Talk:Naturalization Act of 1798

''This act was repealed in 1802. No new amendments were made until 1862.''  This sentence makes no obvious sense One does not amend something that is repealed. So what is meant here? Thanks Hmains 20:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I think the previous editors may have been trying to say that naturalization laws weren't changed substantially again until 1862. But if so it should be stated more clearly. I've removed that last sentence and have added better references. -Will Beback 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess also. Thanks Hmains 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Republican Party
I deplore Skyemoor's unfortunate efforts to make this article say that Jefferson founded the Republican Party, which is misleading to the uninformed and pointless to the informed. Jefferson's party, the Democratic Republicans, had several names, none of them official - it had no officers; we should use the one name which suggests a serious falsehood. Since Skyemoor has been abusing a 1792 letter of Jefferson's] which calls them the "republican party" (so capped; meaning that part of Congress which supports the republic) and also refers to his particular friends as "republican federalists", I insert the latter as a clue to the reader that there is something unexpected going on. Septentrionalis 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has no evidence on his side, so he resorts in desperation to shooting (and stabbing and poisoning) the messenger, ignoring WP:Civility. He presents no evidence that Jefferson even used the term "Democratic Republican more than a couple of times (if that!).  He confuses the use of "republican federalist", intended for those Federalists who were not High Federalists.  However, let's let Jefferson and Madison speak for themselves;
 * Nonsense. He means federalists in the sense the word had had for five years: those who support the Federal Constitution; and of those the ones who nonetheless support a republic; such as James Madison. This is why his party could occasionally call themselves, as they did, "Federalist and Republican."  The reading Skyemoor would force upon this text requires: that Jefferson be so incompetent a stylist as to use republican in two distinct senses in the same paragraph without indicating the difference; and that Jefferson be so bad a politician as to concede, at the beginning of his long struggle, a primary Federalist claim (that they are the real federalists, and Madison isn't.)  Septentrionalis 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * * James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794. "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose."
 * * James Madison to William Hayward, March 21, 1809. Address to the Republicans of Talbot Co. Maryland
 * * Thomas Jefferson to John Melish, January 13, 1813. "The party called republican is steadily for the support of the present constitution"
 * * James Madison to Baltimore Republican Committee, April 22, 1815.
 * * James Madison to William Eustis, May 22, 1823. Transcript. "The people are now able every where to compare the principles and policy of those who have borne the name of Republicans or Democrats with the career of the adverse party. and to see and feel that the former are as much in harmony with the Spirit of the Nation as the latter was at variance with both."
 * And this is only a minor sampling of the vast record. The term Democratic-Republican crept into later use as early as 1802 in one local county chapter, but widespread use at the national level was much later.  Pmanderson|Septentrionalis chooses to gloss over these details, to what end one can only speculate. Skyemoor 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For more quotations, including the ones Skyemoor does not choose to select, see Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States)/Archive 1; and Democratic-Republican Party. Septentrionalis 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis does not provide any evidence to support his assertion or counter the points I made above. Skyemoor 15:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See the evidence in the links above. Septentrionalis 19:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Show us the evidence that Jefferson called his party "Democratic Republicans" in the first two decades (or more than twice overall, for that matter). Show us evidence DR was used at all before 1800 to refer to the party. Everytime you are asked questions like this, you change the subject, refusing to support your assertion in the first sentence at the top of this section, "Jefferson's party, the Democratic Republicans..."   Skyemoor 19:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Every time I am asked to substantiate a claim I haven't made, I will continue to change the subject to what I have actually asserted: The party which supported Jefferson in 1798 is the same party that elected Monroe, and that calling them by the name of the party that was formed in 1854 is not helpful to the reader. Septentrionalis 20:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note the date on this reference (and see above for several others); James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794. "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose."

There was also a Republican party in the 1820s, whether or not it appeals to certain person's sensibilities. Madison is clearly aligned with this party, as shown by;

James Madison to William Eustis, May 22, 1823. Transcript. "The people are now able every where to compare the principles and policy of those who have borne the name of Republicans or Democrats with the career of the adverse party. and to see and feel that the former are as much in harmony with the Spirit of the Nation as the latter was at variance with both." Skyemoor 01:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How anyone can quote this and not see that it deals with one party, of several names? Of those names, we should use the unambiguous "Democratic-Republican", use no name, or explain in full. I still think the article on the Party is the place to explain in full; and that here we should simply be unambiguous. Septentrionalis 03:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jefferson and Madison called themselves alternatively republicans or Republicans, as they did their party members. To call them something else is wholly inaccurate and confusing.  The name will be linked and people will see the transformations on the linked article.  Skyemoor 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My position is here what it is elsewhere: I;ve tried the last; I will now try the third. Septentrionalis 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is unacceptable to use Republican Party unexplained; most readers will not click; some will be confused.
 * Republican party, duly explained, is acceptable, but probably off topic.
 * Democratic Republicans is acceptable
 * neutral language is acceptable to me; but not to Skyemoor.

My position is here what it is elsewhere: Either the first or second options will work, and I will continue to review and discuss these options. Skyemoor 12:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jefferson and Madison used 'republican' and 'Republican', as did almost all of their congressional allies. During this timeframe (Naturalization Act), no historical evidence has been forthcoming to state otherwise. Even the few local party chapters that eventually became labeled DR didn't even start until the first one in 1802.
 * History textbooks now predominantly refer to them as "Republicans" or "Jeffersonian Republicans"
 * Democratic Republicans is therefore unacceptable in this timeframe.
 * "neutral language" simply means deleting information.