Talk:Webster–Hayne debate

missing content
What a letdown! An article about "the most eloquent speech ever made to Congress", yet we don't see it here at all. If there is no surviving transcript, the reader should be told up front and not left to wonder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PJ6 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The text of Webster's Second Reply to Hayne on Wikisource is now linked. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 14:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This reads like a cliff's note. Not an article.

This does not even include the positions of Webster and Hayne. I have to say, it has almost no information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.95.208 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It would seem to disagree with http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe that Wycliffe's introduction to the Bible was the source of the Gettysburg quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.74.77.178 (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above; furthermore, the article as it stands only addresses the second of Webster’s speeches, the one that became famous and widely reprinted as a patriotic text. That’s not enough for an article that purports to be about the whole debate.
 * The “Analysis” section does present one critical take on Webster as a New England conservative rather than as a pure Unionist. But the section doesn’t present any other perspective (other than the long quote from some Victorian named Schouler). There is nothing about the context of the debate, nothing about the distribution and reception of the speeches. We haven’t even gotten started. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 14:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Section taken from constitution.org
The section "A brief summary of the debate" is taken directly from

http://www.constitution.org/hwdebate/hwdebate.htm#A%20Brief%20Summary%20of%20the%20Debate

The copyright text on the page is "by Hal Morris - Copyright 1996. May be copied, but not in any way sold without the author's permission."

If this means that the text should be removed from this page, then let that be done. I do not know whether that warrants removal.

I will link to this page as a reference, whether it is removed or not. Rychach 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

“Schouler’s analysis” both obsolete and inaccurately quoted
The article relies too much on “Schouler’s analysis,” a long excerpt from a work published in 1891. Some anonymous editors have “improved” the text, so it no longer works as a direct quote of the material. The edits cannot be automatically undone. — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 14:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)