Talk:Paraguay expedition

Myths perpetuated by this Article (2016 version)

1. That the US Supreme Court declared Paraguay's innocence. (No such case was ever heard by the Supreme Court – it's just something Paraguayan school kids are taught, wrongly.)
2. That López agreed to indemnify "the families of the crew". (He agreed to pay $10,000 to the family of the helmsman, who was killed at Itapirú.)
3. That Water Witch and Fulton ascended the River Paraguay and arrived at Asunción. (USS Fulton was the only vessel permitted to pass the Fortress of Humaitá, gateway to the river Paraguay. The fortress could probably have sunk any of the best warships of the day (all of which were of wood) – let alone Water Witch or Fulton)
4. That Paraguay extended an apology. (Not really.)
5. That Paraguay granted the United States a new and highly advantageous commercial treaty. (It granted exactly the same treaty as it had already had done, with the words "North America" deleted. Exactly similar treaties had already been granted to Britain, France, and Sardinia – without gunboat diplomacy.)

Omitted is any reference to the award of the international commission that ruled on the case (which consisted of two arbitrators, one American, one Paraguayan). The Commission ruled that the claim of the United States and Paraguay Navigation Company [a Rhode Island corporation] was "criminally" exaggerated, and awarded not one red cent. The upshot was that President Buchanan sent a $3 million expedition to get $10,000.

But what can you expect when the main source for this Article is an 1859 cartoon? The following sources, minimum, should have been included:

References

• The American Almanac and Repository of Useful Knowledge, for the year 1859. Boston: Crosby, Nichols and Company. 1859.

• Commission Under the Convention Between the United States & Paraguay: Statements and Arguments for Claimants and for the Republic, and Opinion and Award of Commissioners. Washington: Henry Polkinhorn, printer. 1860.

• Barrow, Clayton Jr, ed. (2015). America Spreads Her Sails: U.S. Seapower in the 19th Century. Annapolis MD: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 9781612519777.

• Denison, John Ledyard (1862). A Pictorial History of the Navy of the United States. San Francisco CA: Henry Hill for Francis Dewing.

• "Expenses – Paraguay Expedition (Misc. Doc. No. 86)". The Miscellaneous Documents of the House of Representatives Printed During the First Session of the Thirty-Sixth Congress 1859-'60. Vol. VI. Washington DC: Thomas H. Ford printer. 1860.

• Flickema, Thomas O. (July 1968). "The Settlement of the Paraguayan-American Controversy of 1859: A Reappraisal". The Americas. 25 (1). Cambridge University Press: 59–69. JSTOR 980097.

• Moore, John Bassett (1898). History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party. Vol. II. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

• Peterson, Harold F. (May 1942). "Edward A. Hopkins: A Pioneer Promoter in Paraguay". The Hispanic American Historical Review. 22 (2). Duke University Press: 245–261. doi:10.2307/2506869. JSTOR 2506869.

• Smith, Gene Allen; Bartlett, Larry (July 2009). ""A Most Unprovoked, Unwarranted and Dastardly Attack": James Buchanan, Paraguay, and the Water Witch Incident of 1855". Northern Mariner/Le Marin du Nord. 19 (3). Canadian Nautical Research Society: 269. [1] accessed 1 June 2016.

• Warren, Harris Gaylord; Warren, Katherine F. (1985). Rebirth of the Paraguayan Republic: The First Colorado Era, 1878-1904. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. ISBN 0-8229-3507-4.

• Washburn, Charles (1871). The History of Paraguay: With Notes of Personal Observations, and Reminiscences of Diplomacy Under Difficulties. Boston: Lee and Shephard. (In two volumes.)

• Williams, John Hoyt (1979). The Rise and Fall of the Paraguayan Republic, 1800-1870. University of Texas Press. ISBN 0292770170.

• Ynsfran, Pablo Max (August 1954). "Sam Ward's Bargain With President López of Paraguay". The Hispanic American Historic Review. 34 (3). Duke University Press: 313–331. doi:10.2307/2508877. JSTOR 2508877.

Needs some improvement. Ttocserp 13:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of intention to rewrite this article

Nobody have done anything to fix this for two and a half years — see above — I'm going to rewrite this article. If anyone wants to help, please say on this talk page.Ttocserp (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. After careful thought I have not used an infobox, which would probably oversimplify, perhaps grossly.Ttocserp (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Headings: (a), (b), (c), and (d)

Whilst there are many heading formats used, usually in English encyclopedias there are no headings with (a), (b), (c), (d), or similar, and in Wikipedia there are no similar pages with these headings that I know of, though if user:ttocserp could find Wikipedia formatting with letters for a historical topic page and link it here in this section I would agree with your formatting, until then, I follow Wikipedia standards. Also, (a), (b), (c), (d), may make readers feel like the reasons are ordered in a sort of precedence, and I am assuming the reasons are all equally valid, with none of them better than the next. I apologize for my editing before, as I now see the absence of reliable sources on this topic has led to sources being used that may be more biased, such as Benites source on the Triple Alliance, and "The ruin of the Democratic party. Reports of the Covode and other committees", the latter of which pushes a POV as it is written by the Republican Party, the Democrats main rival during this period. In the absence of more useful sources I will stick with user:ttocserp's article for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanganiPatrol (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to the headings change.

While Benites is a biased source, he is probably reliable on the point he is cited for. The Republican Congressional Committee is obviously a biased source, but they might possibly have been right all the same — the article does not claim that they were, only that they said it.Ttocserp 20:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I just checked again, and so long as Benites and the Republican Congressional Committee are used in the way they are currently, that is fine. Another point of contention is Hopkins being expelled. I have only changed that part before due to the heading for the section actually saying Hopkins was "expelled", otherwise I would have left it as it is currently a point of confusion. ShanganiPatrol (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The exact point of contention is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay_expedition#His_second_appointment,_and_expulsion. Regards, ShanganiPatrol (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)