Talk:First Bank of the United States/Archives/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about First Bank of the United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
what is the reason why the charter of BUS was not renewd on 1811?
The article explained the opposition when it was charted, but not on the reasons why it was not renewed. can someone clarify this? Jackzhp 23:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
-- The U.S. was falling into debt during the War of 1812, and James Madison had let it expire as he was not a supporter of the bank. Remember, he was from Virginia and didn't see it necessary. However he belatedly realized its merits and renewed the charter in 1816, at which point the U.S. started to get out of debt. Writergeek7 19:38, 4 June 2008
- Um, why would the US fall into debt in 1811 for a war that would not start for over a year into the future? That is nonsensical. In fact, it was not renewed because the federalists were out of power, and by which time the US govt had sold its stock to pay its debts to the bank (which by the late 1790's had reached $6 million). There are also arguments that one reason for the British aggression against the US that led to the War of 1812 was the US refusal to renew the bank charter, which cost several wealthy european bankers, primarily the Rochschilds, several million USD, not in debts to the US government, but in stock in the profitable bank corporation. There are also arguments that the anti-federalists had proposed the original 13th amendment, which dealt with penalties for individuals accepting titles and emoluments from foreign powers, in response to the federalists who had supported the bank charter who were all attorneys licensed under the International Bar Association chartered by the King of England (ergo their title of Esquire was a foreign title of nobility), and that the British burning of Washington DC was intent on burning records of the ratification of said amendment. It is hard to find neutral historical tracts on the topic. Nativist historians tend to portray the pro-bank histories as 19th century revisionism written by european publishers funded by the rothchilds, while pro-bank historians accuse the nativists of conspiracy theories.75.67.80.68 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- One of the main reasons the US went into debt during this time was that trade with both England and France had grinded to a halt as a result of the war between France and England. Also, before 1811 Jefferson advocated the passage of the Embargo Act, which really hurt trade. Nonamer98 (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Um, why would the US fall into debt in 1811 for a war that would not start for over a year into the future? That is nonsensical. In fact, it was not renewed because the federalists were out of power, and by which time the US govt had sold its stock to pay its debts to the bank (which by the late 1790's had reached $6 million). There are also arguments that one reason for the British aggression against the US that led to the War of 1812 was the US refusal to renew the bank charter, which cost several wealthy european bankers, primarily the Rochschilds, several million USD, not in debts to the US government, but in stock in the profitable bank corporation. There are also arguments that the anti-federalists had proposed the original 13th amendment, which dealt with penalties for individuals accepting titles and emoluments from foreign powers, in response to the federalists who had supported the bank charter who were all attorneys licensed under the International Bar Association chartered by the King of England (ergo their title of Esquire was a foreign title of nobility), and that the British burning of Washington DC was intent on burning records of the ratification of said amendment. It is hard to find neutral historical tracts on the topic. Nativist historians tend to portray the pro-bank histories as 19th century revisionism written by european publishers funded by the rothchilds, while pro-bank historians accuse the nativists of conspiracy theories.75.67.80.68 (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Date
what was the first bank established. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.68 (talk • contribs)
- Bill to create the first bank signed by George Washington, February 14, 1791.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Paragraph missing a beginning.
Does anyone know what the beginning of the second-to-last paragraph for this article is supposed to say? It just starts with, "develop a national currency, and dispose of the western territories.", and I really don't know how to build on that, considering I don't know exactly what the author was trying to say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Speedshark (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Guilty as charged. I couldn't wind up the article that evening and so just left it, clumsly knitted together. Finished the mss. today. Will go back later today or tomorrow and will try to catch and repair typos.Malplaquet 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Progress
This article is looking really good. Good job, Malplaquet. I just went through and took out little grammatical errors and tried to change html markup to wikipedia-style markup. I also added <references/> at the bottom of the page so that the references are listed there with their number. We need to have our wikiprojects reevaluate our class ;) this is certainly not a stub anymore. Some of the statements represent a particular point of view and it would be helpful to indicate the origin of the opinions stated. Matthew K 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Assesment comments
I rated this article a B-class from a stub because of the article's expansion. To move beyond a B the article needs a thorough copyedit. There are many problematic sentences, such as the first one which is a run on into a sentence fragment. The article is almost entirely on the founding of the bank, very little on when the bank was in operation and its expiration. On a side note, the article is underlinked. Terms such as United States, bill, and bank would be appropriately linked. Medvedenko 05:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Informal Tone
Some of this article has an informal tone which comes across to me as being fast and loose with the facts. E.g., "... more than a few New England state governments." How many New England state governments were there? (At the time, I count Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island := 5.) I'm not sure how the phrase "more than a few" applies to a group of 5 things. Can we make it specific, or just clean up the writing to make it less vague? Thanks. Ryanluck 12:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Postscript section
The postscript section had the following
In 1797 [or 1796-an anonymous editor changed it recently], Oliver Wolcott, Jr. who had taken over the position of Secretary of the Treasury from Hamilton, who had retired a year earlier, informed Congress that due to the existing state of government finances more money was needed. This could be achieved either by selling the government's shares of stock in the Bank, or raise taxes. Wolcott advised the first choice. Congress quickly agreed. Hamilton objected, believing that the dividends on that stock had been involably pledged for the support of the sinking fund to retire the debt. Hamilton tried to organize opposition to the measure, but was unsuccessful.
I have modified the language to eliminate some confusion. this section could still use some references.
--Matthew K 21:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Expansion of two articles
I intend to expand this article and the Second Bank of the United States article with information about the roles of Thomas Willing[1], president of the First Bank, and Stephen Girard[2], owner of the First Bank building and stockholder in both banks. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
NPOV/RS problems?
It seems that this article presents the subject matter in a manner that is openly hostile to the Jeffersonian position. Take, for example, this Forrest McDonald quote, which until a minute ago was incorrectly attributed to Washington (though it refers to Washington in the third person):
- "...in a masterpiece of legal obfuscation, well calculated to confuse the president, he [Jefferson] asserted the bank bill violated the laws of mortmain, alienage, forfeiture and escheat, distribution and monopoly. Washington, overwhelmed by the arguments...send Hamilton copies of Randolf's and Jefferson's opinion...inviting Hamilton in effect to defend the bank if he could..." [ref]Washington to Hamilton , February 16, 1791, in Syrett, ed. Papers 8:50-51)[/ref]
The article in its present form seems to present Jefferson as some hick Luddite who was rebutted by the business-savvy city boy who "knew better," Alexander Hamilton: "Hamilton, who, unlike his fellow cabinet members, hailed from New York, quickly set about laying to rest the arguments of those who claimed incorporation of the bank unconstitutional." Well clearly, if Hamilton was from New York he must have known better than that country bumpkin Thomas Jefferson! Besides this particular passage, the entire article is full of NPOV problems. Many of these problems could be resolved with some careful editing. The article also suffers from a lack of reliable sources for many of the potentially controversial claims that it makes. If no one is able to provide citations, this article will have to be distilled down to a much shorter version so that it consists only of verifiable claims. DickClarkMises (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this article needs work, both as to point of view and inline citations, but I am unlikely to do it before March 8th. Perhaps others will step in before that. I did correct a reference problem. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)