Talk:Era of Good Feelings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Length

FIRST OFF THERE IS ALREADY A MUCH LONGER AND BETTER WRITTEN ARTICLE WITH THE CORRECT TITLE. SECOND OF ALL " George Washington's record of being the only person to be unanimously elected to the presidency and to come out of the closet on the same day. This era continued until America realised that they were the worst country in the world (and they still are). :(" IS SOMEWHAT BIASED --Gary123 01:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, This article goes to deep into detail, more than necessary. The Era of Good Feelings only describes Monroe's two presidential administrations. The entire paragraph about how George Washington supposedly (not true) was the only one to unanimously vote for the cantidate is not necessary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.52.237 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a broad view

The Era of Good Feeling should be thought of as being a brief period of time that separates the more religious colonial era when God reigned supreme from the time when building a big bank account rose to importance.

The first savings bank appeared in the United states, either at Philadelphia in 1816, or at New York in 1819. (It was probably at Germantown, Pa. [Philadelphia] in 1816).

The politics changed when the citizens desires changed.

The word is "Feeling" (singular), not "Feelings" (plural).

The American Bible Society was founded in 1816, so there was a religious mood still present in the nation. States' Rights Democrats had not yet been invented in 1816. Slaves and free Negroes were treated humanely, still. By 1825, all of those things had changed.

The "Good Feeling" wasn't ubiquitous amongst the people, though. South Carolinians were still fuming because Caleb Strong, the governor of Massachusetts, had exercised States' Rights to keep his militia out of the War of 1812.

Robert Y. Hayne reminded Daniel Webster of it in their famous debate in Congress.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.136.138 (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2005 (UTC)

What about the nullification crisis? This article is pitiful. The lack of detail is austounding. There is nothing about John Marshall, or the landmark supreme court cases of the time. Mabuary v. Madinson? Hello!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.148.16 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um. "Marbury v. Madison" happened quite a while earlier during Jefferson's administration. It would be more like Dartmouth College v. Woodward or McCulloch v. Maryland.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.244.127 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

End Date of Era of Good Feelings

The Era of Good Feelings ending is debated among many professors, as there is not a huge consensus to what historians believe the era ended, this should be changed. This article has many contradictions in it (one place saying it started in 1817, another 1815, and the ending isn't very clear as well. This should be fixed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.108.62 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article does not read well and includes nonessential information. The article could also use a tighter focus. I'm happy to help develop this, but don't wish to step on the toes of anyone who's got a lot invested in this article. Ezratrumpet 16:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a quite a few problems with this article. "[A]n Era of Good Feeling" was the exact phase that Benjamin Russel used. Nowhere in the article is the phase mentioned or put into context. All references are made from a single source and it reads more like a very short book report than an article about a political time-period. Oleanna1104 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.148.16 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder where exactly the article should be taken, though. It refers to Monroe's two terms as president, so the information about the political events occuring during the Era are (or if they aren't, maybe they should be) in the James Monroe article. Should it be more focused on the actual phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.244.127 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'Probable error,'Bold text near the beginning of the article, there is a reference to the American frigate USS PRESIDENT defeating 3 British frigates off the coast of Ireland. This appears to be greatly exaggerated, the PRESIDENT did encounter British ships in 1813, but one, the Eliza Swan, was only a 300 ton whaling vessel, and the Alert was only a brig of perhaps 16 guns. It seems significant that the article on the USS PRESIDENT makes no reference at all to this battle, which would be very curious if the ship had indeed defeated THREE British ships of the same class —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerre1859 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed a vulgar word from the top of this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.171.159 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed vandalism from dicussion page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.235.24 (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is tons of vandalism on this page currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.248.15 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"British Invaders" ?

Sounds a little biased there. The USA was first to declare war in 1812, and although the US was invaded so was British North America. Could say "in the wake of the patriotic upsurge following of the war of 1812" rather than implying it was a war the British started and the US won. It was in fact more of a bloody stalemate where neither side got what they wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.146.5 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)