Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bank War/archive1

Bank War

 * Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during his presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office. Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Orser67
Just read through the article and have the following thoughts, hope you find them helpful Orser67 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC):


 * The first paragraph "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" could use a couple sentences explaining why the first bank was established to begin with, what it did, and why/when it was abolished. I don't think we can assume that readers will understand the basic functions of a central bank in the early 19th century United States, or that they know that Hamilton was the driving force behind the bank and that Jefferson/Madison opposed it in the 1790s, so this would be a good place to quickly explain what the bank did while giving a little background.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The next three paragraphs in the section have sufficient information, but I think they could use a little reorganization. For example "Republican nationalists" and "Calhoun" are introduced in the third paragraph, but it's not explained what these terms mean until the fourth paragraph. I would also make it clear in some way that "Republican" is referring to the Democratic-Republican Party (making sure readers understand we aren't talking about the modern Republican Party), and explain why Hamilton is relevant (which could be done in the first paragraph).
 * I see what you mean. I reorganized this section and also added a little bit of information about the Era of Good Feelings in general, which is important to understanding what was taking place. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Federal Government" and "Federal" (outside of a proper name) should not be capitalized. Or at least, the capitalization should be consistent.
 * I checked and I'm not sure where it was capitalized. "Federalist" was capitalized because it's the name of a political party, but I'm not sure what else you're referring to. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to these two sentences: "In a series of "memorandums," he attacked the Federal Government for widespread abuses and corruption." and "In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bank was both constitutional and that, as an agent of the Federal government..." Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , fixed. Sorry about that. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you need to make it clear that all four major candidates for president in 1824 were part of the Democratic-Republican Party, that the Democratic-Republican Party collapsed during Adams's presidency, and the various factions from 1824 coalesced into Jackson's Democratic Party and Adams's National Republican Party. As it stands, both of the latter parties appear for the first time in the article without any explanation.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Due to length considerations, I would separate ""Jackson and Reform": Implications for the B.U.S." into two sections or subsections, one covering 1817-1827, and the other covering the 1828 campaign.
 * I divided it into two subsections. The first is called "Panic of 1819." The second one is "Rise of Jackson" and it picks up at the 1824 election. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * For the 1828 campaign, I think that most of the necessary information is there, but I think some reorganization could help better explain why, if Jackson personally opposed the bank and if Jacksonian principles supposedly made a collision course with the bank inevitable, Jackson didn't campaign on the national bank and Biddle voted for him. I would also explain more about the hard money and paper money factions of Jackson's coalition.
 * Upon reflection, I decided to delete the sentence about collision between Jackson and the Bank being inevitable. It's a problematic statement because it requires a light of hindsight vision and was not obvious at the time. As the article states, public opinion of the Bank was reasonably high when Jackson first took office as president. So despite the fact that Jackson hated the Bank, making immediate war on it would not have been a good idea. The plan that McLane proposed for saving the Bank (see "The Post-Eaton Cabinet and Compromise Efforts") demonstrates that an all-out battle between Jacksonian democracy and the Bank was not entirely necessary. In fact, Jackson may very well have allowed the Bank to be saved had Clay and Webster not decided to turn recharter into a political issue ahead of the 1832 election. I also added more about the hard and paper money factions, explaining the viewpoints of each. It's too bad they weren't in there already. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually thought about proposing that you delete that sentence about inevitability, so I'm glad you made that decision. I like the new paragraph about hard vs soft money factions, but I think there needs to be a mention somewhere of the fact that the national bank was essentially in charge of issuing and regulating paper money. Many readers will probably not know that paper money at that time was not issued by the federal government as it is today, but rather by the national bank and private banks. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I added an explanation of the Bank's role in issuing and regulating paper currency to near the end of the "Rise of Jackson" section. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Jumping ahead to "Jackson's Veto of the Bank Recharter Bill," I would change "veto power was no longer limited to suppressing clear violations of the Constitution – it could be asserted on social, political or economic grounds"; this sentence might lead readers to believe that the Constitution restricts veto power, when in fact the Presentment Clause doesn't say that the president needs a particular reason to veto bills. I would instead favor something like "While previous presidents had used their veto power, they had only done so when objecting to the constitutionality of bills. By vetoing the recharter bill on the grounds that he was acting in the best interests of the American people, Jackson claimed a major role for the president in the legislative process." You might also want to throw in a mention somewhere regarding Jackson's other major veto, the Maysville Road veto.
 * Sentence changed. The Maysville Road veto is an important part of Jackson's overall governmental philosophy, but it has little to no connection to the Bank War. I looked for a place where I'd be able to fit it, but I couldn't find a good spot. This isn't surprising because it's a totally separate issue. For now, I think it's best to leave it out. In discussing the elimination of the debt, the article does say that the paying off of the debt took place partially because Jackson vetoed "legislation which he deemed extravagant." The Maysville Road veto is part of that. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fine, the key thing for me is that the importance of the veto is explained. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably worth mentioning that the Nullification Crisis briefly took center stage in late 1832/early 1833, delaying the renewal of the Bank War and alienating many Southerners, who later joined the Whig Party.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I like the legacy section regarding historians views of the Bank War, but I think there needs to be some more coverage of the impact of the Bank War. I suggest reiterating the contributions the Bank War made to the rising importance of the presidential veto, as well as to the formation of the Whig Party. I'd also like to see some coverage of central banking in the decade or so after Jackson left office, because the Bank War had a huge impact on the politics of the late 1830s and early 1840s. The Panic of 1837 was the dominant theme of Van Buren's presidency, and his main response was to establish the Independent Treasury system, which was basically a vault for government funds. The Whigs abolished the Independent Treasury and attempted to restore the national bank in the early 1840s, but were thwarted by President Tyler, whom they promptly kicked out of the party. Polk re-established the Independent Treasury in 1846, and the country didn't have a central bank until the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
 * I'll do a little bit more research here in the coming days and see if I can add anything. I don't want to get too far off the scope of this article, however. What happened to the U.S. economy after 1836 is only relevant insofar as it is impacted by the Bank War, and we don't need to be writing about too much post-1830s economic history for this article. The article for the Panic of 1837, as well as other articles, can cover that. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the post-1846 stuff, I'm just looking for a sentence stating that the country didn't have a central banking system until 1913. For the period between 1837 and 1846, I think a paragraph regarding the political impact of the Bank War is warranted because the battles in the late 1830s and early-to-mid 1840s were really a continuation of the Bank War; the Whigs were still backing the national bank, and the Democrats were still searching for an alternative. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, although the part about not having a central bank until 1913 is mentioned in passing in the Legacy section. Please give me a little while. I'm not as familiar with the events of the 1840s and may want to visit my university library to make sure that I have adequate sources. I have access to some but will want to broaden my scope a little bit. I won't be able to make it there until Monday. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Nevermind. I think I got a decent paragraph with the sources that I have now. Please take a look. It's at the beginning of the Legacy section. Display name 99 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

, thank you for your review. Your comments were helpful. Please see my responses. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm checking in now to see whether you're able to finish the review. Display name 99 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing my comments. Here are a few more comments, then I think I'm probably done. Orser67 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * For the second paragraph of the lead, a single "neutral" sentence describing the bank's basic functions/background would be helpful before diving into the pros and cons.
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The political background in the "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" section is good, but I suggest adding a sentence to explain the basic functions of the national bank either in this paragraph or in the section. For example, this sentence comes from the Federal Reserve website: "[The Second National Bank] would act as fiscal agent for the federal government — holding its deposits, making its payments, and helping it issue debt to the public — and it would issue and redeem banknotes and keep state banks’ issuance of notes in check."
 * Done. I added a paragraph to the end of the section. Good suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia is mentioned a few times throughout the article, so I suggest clearly establishing that the bank was located in Philadelphia in the "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" section.
 * I mentioned this in the paragraph that I added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I looked for examples of individuals appearing for the first time without their full name and a wikilink, and found one: Daniel Webster appears for the first time as "Webster" in the sentence "Webster called for a vote to end discussions on the Bank." I suggest introducing him as National Republican Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts (much like how Benton is introduced a few sentences earlier).
 * Done. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

, I have responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. Supported. Orser67 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review


 * Suggest adding alt text


 * File:Andrew_jackson_head.jpg: source links are dead


 * File:Henry_Clay.JPG: source link is dead and this needs a US PD tag


 * File:Black_Dan.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag


 * File:Portrait_of_Roger_Brooke_Taney.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your review. I added alt text. I dealt with all of your other issues. Display name 99 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Formats
 * Hyphens in page ranges (too many to list) need to be converted to ndashes. Ref 315 has an = sign
 * Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 37 requires pp. not p.
 * Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ref 320: "Claremont Institute" should not be italicized
 * Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bibliography
 * Baptist should precede Bates in alphabetical sequence
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Kim and Wallis should precede Knodell
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Latin American History is a subscription service that requires the template
 * I don't see where this is cited. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Campbell 2019 should have ISBN
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For consistency, Meacham 2008 should have the 13-digit ISBN which is 978-1-4000-6325-3
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise Olson 2002 which is 978-0-313-30830-7
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sumner 1972 ISBN converts to 978-0-404-50867-8
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wilentz 2006 ISBN converts to 978-0-393-05820-8
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wilentz 2005 ISBN converts to 978-0-8050-6925-9
 * Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool
 * Quality and reliability: Ref 31: What makes David Leap a high-quality reliable source?
 * Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Further reading: The list appears to be unduly extensive. There are various issues of missing ISBNs, unconverted ISBNs etc
 * I removed two sources and added as well as repaired ISBNs. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Subject to the one query, the sources appear to be comprehensive and of the standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria. However, it would be useful if a historian could offer an opinion on this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There was one historian,, who made significant contributions to the article a couple of months ago. Two of his works are cited in the Bibliography. We got into a major disagreement over his attempts to remove large amounts of sourced material, but later came to a resolution. He complained that the article relied too heavily on certain sources while nearly or entirely ignoring others. Specifically, he perceived a bias in favor of sources which were sympathetic to Jackson. He added plenty of material from other sources, including his own work, to balance this out, and I have continued the work after he left the article. I think it looks good now. All of the sources are scholarly and academic, and in my view, there is a good mix of perspectives. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

, thank you for your review. Especially for providing me with ISBNs. That saved me a lot of time. I should've caught some of these issues before nominating, but thank you for checking them over. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - Despite some early review and support for promotion, this one just doesn't have the legs. It will be archived shortly and may be renominated after the customary two-week waiting period. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)