Talk:History of the United States (1789–1815)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Added the Burning of Washington

I dont wanna rain on your parade, but i've kinda realized that American contemporary sources of knowledge on the war of 1812 is kind of described in a hushed/tucked away manner, but the article before my edit described the war first as a draw and left the only description of the war as "Andrew Jackson's smashing defeat of the British invasion army at the Battle of New Orleans." To better convey the writer's initial description that it was a draw, I also added a link for the page of the British invasion of Washington D.C., to better purvey the fact that the war was somewhat a draw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.199.73 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing the Missouri Compromise

It seems to me that any history of this period must mention the Missouri Compromise of 1820 - this accommodation in Congress had a profound impact on subsequent events throughout this period and leading up to the Civil War.

Tony (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding reform

I added a section on The Age of Reform because so many of these concepts were left out of the United States History series. It should address some of the concerns mentioed below about the lack of cultural history.Bhentze (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

==Those who are working on this page may want to make use of the following. It was in a separate article that is being deleted as the result of a Vfd discussion. -- Jmabel 23:22, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

"When the United States Congress was established, factionism and organized political parties were explicitly repudiated by James Madison, among others. Party designations of pro-Administration and anti-Administration, eventually organized into the Federalists and Republicans, respectively.

"The divisions in sentiment grew out of the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution. The most concrete divisions centered on the adoption of a bill of rights and disagreement over the dominant influence of Alexander Hamilton's nationalist policies."

---

Now that I've written a fairly simple article on republican motherhood, is there any way to get it in here? This is a masterful political history of the period, but I can't see how I would tuck a cultural concept in (the idea is not particularly a feature of a presidential administration or Jeffersonian democracy, it seems to me). Sorry, but no article currently links to republican motherhood (it was a requested article), and I'd like _something_ to. :-) Jwrosenzweig 06:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That points out a problem with this "History of the United States" series -- it could be renamed "Political History of the United States", since that's what most the narrative seems to be about right now. A cultural or social history series could be written as well. Whether or not more aspects of U.S. history can be integrated into a single series is yet to be seen -- but this isn't it.

Your article certainly can be linked in History of women in the United States, which is mislabeled "Feminist history" in the box of the bottom of this article. Or you could write up a nice cultural section for this article in your spare time. ;-) Kevin Myers 13:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Under the "Westward expansion and the Mexican-American War," it says "After Napoleon's defeat and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, an era of relative stability began in Europe. U.S. leaders paid less attention to European trade and love making, and more to the internal development in North America." [Emphasis mine]. Um... this correct?

I.. I love you guys

This is perfect for APUSH class - it stays very faithful to the "Out of History" textbook we use (yet doesn't copy, don't worry guys), so now I don't have to spend hours to reread old chapters to remember what was happening in that timespan. Thank you guys. So much.--Karch 05:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.

NEgative, this is not true,k aas this page is forgetting lsavery from 1820-40

NPOV dispute - Kind of Biased towards the Democratic-Republicans?

"Jefferson's mere presence in the White House encouraged democratic procedures. He taught his subordinates to regard themselves merely as trustees of the people. More importantly, as a wave of Jeffersonian fervor swept the nation, state after state abolished property qualifications for the ballot and passed more humane laws for debtors and criminals."

Jefferson himself didn't view his presidency as his finest moment. One prime example was the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson, being a Democratic-Republican, believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution. Unfortunately, the consitution didn't have any provisions for the purchase of property. Jefferson, compromising his ideals, decided to purchase the land any way. Throughout the actual purchase proccess, Jefferson violated the constitution. There was serious question as to the owner of the Louisiana terrority (either France of Spain, with Jefferson dealing with France). The actual papers proving France's ownership of the territory did not exist. Their lack should have caused the purchase to fail in congress. However, Jefferson lied to congress, claiming the "documents" to be secret and refused to reveal them.

If you seriously provide such a negative view of the Federalists/Hamiltonians, at least be fair and do a decent job of representing Jefferson's failures instead of adding this ultra-Patriotic junk. I would suggest that this article recieve the notice of "Neutrality Disputed."

--Joe K 03:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking back on it, you also forget to mention the ridiculously unpopular embargo that Jefferson instituted due to impressement issues in Britain. This article really doesn't show the other side.

--Joe K 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about shortening so many hyperlinks, but you don't need to say "President of the United States" when that's obvious.martianlostinspace 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

THERE WERE 3 CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN AMERICA’S 1803 PURCHASE OF THE LOUISIANA TERRITORY FROM FRANCE:

1) The decision to purchase Louisiana was such a huge issue that, perhaps, the issue should be submitted to Americans for approval by asking Americans to amend the constitution to allow the purchase.

This issue was not whether the federal government had authority from the constitution to purchase territory. The constitution clearly gave the federal government power to purchase territory by saying that the federal government could make treaties.

The history of treaties and the brief history of America and its great treaty of independence [ the 1783 Treaty of Paris ] from England, show clearly that treaties were frequently used by nations including America to obtain territory. In that great Treaty of Paris in 1783 America gained not only independence but also great territory: land between the 13 states and the Mississippi River, out of which land were created 9 additional states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, & Mississippi. This added territory was far larger geographically than the 13 original states; acquiring this territory more than doubled the size of America at that time – more than a 100% growth in physical size.

These 9 states increased the size of America from 16 states [ 13 original states + Maine + Vermont + West Virginia ] to 25 states – more than a 50% growth in the number of states. In other words, because of the 1783 Treaty of Paris we obtained the land which constituted half of America’s 50 states. These 9 states are more than a 1/6 of the current 50 states. The 113 electoral votes of these 9 states in 2004 are more than 20% of the nation’s 538 electoral votes in 2004.

Thus, before the 1803 Louisiana purchase, America had drastically increased its growth because of a treaty: the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

In fact, U.S. President Thomas Jefferson realized that the American constitution gave power to the federal government to make treaties for the sake of adding territory to America; the evidence of Jefferson’s realization was his intent to buy New Orleans from France. When the purchase changed from that of New Orleans to that of the entire Louisiana territory, then Jefferson wondered whether the purchase was constitutional. He wondered because of the huge decision that the purchase had become – a decision so huge that, therefore, it should be made, perhaps, by the American people by voting on an amendment to the constitution.

Jefferson also wondered about the constitutionality of such a huge decision because of the next issue:

2) The people already living in Louisiana before the 1803 purchase should have a say in whether they wanted to be part of America or whether they wanted to continue to be part of the French empire.

This is the issue that I believe Thomas Jefferson was referring to, when he asked: could England sell us Ireland? Such a sale might be objectionable because the Irish might not want to be part of America.

The people in Louisiana were never consulted about America’s decision to buy Louisiana, probably for 3 reasons:

A) It was assumed that the people in Louisiana either didn’t care or preferred America [ which assumption was probably true ];

B) Trying to access the opinions of the people of the huge wilderness of Louisiana was probably too difficult a job for America to administer at that time.

C) There was not enough time to access the opinions of the people of Louisiana because the proposed purchase had to be acted on quickly. Napoleon would not have been patient.

3) People living in Louisiana should have a say in the American legislation passed regarding Louisiana – legislation such as taxes. For example, there should be no taxation without representation: a great issue during the American revolution.

This was a major issue after the purchase of Louisiana. Some congressman were against making laws for Louisiana without Louisiana being represented; these congressmen said there should be no taxation without representation, which they said was a huge issue in the American revolution.

Despite debates by some congressmen, congress passed laws on Louisiana without Louisiana’s having representation in congress. Congress passed such laws probably for 2 reasons:

A) It was assumed that the people in Louisiana either didn’t care or preferred America [ which assumption was probably true ];

B) Trying to access the opinions of the people of the huge wilderness of Louisiana was probably too difficult a job for America to administer at that time.

The above issues are analogous to professional basketball player Dennis Rodman’s being traded from the Houston rockets to the Chicago bulls.

1) Do the 2 teams have the power to make such a trade? Yes, one team can trade its rights to a player, to another team – just as France had the power to sell its rights to Louisiana, to America.

But the trade is such a big decision [ because of Rodman’s antics and bad habits of disrupting teams ] that, perhaps, the players on the Chicago bulls team [ especially Michael Jordan and Scotty Pippen ] should be consulted about the trade. In other words, were Jordan, Pippen, and the other players willing to put up with Rodman’s antics? This is analogous to the desire of some Americans to get the approval of the American people about the Louisiana purchase by having the people vote on an amendment to the constitution to allow such a purchase.

2) However, Dennis Rodman had the choice of whether to play for the Chicago bulls – just as the people in Louisiana should have had the choice of whether to be a part of America or the French empire.

3) Should Dennis Rodman be consulted about the coach’s rules for the team – just as the people in Louisiana should have had a say in what legislation congress passed regarding Louisiana? Here the analogy breaks down somewhat, because the coach obviously can make rules without consulting the players. [ interestingly enough, however, the great Boston Celtic coach Red Auerbach often consulted with his players about what the team should do. ]

Morgan Affair

The current edition has the statement "Examples of single issue parties included the Anti-Masons, who emerged as a group set to outlaw Freemasonry in the United States after a man who threatened to expose the Masons' secrets was kidnapped and murdered." I have been told by an editor that this is accurate by the reliable sources, there is in fact conflicting evidence as to wither Morgan was murdered, or even if the Masons did it (Morgan was a bit of a con man who had several groups of enemies). I have asked that the second part of the sentence referencing Morgan should be striken, since the Morgan affair is covered in greater detail in the anti-mason article which is wikilinked.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll rephrase it. Rjensen (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick removal of possible junk text.

I believe the sentence "These were the first popular parties in world history" really needs more clarification, to be considered anything more than possible subjective junk text. Does anyone disagree ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acahilla63 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

well to start with it's true. So phrases like "subjective junk text" are not helpful. The cites can be to Ostrogorski, Lipset (First New Nation) and Chambers (Political Parties). William N Chambers calls it "probably the first modern party system in the world" (The First Party System 1972 p v) Rjensen (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)