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