Talk:Redeemers/Archive 1


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert but I am wondering if this page should be renamed to Bourbon Democrats or Bourbon Redeemers. The name Redeemer seems pretty broad. The article itself states that this party was also known as Bourbon Democrats. Anyone, thoughts?

redeemers vs bourbon democrats

 * 1) which was the term that was actually used at the time?
 * 2) was there some significant difference in the meaning of the two terms?
 * 3) which term has been most often used in history books that readers are most likely to encounter?
 * 4) at least, wikipedia should have a page for Bourbon Democrats pointing to Redeemers.
 * 5) who among the world wide readers of wikipedia are going to know what 'Bourbon' connotes? What does it connote anyway?  That Bourbon is the favored drink of the upper class whites in the South, so Bourbon Democrats were upper class whites?  Is that it? (I am not making fun of the idea, just thinking about it; 'redeemers', of course' implies nothing at all until you read the article)
 * 6) Thanks Hmains 20:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that for starters the title should be plural, as is the first word of the article; then perhaps prefixed with "The" to indicate a particular group. "The Redeemers", anyone? (Or is that the name of a noteworthy band, performing group, etc.?) Regards, David Kernow 20:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said I am no expert. However, when trying to determine what to do with the page Bourbon Redeemers I found quite a few google hits to historical sites that referenced the term Bourbon Redeemers or Bourbon Democrats. It seemed to only be a shorthand to refer to them as Redeemers. That is about all I can offer to the discussion. James084 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I am even less of an expert, but agree that the current title is too vague, then unless someone else comes along to enlighten or confuse us, I'll:

Voting

 * Conditional support (see comments below) as the current title needs to change to something less vague. David Kernow 22:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I'm supporting it. I mean after all I nominated it.  :)  Anyway as David says unless something else is proposed that is less vague.  James084 22:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral because Redeemers makes sense and sounds like the more ocmmon usage. The prorcess was called Redemption, after all, so the Redeemers did the Redemption.   I would probably support something like Redeemer (Reconstruction) or Bourbon Redeemers, but not killing the entire "Redeemer" name from the article title. - Hbdragon88 01:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Redeemer" is the standard term for 1870s used in all textbooks, history journals, and reference works. It is not at all vague. Wiki is not allowed to invent new terminology.  The term "Bourbon" comes later and is used describe conservative Cleveland Democrats in the NORTH and South in 1880s and 1890s: thus:  book title: Charles Jonas Czech National Liberal, Wisconsin Bourbon Democrat) (ISBN: 0944190111) or Bourbon Democracy of the Middle West, 1865-1896 by Horace Samuel Merrill.  William Jennings Bryan is famous for attacking the Bourbon Democrats of New York in 1896. Rjensen 02:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that a separate article called Bourbon Democrats should be created that clearly defines the meaning and use of the term in history, separating it from the Redeemer name ... Hmains 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. After seeing what Rjensen has said about Bourbon Democrats it sounds like the topic of a separate article entirely.  James084 03:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)  Ooops, seems it is done already.  Thanks Rjensen!  James084 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support the article being renamed "Redemeers", but not kept as "Redeemer". However, see below. David Kernow 14:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose Separate article does and should exist for Bourbon Democrats. Compare the two articles. This term ceased to exist about 1877. Septentrionalis 04:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, should the "Bourbon Democrats" and "Redeemer(s)" articles be merged? David Kernow 14:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment : Rather than move to "Bourbon Democrats", then, may the title at least be changed to "Redeemer s "...? David Kernow 11:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support The title's name is too generic. Either keep the "Redeemer" in some form but rename it differently like "Redeemer (faction)" or something like that, or change it to "Bourbon Redeemers" or whatever. But when I hear the word "Redeemer", the first thought in my mind is certainly not ah of course that political thing in the 1800's... Gryffindor  00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment : Looking at the above, it seems to me that either the article is renamed "Redeemers" or it is merged with "Bourbon Democrats". If so, should there be another consensus vote? Regards, David Kernow 14:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The term "Redeemer" is standard in the literature, and everyone who has read a history textbook knows it. Wiki should reflect that. Rjensen 14:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article is to keep the title "Redeemer", it will need to be rewritten; currently the text uses "Redeemers" from the very first word onward. Would I be misreading your view to think that you'd be happy with "Redeemers" as the title? Best wishes, David Kernow 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Redeemers" I agree is a better title. Rjensen 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Redeemer" → "Redeemers"
Since the discussion above yielded no consensus as regards renaming the article "Bourbon Democrats" (which, as Septentrionalis pointed out, already exists) would anybody mind the article becoming "Redeemers"? If so, please indicate why. Otherwise I'll try renaming it so in a day or two (unless someone wishes to be bolder!). Thanks, David Kernow 15:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a collective or group action rather than something any one individual did, so the plural form makes more sense. Rjensen 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the name Redeemers makes good sense and would support such a move. James084 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Blacks were not "stripped" of their voting rights
"The process of stripping blacks of their voting rights in the wake of the Compromise was gradual." A more accurate description would be along the lines of how blacks faced barriers due to constitutional loopholes. These loopholes enforced by some southern whites made it more difficult for them to vote. They were not "stripped" of their voting rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.26.250 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Merge proposal
I just added tags to propose merging this article with Redemption (United States history) (as if this article had not seen enough naming discussions yet :-). The articles seem to cover pretty much the same subject matter. There might be a reason to have separate articles if there was a lot to say about the Redeemers as people that wasn't directly connected with them performing the Redemption, but in fact the Redeemers article talks a lot more about the historical period than about the people themselves. I don't have a preference as to which name should stay and which should become a redirect. Joriki (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. It makes sense for redeemers to be merged as a subtopic of redemption. 86.138.103.76 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the merger -- after being posted for six weeks it doesn't look like anybody opposes it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I also agree, but with restrictions. I believe, rather, that Redeemers should be removed and merged into Redemption, since Redeemers are merely activists who acted by Redemption. Think of it this way. While we have articles for Republican Party and Democratic Party, do we have the article stating Republicans (not Republican Party) or Democrats (not Democratic party)? No. Exec. Tassadar   ( comments,  contribs ) 15:42, 8 March 2008

I somewhat agree.

Apparently this idea never got acted upon. I agree that having one concise article is for the best; I may take the initiative in the coming days/weeks. I'm currently reading a biography on George Wallace in my spare time but will eventually get back to this period of history. And yes, having it under the name of the period is preferable. Recognizance (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. This is something we should do. Maybe I'll have a go at it. Agree with those above that Redeemers should be the page to become redirect. -Leonard (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Redemption period of reconstruction?
The introductory paragraph cites the reconstruction period as the time when redeemers came about. Is this strictly true or was it the case that redeemers existed not in the reconstruction period but the redemption period? Oliverwk talk  20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)