Talk:Hartford Convention
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
151.203.24.201 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)While a marxist (i.e. economic and power driven) historical perspective is certainly important when discussing the Hartford Convention, this article could really, really talk about the non-economic factors that contributed to it's conception and why it was bad. At the least, someone needs to discuss the changes in national unity (or rather, it's shift from non-existence to existence) that make the event make sense in the broader context. I'll do this eventually, but feel free to beat me to it. --Shanoyu 08:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Cultural differences and the Hartford Convention
I would love to see the article include informed reasoning about how the Hartford Convention was as much or more rooted in culture than economic forces. The economic forces are to me more objective and quantifiable, and hence relatively easy to address.
It is important to address the cultural differences that would make New England see itself as a separate culture. Obviously, most discussions of sucession/disunion and also the idea of a part of the nation having a separate and unique culture have of necessity centered around the South. It would be good to see it shown persuasively that succession as an idea was not solely a Southern, or even Southern-originated, idea.
[edit] Typo report
Under Schouler's History, subhead "Delegations", there is a phrase, "Pickering's Confederacy of 18042", that seems wrong. Mdotley 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Under "Delegations", the last paragraph is convoluted beyond comprehension. Sentence variety is good but this is too much.205.188.117.66 22:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Schouler's History
Shouldn't this be in Wikisource or something, but not Wikipedia? I will remove it if there are no objections. Schi 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wiki often uses Encyclopedia Brit 1911 edition for historical articles. This is the same sort of thing--using a well-known historian to describe the events. (It is copyright-expired). I have rewritten the article to integrate Schouler's points, and added some additional info esp Morison's criticism. Rjensen 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nice job integrating it! Schi 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wiki often uses Encyclopedia Brit 1911 edition for historical articles. This is the same sort of thing--using a well-known historian to describe the events. (It is copyright-expired). I have rewritten the article to integrate Schouler's points, and added some additional info esp Morison's criticism. Rjensen 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non-Intercourse Act
Why does the text attribute Madison's non-intercourse act to Jefferson? Jefferson was out of office when Madison passed it. --Roman Babylon 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- because Jefferson signed it on March 1, 1809 Rjensen 14:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)-
[edit] Neutrality of last section
The way the author of the last section "Negative Reception" protrays public opinion, without statements like 'the people felt...' makes it seem as though this is objective reality. It gets especially bad when he describes the congress as 'craven' without ever saying that the people felt this. I know that this does not conform to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, and I think that this should be fixed.
[edit] page links to wrong Harrison Gray Otis
151.203.24.201 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC) dkew
