Talk:Bank War/Archives/2016

Rothschild Influence

Would it be possible to include a section on rothschild zionist influence on the second bank of the united states?

2601:547:0:AE0:BC:A662:204F:BC4E (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. --36hourblock (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Motives for Recharter

36hourblock, I removed content in this article here because I found it to be very biased against the pro-Bank forces. It is not factual, and just because there are two reliable sources after the text does not mean that those sources were interpreted correctly. Of course, many National Republicans and Whigs saw that using the Bank against Jackson would be an excellent political move, so as to be able to defeat the Democrats and regain power for themselves,

However, claiming this to be their exclusive motive, as this paragraph does, overlooks the fact that many of them had long considered a National Bank to be a necessary part of American society. Many National Republicans, such as Webster and J.Q. Adams, were former Federalists. It was from the mind of that party's founder, Alexander Hamilton that the idea for a national bank sprung in the first place. The charter for the First BUS was allowed to expire in 1811, but the Second BUS was charted in 1816, already with the support of Henry Clay and other future anti-Jackson leaders. These people had been in favor of a National Bank long before Jackson became president. When Jackson entered office he was a known enemy of the institution, and began attacking it for real in 1832 after the recharter bill passed Congress. Although defeating the Democrats in the 1832 and 1836 election were certainly motivations for pushing recharter, other factors, such as a belief in the necessity of a Bank for economic prosperity, should not be pushed aside. Display name 99 (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99 - Let's a step back, and pursue this through Wiki protocols.

"I found it to be biased" would better phrased as "[Historian X] finds this to be biased (with citation)" and "It is not factual" replaced with "[Author X] considers this unfounded". If the "interpretation" is faulty, cite the sentence or passage and explain why, from the secondary source.

"Claiming this to be their exclusive motive" is misleading based on the sentence in question. Wilentz and Hammond - whose opinions matter here - emphasize the political nature of Clay and Webster's action, and Biddle's, for that matter. My sources, from which I've derived my material for the article, support this. See article citations.

"When Jackson entered office he was a known enemy of the institution" - In fact, the sources that the article is based on say no such thing. Do your sources say so?

"[Jackson] began attacking [the BUS] for real in 1832 after the recharter bill passed." Based on my sources, Clay pushed for early recharter as a means of politically provoking a Jackson veto, thereby providing the Whigs with political ammunition to defeat Jackson in the general election. All of this is supported by the citations provided in the article. Not a matter of my "interpretation".

My articles, including Panic of 1819 and Second Bank of the United States, nor the article under question, in any way "push aside" the principled support of the BUS by Federalist/National Republicans/Whigs. Let's stick with the sources. Your comments are welcome, but without source material, we cannot really collaborate on the editing.

--36hourblock (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, I apologize for the late reply. I have been busy today.

The BUS was supported by Henry Clay for a very long time. It was part of his American System. There are an infinite number of sources that will collaborate that fact.

However, as I see it, and I think most neutral observers will, the current version of this article totally dismisses any principled argument that supporters of the Bank might have had to maintaining its operation. They wanted to keep the Bank alive, and their leaders, Clay and Biddle, thought that just before the 1832 election would be the best time to save it, because they thought that they could trap Jackson. This sentence is not an accurate reflection of that:

"The National Republican leadership aligned themselves with the Bank because it offered what appeared to be a perfect platform to defeat Jackson – and less so because they were champions of the BUS."

The National Republicans had been behind the Bank since well before Jackson was elected. They didn't just align themselves with it the minute after Biddle asked for recharter-they already supported it. And they continued to support it even after they lost the 1832 election, by resisting Jackson's attempts to remove the deposits and ultimately censuring him in 1834, all in a vain attempt to prevent the charter from expiring. They didn't just give up on the issue after the election (which many of them could have done)-they resisted as far as they could. I made no mention of the articles for the Panic of 1819 or the Second Bank of the United States, and so I'm not sure why you brought them up at all. However, they are not "your" articles. You may have created or made large contributions to them, but they do not belong to you.

Finally, it appears I inaccurately represented Jackson's platform in 1828, as consultation with sources, including this article, reveals that the Democrats did not use opposition to the Bank as a primary platform for that election. However, Jackson did strongly criticize the Bank in his First Annual Address to Congress. Once again, that information can be found in this article, under "Annual Address to Congress, December 1829".

I would accept replacing the sentence that I quoted above with something like this:

"Therefore, a crucial factor motivating the National Republican leadership to push for an early recharter was to force Jackson to take a divisive stance on the issue shortly before the upcoming election." Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99 - I've read your complaints. In the most perfect sense, all these articles belong to the published historians upon whose research we base these articles. We are in debt to them. I've explained to you the basis on which we can collaborate at the top of this exchange. Short of that, there is little left to say. --36hourblock (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)