Talk:Bank War/Archives/2018

Slavery in the lead

This sentence in the lead is highly misleading:

"The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty and therefore it posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the U.S. southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery."

Slavery had nothing to do with the Bank War. The controversy over the Bank pitted farmers against industrialists, rural laborers against commerce men. The Jacksonian coalition united "common people" from all over the country. Farmers everywhere considered the Bank's policies harmful to their livelihoods. Please take time to examine all electoral maps dating from 1832 through 1848. If slavery was at the heart of the Bank War, why were so many Southerners against Jackson's Bank policies (Clay, Calhoun-on the removal of deposits at least) and so many Northerners in favor of them (Van Buren, Kendall, Levi Woodbury)? Somewhere in Volume II of his three-volume Andrew Jackson biography, Robert Remini strongly criticizes the idea that the Democratic Party was founded to protect slavery. In the Second Party System, before slavery came to dominate the national stage, coalitions went beyond geographic lines, and had members in all parts of the country. I am removing this sentence from the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99 - "Slavery had nothing to do with the Bank War" is not sourced. You may find some support from Remini on this position, but I don't have the citation in front of me. On the position that slavery as an interest penetrated every aspect of US politics in the ante bellum period - including the Bank War - I suggest you reading The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis by historian Arthur Bestor in The American Historical Review Vol. 69, No. 2 (Jan., 1964), pp. 327-352 and Richard H. Brown's The Missouri Crisis, Slavery, and the Politics of Jacksonianism. South Atlantic Quarterly. pp. 55–72 (1966. These historians support the position presented in the lead, as well as Princeton University Professor Emeritus, James M. McPherson, as cited. Undid edit. --36hourblock (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, please do not undue edits when a reasonable explanation for them is provided on the talk page. Instead, address your complaint there and wait for consensus. As such, I have undone your revert. You may wish to read WP:Consensus.

Slavery did not strongly penetrate U.S. politics on most issues during the Jacksonian administration, and perhaps even on most issues before the Civil War. The issue played a significant role in the debate over the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention, disappeared from the national stage until Jefferson abolished the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1807, disappeared again until 1820, and for the most part went away again until Texas gained independence as a slave-owning country in 1836.

Let's take the Nullification Crisis, for example. Jackson took the position of most Southern planation owners on slavery in that day. There is no record of him defending it as any sort of "positive good", and Remini recounts numerous examples of him treating slaves kindly and being concerned with their health, but he was very hostile to abolitionism and to any immediate attempt to end slavery. Why then, did he not come out on the same side in the crisis as John C. Calhoun, the most fanatical slavery supporter in politics and his own VP? That is because the issue was over tariffs and the nature of the Union, not slavery.

I have in front of me the Johns Hopkins Paperback version of Remini's biography. A passage from page 101 of Volume II reads:

"Thus, the Jacksonian movement as it began had nothing to do with the desire of Southerners to protect slavery, as sometimes suggested. Despite the Missouri Compromise, that "alarm bell" in the night, it had nothing to do with that "peculiar institution." Slavery was not the coalescing force drawing [Jeffersonian] Republicans together behind Jackson. Nor did slavery represent any great fear among them. The coalescing force was the desire to protect liberty. The great fear was the loss of the government to men who lusted after money and power and would sacrifice liberty to attain them."

Robert Remini quite probably knows more about Andrew Jackson than any man except those who met him. His words are trustworthy, and the above paragraph shows how irrelevant slavery was to the original Jacksonian movement, a fundamental tenant of which was the defeat of such "corrupt" institutions as the BUS. In Volume III, Remini discusses how many people opposed Jackson's removal of funds from the Bank because they considered it a dangerous expanse of executive power that would threaten states' rights. He implicitly includes Calhoun as a member of that group. I can see it I can get a quote if you insist on one.

Rjensen is someone whom I have worked with on a number of historical articles. Perhaps he can be of some use in mediating this disagreement on whether or not slavery played a fundamental role in the Jacksonian movement, and in opposition to the BUS in particular. Display name 99 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99 - Refrain from deleting passages from the article until you've located sources that support the deletion, and post the justification on this talk page. Provide those passages from the sources that justify the deletion. The article, as written, is predicated on this principle. You made the original deletion without any consensus whatsoever.

The Remini quote is duly noted. It alone does not override the widespread acknowledgement that slave-holding interests influenced every aspect of political discourse in the period leading up to the Civil War. Historian William Lee Miller's "Arguing about Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress" (1998) attests to this.

Wilentz (2008) p. 217 “…[B]y the time political leaders began adapting to the effects of the [Panic of 1819], its implications had been clouded by a distinct though related political crisis over slavery that also began in 1819...that quickly assumed national significance.”</ref>

Brown (1966) p. 22 “The insistence that slavery was uniquely a Southern concern, not to be touched by outsiders, had been from the outset a sine qua non for Southern participation in national politics. It underlay the Constitution and its creation of a government of limited powers...In the campaign of 1824...the slavery issue was never far below the surface...[Old Republicans] fear[ing] that it could be used against them.”

As to mediation, an unbiased editor would be desirable. Would you like to proceed with that, as we clearly are engaged in an edit war?

--36hourblock (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, I'll wait a bit longer to see if the editor I pinged above responds. If not, I'll look somewhere else, perhaps to a noticeboard of some sort. I'm not particularly familiar with all of that.

However, I still wish to note that you have not provided any evidence that the slavery issue specifically affected the Bank War. In fact, none of the quotes included in the sources for the disputed article content specifically address the Bank War, or were made by those whom we would properly call "Jacksonians". The McPherson quote is a vague generalization about Southerners and states' rights before the war, and says nothing of the conflict over the BUS. In fact, by the time he became president, Jackson didn't even talk about "states' rights" very often. He more often referred to the "people", the majority. This idea was totally opposite from Calhoun's approach, which was to emphasize the Southern states as a minority. Once again, Remini emphasizes this quite frequently. The other quote included in the article is from Senator John Taylor of Virginia, speaking in 1820, about 12 years before the Bank War began. Taylor himself died in 1824 about 8 years before the Bank War began. Neither of these quotes, nor any of the ones that you provided here, support the claim that the anti-Bank movement in the Jackson administration occurred because the BUS "posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the U.S. southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery."

I challenge you to show that the issue of slavery was a fundamental concern not just in American life before the Civil War in general, but in the Bank War specifically. I would like quotes from qualified historians addressing the Bank War or supporters of Jackson's anti-Bank position attempting to explain their reasoning. Can you find any that directly tie the Bank War and slavery? I have not. In the Remini book, I have read up past Jackson's censure in the Senate in 1834, and haven't seen anything connecting the the two issues.

I also mentioned the support that Jackson gained from Northerners. Van Buren, Kendall, and Woodbury, all from the North, were three of his most loyal followers. In the 1832 presidential election, the Bank War was the primary issue, specifically Jackson's July veto of the recharter bill. If Jackson vetoed the bill in order to protect slaveholding interests, why did he receive the electoral votes of 8 non-slaveholding states? What business would they have supporting someone whose underlying purpose was to keep slavery alive in the South? Why would so many Northerners and westerners living in free states support a pro-slavery movement? Also, why would Clay, a slaveholder from Kentucky, be such a strong supporter of the Bank, if it was widely thought of in the South at that time that being in favor of it would endanger the institution of slavery? Display name 99 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99: Here we go. Question and answer time.

“…I still wish to note that you have not provided any evidence that the slavery issue specifically affected the Bank War."

Consider this quote:"Opposition to the bank's revival emanated from two interests. Old Republicans, represented by John Taylor of Caroline and John Randolph of Roanoke[1] characterized the Second Bank of the United States as both constitutionally illegitimate and a direct threat to Jeffersonian agrarianism, state sovereignty and the institution of slavery, expressed by Taylor's statement that "...if Congress could incorporate a bank, it might emancipate a slave".[2][3][4][5] Hostile to the regulatory effects of the central bank,[6] private banks—proliferating with or without state charters[7]—had scuttled rechartering of the first BUS in 1811.[8][9] These interests played significant roles in undermining the institution during the administration of U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837)."[10]
1. Remini, 1981, p. 32
2. Varon, 2008, p. 36
3. Dangerfield, 1966, p. 98
4. Schlesinger, 1945, pp. 20–21
5. Wilentz, 2008, pp. 203, 214
6. Hammond, 1947, p. 150
7. Dangerfield, 1966, p. 87
8. Hammond, 1947, p. 152
9. Wilentz, 2008, pp. 203–204
10. Hammond, 1947, p.153
(See Sources for these citations at Second Bank of the United States

“… [None] of the quotes included in the sources for the disputed article content specifically address the Bank War, or were made by those whom we would properly call "Jacksonians". The McPherson quote is a vague generalization about Southerners and states' rights before the war, and says nothing of the conflict over the BUS."

In fact, the McPherson quote is apropos, but if your approach to this topic requires that we find a statement by Jackson that contains the words “the Bank” and “slave” then you will be sadly disappointed. The lead to this wiki article does not require “a smoking gun” as you seem to demand.

“… ]By] the time he became president, Jackson didn't even talk about "states' rights" very often. He more often referred to the "people", the majority. This idea was totally opposite from Calhoun's approach, which was to emphasize the Southern states as a minority.”

Whether Jackson talked, or didn’t talk, about state sovereignty, you’d have to provide sources. I would say that Jackson’s Maysville Road veto supports a local or state orientation, the effect of which was to undermine the development of nationally funded public works projects. See American System (economic plan).

“Once again, Remini emphasizes this quite frequently.”

Duly noted.

“The other quote included in the article is from Senator John Taylor of Virginia, speaking in 1820, about 12 years before the Bank War began. Taylor himself died in 1824 about 8 years before the Bank War began.”

Another argumentative fallacy. Ronald Reagan died 12 years ago. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans still pay tribute to his policies.

“Neither of these quotes, nor any of the ones that you provided here, support the claim that the anti-Bank movement in the Jackson administration occurred because the BUS ‘posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the U.S. southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery.’”

As a matter of fact, they do. Historian Richard H. Brown, in his essay The Missouri Crisis, Slavery, and the Politics of Jacksonianism (1966) describes how Martin Van Buren of New York in collaboration with Thomas Ritchie of Virginia, resurrected Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party in the 1820s as an antidote to sectional the sectional crisis that arose over Missouri and slavery. It was this party, “The Democracy” which Jackson led to victory in 1828, based on the North-South agrarian alliance. You can access Brown on JSTOR.

“I challenge you to show that the issue of slavery was a fundamental concern not just in American life before the Civil War in general, but in the Bank War specifically.”

I’ll take that challenge. (You'll excuse me. In my initial response, I thought you were implying that slavery was not a "fundamental concern" in ante bellum American life. With a rereading, I see that you were not questioning the truth of that.) The problem here is the argumentative fallacy you've posed, namely, that the sentence implies that the "issue of slavery" was central, and explicit, to the contemporary debates over the survival of the Bank. The is NOT what the lead statement is suggesting, and I think you know it. The sources I've supplied in this exchange hold that 1) the slavery issue was so dangerously divisive to the survival of the Union that open discourse on the topic had to be suppressed nationally and 2)that the hostility to the Second Bank of the United States, in particular, served to define the interests of the slaveholders (i.e. small government, strict construction of the US Constitution, and so on) WITHOUT resorting to proslavery rhetoric that would offend the (largely) antislavery northern wing of their party.

If this is not a "fundamental concern", related to the attacks on the Bank, I don't know what is.

“I would like quotes from qualified historians addressing the Bank War or supporters of Jackson's anti-Bank position attempting to explain their reasoning. Can you find any that directly tie the Bank War and slavery? I have not.”

Again, you have not grasped what the historian I’ve cited have grasped, to wit: Jackson’s policies on the Maysville Road and the Second Bank of the United States are consistent with a strict constructionist philosophy that required that he reject these projects and institutions – they enlarged the role of the central government. He assumed a rhetoric that described them as dangerous to liberty – liberty based on the holding of property, including slave property.

“In the Remini book, I have read up past Jackson's censure in the Senate in 1834, and haven't seen anything connecting the the two issues.”

That’s great. Sounds like an interesting topic.

“I also mentioned the support that Jackson gained from Northerners. Van Buren, Kendall, and Woodbury, all from the North, were three of his most loyal followers. In the 1832 presidential election, the Bank War was the primary issue, specifically Jackson's July veto of the recharter bill. If Jackson vetoed the bill in order to protect slaveholding interests, why did he receive the electoral votes of 8 non-slaveholding states? What business would they have supporting someone whose underlying purpose was to keep slavery alive in the South? Why would so many Northerners and westerners living in free states support a pro-slavery movement?"

Historians William W. Freehling, Thomas Krannawitter and Elizabeth R. Varon addresses these questions in their books (listed as sources for the section “Disquisition on Government” in the article John Caldwell Calhoun.

"Also, why would Clay, a slaveholder from Kentucky, be such a strong supporter of the Bank, if it was widely thought of in the South at that time that being in favor of it would endanger the institution of slavery?"

Again, an argumentative fallacy. Clay was a National Republican who designed a system for federal involvement in trade, finance and public works. He supported voluntary emancipation by slaveholders, followed by removal of the former slaves from the United States. I think Remini wrote a book on him. I'm surprised you don’t have its ISBN number at your fingertips. I will leave you with this caveat: Homo unius libri ("beware the man who reads but one book").

By the way, I had to run off an annoying Troll from my talk page regarding this article. I don’t think he’ll show up again. --36hourblock (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, with respect for your positions, I think now is about the time to have an uninvolved editor look into this. I'll soon take a look at how to do that. A few things though:

• In your paragraph about the Brown essay, you state that it was the party created by Van Buren and Ritchie as being a resurrected version of Jefferson's Republicans, and the group which helped carry Jackson to victory in 1828. These were the "Radicals", a group which supported Crawford for president in 1824. Many also supported Jackson in 1828, but with a few exceptions, including in Van Buren's case, broke with him over Jackson's handling of the Nullification Crisis and the removal of funds from the BUS. A large number of them later became Whigs. For example, see John Floyd (Virginia politician). These men were the truest states' rights constructionists.
• I asked for sources that tie slavery to "the Bank War specifically". None of the three articles to which you linked connect the two. The 1844 presidential election took place after the War had ended. Slavery was a central issue in that election, owing to the potential annexation of Texas.
• Could you provide quotes from the historians who address Jackson's Northern support? I can't read the entire books.
• On Henry Clay: Clay was involved in the American Colonization Society, of which Andrew Jackson was also a member. Neither could properly be considered an extremist on the issue of slavery. Clay's son, Jams Brown Clay, supported the Confederacy during the Civil War. Remini wrote two books on Henry Clay: a full scholarly biography and a smaller book discussing Clay's role in the passage of the Compromise of 1850. The former is on a list of books that I would like to read in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

By all means, request a third party appraisal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion

Your sources, so far, have been a single passage from Remini. You may be required to read "entire books" to get some more support for your position. As to Richard H. Brown:

In a review of Robert Pierce Forbes The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America, reviewer Matthew E. Mason (Department of History, Brigham Young University) reports “Following Richard D. Brown's influential article, Forbes depicts Van Buren's constant scheming and party building as centered on a North-South alliance that would keep antislavery agitation at bay.[2] Indeed, Van Buren's drive "to mobilize slaveholders as a political bloc ... constituted the most important reason for the creation of the Second Party System".http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=14582

In historian John Ashworth’s Slavery, Capitalism and Politics in the Antebellum Republic (vol 1)(1995) he comments as follows: “…[historian] Richard P. McCormick…declared that the function of the political parties [in the Jacksonian Era] was to amass votes. They could only do so if slavery, clearly the most explosive of all questions, was kept outside the political arena.”

“…In 1966…Richard H. Brown published an important article entitled “The Missouri Crisis, Slavery, and the Politics of Jacksonianism”. Brown argued that the Democratic Party had been founded in the 1820s with the explicit purpose of protecting slavery…” p. 324

This belies your argument, 99, that slavery had nothing to do with the politics of the Democratic Party, including the struggle over the BUS. My sentence in the lead,” The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty and therefore it posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the U.S. southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery” is consistent with this interpretation of history. --36hourblock (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, I apologize for the delay. I was busy yesterday. I have listed this disagreement on WP:Third opinion. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion was requested. It appears to me that the current wording in the lede paragraph is "not incorrect" in mentioning slavery, but provides undue focus on one aspect of a complex situation. Slavery was a factor in the politics of the Democratic Party, but (especially given the rapidly changing nature of the Democratic Party at the time), was hardly the only factor. I don't have a specific suggestion for rewriting the lede, but I think that the current lede is "not incorrect" but sub-optimal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thank you for comments. Based on my own understanding, the Democratic Party did not become the pro-slavery party until later. It was not until the Free Soil and Republican Parties were created that anti-slavery advocates became united in a single party. The destruction of the Whig Party and the rise of the Republican Party left pro-slavery Southerners with joining the Democratic Party, if they were not already members, as the most logical solution to their problems. But before that, both the anti-Jackson and Democratic Parties had Northern and Southern wings, and so neither was a place for slavery supporters to congregate. Before that, both major parties tried to avoid the issue, for fear of alienating a wing. Martin Van Buren was the Free-Soil Party nominee of president in 1848. But before that, he had been one of the main founders of the Democratic Party, second only to Jackson, and later, of course, twice the Democratic nominee for President. And he largely supported Jackson against the Bank.

I would be OK with replacing "The Jacksonians" with something like "Many Southerners". What do you think of that? Display name 99 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert: your third opinion has been noted. Thank you for reading the article in its' entirety, and examining the citations. This was, no doubt, a time consuming task. All that, in addition to reading the exchange between myself and 99 for comprehension. As you have no inquiries or need for clarification of any kind, allow me to ask you a question: How is it that "mentioning" slavery - a major institution in the United States of 1832 - amounts to "undue focus"? Indeed, the preceding sentence in the lede reads "Anti-Bank Jacksonian Democrats were mobilized in opposition to the national bank’s re-authorization on the grounds that the institution conferred economic privileges on financial elites, violating U.S. constitutional principles of social equality." In what way, exactly, does the lede present slavery as the "only factor" influencing Jackson's suppression of the BUS? --36hourblock (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, wish to know your opinion on this version of the text:

"The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty. Many Southerners believed that it posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the Southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery."

It would acknowledge that a large amount of Southernern leaders probably did take the issue of protecting slavery into consideration when determining their stances on the Bank, while also not implying that Northerners had the same motivations. Basically, it establishes the primary motivations of the Jacksonians as being to oppose what they thought of as a corrupt and unconstitutional institution. This is true amongst all. It then mentions a different motivation that was a factor for some, but not all. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The Jacksonians were part of a North-South, Free state-Slave state political alliance. This was the key to Jackson's victory in 1828, according to Richard H. Brown. Please rephrase your comments. --36hourblock (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, why do I need to rephrase my comments? Of course the Jacksonians had a North-South, free state-slave state alliance. That is what I have been saying all along. All that the new version does is attribute a certain motive for attacking the Bank to the Southern Jacksonians (slavery) that may not have been such a motivating factor for the Northern Jacksonians. Slavery was not central to the Bank War; it was simply something that some Southern Democrats were worried about at the time, but that the Northern Democrats were not considering because they didn't really care. But anti-Bank forces from both parts of the country united on the belief that the Bank was corrupt and needed to be seriously reformed, or else, eliminated. I believe that this central truth is made more clear in this version. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99: Thank you. Your most recent comments meet Wiki standards of clarity. Here are my responses to your arguments:

"All that the new version does is attribute a certain motive for attacking the Bank to the Southern Jacksonians (slavery) that may not have been such a motivating factor for the Northern Jacksonians."

The "motivating factor" for Northern support for Jackson's "Democracy" was party discipline - a discipline that was in abeyance during the Era of Good Feeling. New York Congressman James Tallmadge's introduction of legislation for the gradual emancipation of slaves in Missouri would never have seen the light of day if the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalist parties had existed and been able to mobilize in 1819. They could not, and the Missouri crisis ensued. The reconstituted North-South alliance devised by Van Buren and Ritchie, with Jackson as it's chief representative, served to contain the growing sectional antagonisms; Northern legislators would be compelled to comply with the party platform that emphasized strict construction of theUS Constitution and state sovereignty. It should be no surprise that Jacksonian legislators (North and South) united against the BUS as a demonstration of party loyalties. Brown makes this quite explicit in his well-known essay. (FYI: The "Background" section recently posted at United States presidential election, 1824 alludes ot some of these developments.)

"Slavery was not central to the Bank War..."

I've already offered sources that argue otherwise.

"[Slavery] was simply something that some Southern Democrats were worried about at the time, but that the Northern Democrats were not considering because they didn't really care."

Southern slaveholders certainly had less to "worry" about because the North-South political alliance was resurrected, which promised to prevent another fiasco over the expansion of slavery (read: Missouri Crisis). Northern legislators only had to "really care" about the support they got from the Democratic Party in maintaining their seats in the House or Senate and collecting party patronage.

"[A]nti-Bank forces from both parts of the country united on the belief that the Bank was corrupt and needed to be seriously reformed, or else, eliminated."

Precisely. They united over the general principle which championed a strict construction of the US Constitution. This would lead to the dismantling of the BUS. A vital component of that general principle was the constitutionality of slavery. That is why the sentence I wrote in the lede - and the way it is phrased - contributes to an understanding of the subject. Your argument that the Bank War "had nothing to do with slavery" is, therefore, unfounded.

--36hourblock (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, you have repeatedly labelled Jackson as a strict constructionist. His views certainly did align with those of Jefferson in many ways, but I recommend you examine this quote from Remini (Volume II, p. 35), speaking of how Jackson's opposition to W.H. Crawford's military reductions in 1821 seemingly contradicted his belief in limited government:

"The apparent inconsistency in Jackson's political thinking points up an important fact. He was never dogmatic. Despite appearances to the contrary, he could make concessions to seemingly contradictory principles when circumstances dictated. To carry on the practical business of attaining and exercising political power, either at home or abroad, he was perfectly capable of making necessary adjustments. He was a pragmatic politician, not an ideologue. To be sure, he advocated a particular set of conservative principles rooted in the "Republican" philosophy of Revolutionary War vintage, but they served as guides to his thinking and actions, not as rigid absolutes that could not be violated."

Jackson's actions, despite having been rooted in the same tradition, were often inconsistent with classic Jeffersonian republicanism, whose adherents were the truest constructionists. During his presidency, Jackson threatened to use military force to prevent a state from nullifying national law or seceding (in total contradiction to Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution), became the first president to fire a Cabinet member, and exercised the veto 12 times, more than all 6 presidents before him combined. That hardly resembles "strict construction".

I know this doesn't address slavery at all, but it should call into serious question the idea that Jackson was a strict constructionist. Perhaps we can request another third opinion. The only thing that the last person did was say that the sentence in the lead is not technically incorrect-which we both agree on-but that it does provide undue weight. Even admittedly, he offered no specific advice for reforming the article and disappeared after we tried to follow up on his comment. Display name 99 (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99: The Remini quote goes to the heart of the matter, even if the events he is discussing just precede the rise of the Democratic Party. The praise for Jackson as being "perfectly capable of making necessary adjustments" and avoiding "rigid absolutes" in his political philosophy, is, in fact, a description of the Van Buren/Ritchie "Democracy". Richard H. Brown, as well as William Freehling, emphasize that the Democratic Party, though retaining the "conservative principles rooted in the "Republican" philosophy of Revolutionary War vintage" were flexible in handling the issues of the day. They had to be, because their party, BY DESIGN, straddled Free states and Slave states. That is just the reason they rejected the application of Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution of 1798 in the Nullification Crisis, though Jackson, in his dramatic manner, threatened to hang South Carolinian secessionists. The Force Bill was never applied - never had to be. The Compromise Tariff of 1833 placated the South Carolinians and had large Southern support. This is what Remini calls Jackson's pragmatism. It was, in fact, the pragmatism that characterized the Democratic Party. Indeed, there was only position that was doctrinaire, inflexible and anti-political, and that position was occupied by John C. Calhoun.

As to the question of "strict construction", Remini forgets that the Democratic Party (and Jackson) were the great champions of Union. The distinguished historian can't possibly be arguingthat Jackson's absolute intolerance for a frontal assault on the Republic, which South Carolina's nullification amounted to, was a rejection of strict construction! Reflect on that for a moment.

I would also add that at precisely the same time nullifiers were threatening the Union, the Worcester v. Georgia case was before the US Supreme Court. Justice John Marshall upheld the right of Cherokee landholders against the state of Georgia. Jackson remarked "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it" and "they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to [Marshall's] mandate."

Jacksonian's would proceed with Cherokee removal from lands that would soon be occupied by King Cotton. This serves as a counterpoint to the claim that the Jackson Democrats violated state sovereignty, which, itself, is based on a strict construction of the US Constitution.

Are we getting any closer to resolving the issue of "Jacksonians" vs. "Southerners"?

--36hourblock (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, I find that the conversation has shifted somewhat off-topic from the issue of slavery. Nevertheless, I shall address your response, in the hope that we may eventually bring it back to the original subject of the disagreement.

Jackson's position against South Carolina does not amount to a total rejection of the constructionist philosophy. However, it does contradict with Jefferson's writings in the Kentucky Resolution, and, to many, these words in the Declaration of Independence:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Jackson took a position on the Indian issue in favor of states' rights. However, I do wish to point out to you that Remini adamantly does not believe that Jackson said those words about Chief Justice Marshall after his ruling. See an interview with him here. Here is an article from PBS which, though describing Jackson somewhat accurately as a "states' rights partisan", says that the comment is "probably apocryphal". Jackson did, of course, go on to ignore the Court's decision.

Jackson believed in states' rights, but he was willing to go against them, and extend his own power as president, if he thought it served the needs of the American people, no matter where in the country they lived. This was not strict constructionism of the sort advocated by John Randolph of Roanoke, Calhoun, or Thomas Jefferson, but something that can still be called a states' rights position. I think we should have now reached an understanding on this issue.

As to the issue of "Jacksonians vs. Southerners", the one thing that all Southerners agreed upon was the need to protect against any attempt on the part of the North to abolish it, especially in the places in which it already existed. This was a concept endorsed by both Jacksonians and anti-Jacksonians living in the South, and casts doubt upon why so many Southern states would have voted for Clay in 1832, and for Whigs in later elections, if the struggle over the Bank was truly a struggle over slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear 99 - The sentence you find offensive reads: "The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty and therefore posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the U.S. southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery."

The generalization is sound, based on my sources, and a simple acknowledgement of the motivations of the Democratic Party during the Jackson Administration. In 1827, Van Buren wrote the following to Thomas Ritchie:

"We must always have party distinctions and the old ones are the best of which the nature of the case admits. Political combinations between the inhabitants of the different states are unavoidable & the most natural & beneficial to the country is that between the planters of the South and the plain Republicans of the north."

"The country has once flourished under a party thus constituted & may again [Jeffersonian Republicans]. It would take longer than our lives (even if it were practicable) to create new party feelings to keep those masses together. If the old ones are suppressed, Geographical divisions founded on local interests or, what is worse prejudices between free & slave holding states will inevitably take their place. Party attachment in former times furnished a complete antidote for sectional prejudices by producing counteracting feelings. It was not until that defense had been broken down that the clamor against Southern Influence and African Slavery could be made effectual in the North. Those in the South who assisted in producing the change are, I am satisfied, now deeply sensible of their error."

"Every honest Federalist of the South therefore should (and would if he duly reflected upon the subject) prefer the revival of old party feelings to any other state of things he has a right to expect. Formerly, attacks upon Southern Republicans were regarded by those of the north as assaults upon their political brethren & resented accordingly.”

This is Van Buren’s blueprint for the revival of Jefferson’s free-state, slave-state alliance. As my sources have said, the Bank War was a mobilization of these Jacksonian political forces against those who would enlarge the functions of the US Constitution – central banks, internal improvements, protective tariffs - and ultimately use the government apparatus to attack the institution of slavery.

--36hourblock (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, that is certainly an interesting quote, although it seems to criticize centrist Southeners more than abolitionist Northerners. I understand that the Jacksonian movement consisted of an alliance between people in free and slave states, necessitating in particular that people in the former not oppose that private institution practiced in the latter.

This still does not erase my feelings that the sentence in the lead makes slavery seem more important than it actually was to the Bank War. It is only the third sentence of the lead, and I don't think that any other full account of the Bank War would dedicate a third of itself to talking about slavery. How about we replace "and therefore" with "which also meant that it". It presents slavery as an issue, but one of secondary importance to the main question of the Bank's supposed unconstitutionality and corruption. Display name 99 (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear SP99 - I have no idea what you are proposing. Kindly submit the sentence, and refrain from "piggy backing" on the existing citations/footnotes. Provide your own sources, with the sentence(s) that support it from that/those sources. I will consider it is they meet these standards - which, by the way, characterize the citations for the entire article. --36hourblock (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, I propose the following:

"The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty, meaning that it also posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery."

I think that we can use the same sources for this. What this says is not extremely different from what is in the article now. The difference is that it softens the blow a bit in order to show that slavery was not the main issue in the Bank War. It's deemphasizing the issue-but the facts don't change. I also took the opportunity to cut down on what I perceived to be excessive wordiness. We don't need to say "U.S." before Southern states, because we've already established that this is taking place in the United States. Display name 99 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear SP99 - The sentence has been altered to read "The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty, posing an

implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the Southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery."

Questions? Refer them to puppet master Rjensen. --36hourblock (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

36hourblock, that should be good. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bank War/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) 12:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   As notes on an initial read through:

   May be a good idea to do one more scrub for missing Wikilinks. In the lead and first section I'm seeing agrarian economy, US Senate, paper money, National Republicans, doctrine of implied powers, Protective tariff, yeomanry ... others random examples: Strict constructionism, limited government, United States Department of the Treasury, Supreme Court, Supermajority

I added several links where appropriate, and see that you did the same as well. Thank you for that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1. There is some colloquial phrasing that could probably be improved: "thrown to the House of Representatives", "campaign against the Bank had triumphed",

I replaced the first part with "decided in." I don't see anything wrong with the second. It doesn't sound particularly colloquial to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I find the fairly liberal use of scare quotes a little curious. So, for example is something like "Jackson and Reform" supposed to be ironic? And I realize that the Bank War isn't actually a war, but I'm not sure that's necessary to qualify with quotes. A trade war is also not a real war, but merely a term, although it's not necessary to qualify that whenever it's mentioned I don't feel.

It's not ironic. It was a slogan used for Jackson in 1828. It's in quotes to show that it didn't come from Wikipedia. I agree that war didn't need to be in quotes and so I got rid of that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1. US or U.S. - Gotta pick one and stick to it.

I believe I added periods to all of these. You can check if you're so inclined. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   This may be getting into a level of nit-picky that is higher than GA, but I personally prefer when I write to have as much consistency as possible in citation format. So things like consistency in using ISBN 13, and I usually link not just the author, but also the publisher if there is an article for them, which it looks like most of these are pretty big name publishers that have their own articles.

ISBNs didn't come into existence until about 1970. Many of these books were published before then and therefore don't have them. Many other sources are journal articles which of course don't have ISBNs. There are things called OCLC numbers that are used to identify pre-1970s books. In the next day or so, I'll fix some ISNBs and add more OCLCs.

In my experience, I haven't seen anybody link publisher names. I've never done it at any articles I've edited. I've successfully nominated 3 FACs and it's never been a problem for any of them. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? Well that's interesting. No worries. It's just something I've always done I guess. GMG^talk 10:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Auto copyvio text check is good. Y

   Spot check results for text: Y

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Image copyright:

   File:Old Hickory and Bully Nick.jpg - Harper's Weekly from 1834. Y

   File:Second Bank of the United States front.jpg - Modern image, searches don't seem to pick up any preexisting versions. Y

   File:Andrew jackson head.jpg - Official work US Govt. Y

   File:Nicholas Biddle by William Inman.jpg - 1830s, confirmed by source, old enough for death date not to matter. Y

   File:General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster.jpg - Changed date to 1833 per source, but still good. Y

   File:LouisMcLane55.jpg - Updated info, original rationale of "took it from a govt website" isn't great, but it's still old enough to not be problematic. Y

   File:Henry Clay-headshot.jpg - Plenty old. Y

   File:3a17480r.jpg - Plenty old, but also plenty degraded. It's not gonna sink a review, but I would highly recommend going with a better quality image from c:Category:Daniel Webster. Y

   File:King Andrew the First (political cartoon of President Andrew Jackson).jpg Plenty old. Y

   I fixed this, but as a general rule, avoid using px for images, and instead use upright=

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Looks good.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Hey Display name 99. I think that's about all I've got in me for today. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or if I'm unclear on something. GMG^talk 19:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thank you for your review. I've left several comments above. I should be finished implementing everything you've suggested in about another day. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, I've dealt with everything you've suggested. Every book source now has either an ISBN or an OCLC. If you see a source that doesn't, it should mean that it's a journal article and therefore would not have either. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Good job on this one. GMG^talk 17:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath

First off, nice article. However, I do think that it would be worth mentioning what ultimately replaced the Second National Bank, namely the Independent Treasury. Van Buren's presidency was largely focused on the Panic of 1837 and the establishment of the Independent Treasury, both of which were strongly affected/influenced by the Bank War. I also that mentioning this system would help explain the medium- and long-term effects of the Bank War. Orser67 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)