps League (veterans) pleaded with him to attend its 1936 national convention." p. 250...More later

[edit] Overhaul

This article needs a major overhaul. The introduction is way too long and for some reason the Business Plot takes up about 80% of it. Shouldn't that have it's own section within the article? General Butler is, IMO, one of the more fascinating military persons of the early 20th century. But the article skips briskly through the awards he received during his military career without any details and gets straight to his dealings with Mussolini as well as the aformentioned Business Plot.T

And how many times does "far left" need to be mentioned? I get the feeling from reading the article that it was primarily written by someone with a bone to pick.

Of course, I should start contributing to the article, but I need do a bit of brushing up on him again. I'll need to check out some books at the library. Just thought I'd throw that out and see what people thought. Paulcleveland 05:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, it is bad. Thanks for the heads up. I didn't really spend much time reading it recently. I will take out the business plot section, except briefly, and all links to it, and add a link to business plot. That way when an editor is editing one article, he doesn't have to edit both. I will also change "Far-left" to what the user above who I argue with uses.
Unfortunatly, many Americans see being on the left as something to be ashamed of, and the simple mention of the word "left" denounces the person, regardless of the validity of his or her views. Quite a diferent world than what Butler lived in, were the majority of Americans would be considered far left today. Travb 05:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. I did a bit reading on General Butler many years ago, but it's been so long that I really do need to brush up on his life and career. Once that happens I'll start cleaning up and revising the article. Hopefully with participation, of course.
I read a version of this article many months ago and remember it being in much better shape. Don't know what's happened since then. The Business Plot was hardly the cornerstone of Butler's career, as it was just small weird bit of history in the '30s. For those who are aware of the it, it seems to draw out quite a bit of emotions, and so it seems to have dominated the article. Same goes for the Mussolini incident.
Butler did have many left-wing views (when it came to foreign policy, anyway) but there's absolutely no evidence of the man being a "kook" and it's downright intellectually dishonest to discredit him simply because of this. Apparently there are still many who refuse to acknowledge that much of what Butler said turned out to have lots of truth it, and in some cases prophetic. I wonder if these people find right wing views of the world instantly more credible. Butler was very much a patriot (I believe that he's claimed that "maintaining a democracy" to be one of his hobbies), and if you ask me, he had views and a passion very similar to many of the founding fathers. But I don't see many people attempting to discredit them. Paulcleveland 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The latest edit is a dramatic improvement. Nice Job! Rjensen 23:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butler running as republican?

Re: the latest edit

Although a registered Republican, I am almost certian that Butler DID NOT run on the Republican ticket for the Senate, I think he ran under a prohibition ticket, third party. Can someone do some research and confirm this? (cite your sources) I don't want to take the time.Travb 01:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad info

Thanks for revert 8bitJake, I can source the info if needed on the third medal of honor.Travb 08:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haverford School

Is it possible that 'Haverford School' that Smedley is said to have attended is Haverford College? He is not listed among the prominent alumni of Haverford, but he might still be so. Thanks Hmains 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

At Haverford Preparatory School near Philadelphia, a popular choice of old Quaker families, he joined both the baseball and the football teams. Although he was younger and lighter than his teammates, his fighting spirit, qualities of leadership, candor, and fair dealing made him highly popular and won him the captaincy of both teams. --Plot to Sieze the White House, p 38 (available for download on the Business Plot wikipage).
Quaker mother, Maud Darlington Butler, saw to it that he attended Friends meeting twice a week. From Friends Graded High School in West Chester, he went on to nearby Haverford School, the elite secondary school for sons of upper-class Quaker families in and around Philadelphia. Haverford has been credited with credited with fielding the first all native-born American cricket club...At Haverford Smedley was an indifferent student but a keen athlete...he was captain of the Haverford baseball team and quarterback of the football team. Had he not joined the marines, he almost certainly would have finished Haverford and gone on to college. Both his brothers-Samuel, who was three years younger, and Horace, twelve-went to college, and years later Smedley's father gave him $4,000 in compensation for having missed out. --Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History, p. 6, 7
...he had kept in touch with local affairs through marine football, frequent afterdinner speaking engagements, at least one radio address, Haverford alumni functions, and veterans gatherings' ibid. p 141
SDB left Haverford before the end of his final year but was awarded a diploma, 6 June 1898, which states he completed the Scientific Course "with Credit" ibid. Notes, Chapter 2, footnote 2
signed:Travb 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misappropriation of quote?

The quote "Come on, you sons of bitches, do you want to live forever?" attributed to Smedley Butler in the article is also attributed to Daniel Daly in the same battle of Belleau Wood. (See article on Daniel Daly.) Like Butler, Daly was also awarded two medals of honor, one of which was for heroism during the same WWI fighting. A google search indicates that the quote should be attributed to Daly, but I am reluctant to alter the article based solely on that. Someone with better military history resources than I should investigate and reconcile the two articles.

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/m/e/Talk%7ESmedley_Butler_ffee.html"