Talk:Second Bank of the United States/Archives/2012

Reasons for Andrew Jackson not Rechartering the bank
While it was partly the fact of the fight between Jackson and Biddle, before that Jackson had always thought that creating a national bank was not granted in the Constitution, and therefor not a right of the national government to create the bank. I believe this took precedent when vetoing the bank,over the argument with Biddle. I will not change this, but someone else may. (this is in my AP U.S. history text book)

--I agree. I've read in numerous sources about this- Jackson seeing the Bank as unconstitutional. Also, he thought the bank benefited only the rich stockholders and didn't do anything for the poor...definitely things that should be mentioned.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.161.174 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moron
I DONT UNDERSTAND ANY OF IT!!!! YOU USE TO MANY "BIG PEOPLE" WORDS!!!! I'M IN THE 8TH GRADE TRYING TO DO A "SIMPLE" HISTORY PROJECT AND WHEN I TRIED TO LOOK UP SOMETHING YOU HAD TO MAKE IT ALL CONFUSING, SO NOW IT'S NOT SO "SIMPLE" ANYMORE THANKS TO YOU GUYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.96.76 (talk • contribs)


 * Um. RickK 06:31, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You can grow up any time now

Unclear
I think I don´t have to shout, but I agree with the 8th grader (I am a german professor..perhaps that´s equivalent). No: it is totally unclear what was the fuzz about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.111.112 (talk • contribs)


 * I think this was very easy to understand and I appreciate how it tied everything together from the different perspectives of the political leaders of that time. Thanks guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.96.14 (talk • contribs)


 * I think you should reconsider whether Remini's work was really pro-Jackson. It ultimately presents the bank war as a political issue, where two very stubborn men went to "war". I think it's quite fair to both, but if anything, it would certainly not be pro-Jackson, not quite pro-bank, but more anti-Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.153.122 (talk • contribs)


 * Year, right. Just read it over! It's all about DOIN' IT RIGHT. 4 SHIZZLE MY NIZZLE YO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.18.170.6 (talk • contribs)

Corruption
The article says, "Andrew Jackson thoroughly disliked the Second Bank of the United States because of its fraud and corruption." I know that was Jackson's opinion, but is the Bank's corruption a proven fact? The article implies that it is. But from my reading, I've gathered more that Jackson's fear was more hypothetical and general, he having claimed once that he had feared all banks since reading about the infamous South Sea Bubble.

I also agree with the readers who find this article unclear and confusing; to cite one example, both William Jones and Nicholas Biddle are identified as the head of the Bank, without explaining that these are two different eras in the Bank's history. I'm considering doing a complete rewrite of this article, but would like to give the previous writers a chance to comment first.
 * yes the article is garbled and POV and needs a rewrite. Rjensen 21:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think it would be safe to say that banking practice in those days were far from transparent. But I see user Rjensen completely agrees with you. Somehow I suddenly dont find this a useful place to go for historic evidence or serious debate or serious information on world economic history...

Documentation
"The Second Bank of the United States helped create a robust economy with strong interregional connections and provided a convenient way for the government to handle its affairs. Enemies of all banks and modernization generally, combined with some jealous bankers "

I'm a bit curious as to how "jealousy" is historically documented and sourced?

Also labelling all figures in the broad opposition of central banking at the time as "enemies of modernization in general" (paraphrase) is both weasle words, labeling, and simply pov, and it's not documented (not possible to document for all the parties involved).

It seems people here on wiki are forgetting that Andrew Jackson went to presidential election and won, on the central and only call "Jackson, and No Bank!".

So here you now label the will and political views of the majority of the voting people in the contry. That's kind of grand of you, and I'd like to see some peer reviewing on this notion, that the majority of the american people at the time were somehow "enemies of modernization". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.144.240.250 (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Hammond documented the jealosy in great detail and won the Pulitzer Prize for it. The historians have been very hard at work for 75+ years trying to figure out the views of the voters. Wiki's job is not to ridicule their work but to summarize it. Opponents of modernity opposed banks (but the article does not say they were a majority). See: James Roger Sharp, The Jacksonians Versus the Banks: Politics in the States after the Panic of 1837 (1970) Rjensen 12:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the source for the alleged documentation of this so-called "jealousy" (weasle word)in this political-economic debate. One historian/economist labelling it jealousy does not make it a historic fact. I could probably dig up a hundred plus historians and economists with a different interpretation of the motivation of parties involved. Also from 75+ years of research on the subject.This is charactherization of the opponents views. Please document further better. Which part of James Roger Sharp, The Jacksonians Versus the Banks: Politics in the States after the Panic of 1837 (1970) are you reffering to that contains the "jealousy" docomuentation? are there others supporting this view? also how is Banking and Economy linked directly to the people of the times views on modernisation? Please document further.


 * Hammond documented the jealousy theme (state banks were jealous of the national bank and wanted to topple it.) Sharp shows that most Dems strongly opposed banks. Do you have a differentr reading of these books? Which of the hundred plus historians you know have a different view?

Rjensen 08:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotes from Sharp: . Although directed against the Second Bank of the United States, the message [Jackson 1832 veto] articulated a central antibank theme that could be applied against all banks. To Jackson and his hard- money followers, banks occupied privileged positions in society and exercised tremendous and virtually unchecked power. This power, they concluded, had either to be curtailed and regulated, or destroyed....The nationwide bank suspension in 1837 and the following depression acted as a spiritual and political catharsis, purging the Democratic party of much of its doubt and making opposition to the banks a test of party. [p 5] Rjensen 08:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You expect the general public to accept "jealousy" as a driving motivation in the course of history and economic powers? This is a novel concept to me, and I would think to most historians, very interesting. Since I've never heard it used through my university years as a prime theme or line of reasoning. Please define "jealousy", so we can better understand how and why this is so. And yes, I do have historians and economists who take a different view. Quite a lot of them in fact.


 * One of the joys of studying history is you learn new things. "jealous" is the term Hammond and other historians have used: the bank's defeat in the unremitting hostility of rival bankers jealous of it in 'Recent Contributions to Economic History: The United States, 1789-1860" by Carter C Goodrich in The Journal of Economic History, 1959. Please cite your sources if any.  Rjensen 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * More "Jealousy" : "Van Buren stood ready to wheel northern Bucktails and southern Radicals into the anti-Bank crusade. The great lesson of New York politics was never to oppose a strong current of popular feeling, and in New York he got room for anti-Bank maneuver from the Safety Fund, Wall Street jealousy of Philadelphia, and the hunger of some upstate Bucktail bankers for the federal deposits." passage is from The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846.'' Charles Sellers 1991. Page 324. Rjensen 09:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe you've ever studied history or else you would perhaps find that the term "jealousy" is not a term generally utilized to any great extent or in a meaningful way in political or geo-political analysis or economic history. Not any I've ever come across in anything I've done studying history at university level or reading historical treatises or other scholarly publications on the subject of history at any rate. And I'm terribly sorry, yes I actually have to go by and reference what I experience here on this planet. I think I'd look up the definition of weasle words and bias again. Why would wikipedia conform to a single historian's preference / choice of words.This is fast becoming more ridiculuous than I think I care to participate in. I do however understand that this fits your POV and political bias. So much for the peer reviewing around here. Have a nice day.John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I somehow suspect you'd find some other important _motives_ behind the term "jealousy" if you were to look a bit further. But perhaps that's just me. I guess it is. John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Centrist Ideology of the Media
from www.fair.org

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492

Propaganda from the Middle of the Road The Centrist Ideology of the News Media

By Jeff Cohen

There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."

When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"

It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492

The Centrist Ideology of the Media (2)
The problems with wikipedia on controversial issues seem to be that many of the US users and others have a thoroughly conservative view on history as well as economics. In this respect they seem to believe that any attempt at even remotely displaying signs of the actual controversy that has in fact occured throughout the years must be POV. I don't know if this has something to do with the educational system, the US media or just the users of wikipedia, but it creates a huge gap between europeans views of what is a fair and balanced view of history and the US version one meets on wikipedia. No serious debate is generated and there seems to be a grave lack of understanding what the history subject is all about in some cases. Often encyclopedic form is used as an excuse although huge amounts of wiki articles on current entertainment industry pieces are far more extensive and cover several scores of pages and references and supplimentary pages.

One media analyst summed it up in this fashion in his article "Propaganda from the Middle of the Road" The Centrist Ideology of the News Media

"Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)

'''Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others.'''

from a www.fair.org article by Jeff Cohen

from www.fair.org http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunamiut (talk • contribs) 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Branch Banks
I've been dressing up the article on Thomas Hale Sill, who headed the Erie branch of the Second Bank of the United States in 1837. I spent some time trying to discern what exactly was a United States branch bank, which is how the US Congressional biography described his place of employment. It took me a while to figure out that it was a local branch of the Bank of the United States. This article should be expanded to include some discussion of the branch system of this bank. As this article reads, the only bank was the one in Phillie, which is an insufficient description. There is quite a bit of information out there on branch banks -- I Googled "united states branch bank" and found info on many towns and cities with branch banks, not just Erie. Here's a local Erie historical society article that mentions our local branch bank. Greetings from WikiProject Erie! Pat 02:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions: Merging Article with "Banking in the Jacksonian Era," Effects of Bank
Since "Second Bank of the U.S." is part of "Banking in the Jacksonian Era," I definitely think it would make more sense if they were merged. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to do it myself, but if someone else does I think it would be helpful to all of us trying to learn about this stuff.

Another comment: It'd be nice to have the purpose/effects of the Second Bank outlined. Why did it's decline hurt the American economy? How did it help the economy while it was operating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.161.174 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles should be absolutely not be merged, there are articles on the other two central banks and the Second Bank of the US is very, very notable and historic in it's own right. Tcrow777Talk 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No Merger
I think the articles shoud remain seperate even though connected because the 2nd Bank of America is a large and independant subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.196.128 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree merger not a good idea -- the effect of Jackson's opposition to the Second Bank was to encourage state banks -- which have their own history and importance in this period, separate from the 2BUS24.91.161.44 (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite seems reasonable
It seems a rewrite of content for this entry is in order. Fewer adjectives and more historical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.126.157 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be fact checked and I think it should address the instability the bank's closure created in the U.S. financial system. Jackson's personal dislike of Biddle should is another subject that the article should address. It also appears that this reference "Costello, Shannon Marie. "Jackson Is My Kind of Man" :P (2006). Memoir. Pro-Jackson." is not a real reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massivetransit (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A rewrite of the introduction to the article would also be most welcome. I just landed on this page from another Wikipedia entry, and the intro does not tell me what the Second Bank was. It starts with Not to be confused clauses which seem unnecessary and then seems to assume that one already knows what the First Bank was. After reading the intro it was unclear to me whether this was a commercial bank, a consumer-oriented bank, or an arm of the federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.247.15.207 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been happy to oblige. 36hourblock (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite with more material, yes. Merger, no.
This article and the article on the First Bank of the United States are both in need of a rewrite, with much more information needed. Because of the importance of the institutions, and the significance of their neoclassical bank buildings, no merger with other articles is justified. DThomsen8 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8


 * I intend to expand this article and the First Bank article with information about the roles of Thomas Willing, president of the First Bank, and Stephen Girard , owner of the First Bank building and stockholder in both banks. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Federal Reserve
A lot of the political rhetoric involving criticism of the Federal Reserve appears to be borrowed from previous political polemic involving Second Bank of the United States. For instance, critics of the Federal Reserve often like to quote Andrew Jackson and James Madison to the effect that banks will sometimes attempt to achieve a semi-official status within the US federal government, thus creating a type of commercial monopoly that leads to all sorts economic and political problems within the national treasury. It might be a good idea to gather sources involving these types of historical comparisons. ADM (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Who brought the suit?
The article says McCulloch [cashier/banker of Baltimore branch] sued the state in a county court, whereas everything I've read [Sullivan's Con Law & Chemerinsky's Principles & Policies] says the suit was initiated by John James, an informer who sought to obtain half of the fine, per the Maryland statute ruled unconstitutional once appealed to the USSC. Additionally, the wiki article on the McCulloch v. Maryland case says John James sued, not that McCulloch did.

A correction from someone who knows the rules of the wiki game [which I do not]? Thank you! 97.120.167.77 (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of editing the text so it is at least correct. It may be a bit verbose though. Also, I noticed I was supposed to have entered a note summarizing my edit - which I neglected in ignorance. My apologies; if someone knows how I can retroactively edit it, I'd be grateful. 97.120.167.77 (talk) 00:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation requests in article
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/writings/bank/jackson.htm http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto01.asp I'm a beginner, just trying to help. Maybe someone better acquainted with editing should check these and see if they are appropriate? Thanks, 173.247.29.132 (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV
I know the source says "Under Biddle's guidance, the BUS evolved into a powerful banking institution that produced a strong and sound system of national credit and currency." but I'm sure that the strength and soundness of the national credit and currency would be disputed by many. Perhaps not many who are alive today.

Does this violate NPOV?

64.207.238.222 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It "violates" exactly nothing. Editors visiting this site will recognize the following "red flag" argument: "...but I'm sure that...[it] would be disputed by many."
 * Nonsense complaints such as these are unwelcome. Please present documentation founded on source material. "I'm sure that" you will comply with this request.  36hourblock (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)