Talk:Ostend Manifesto/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi, a few comments:

• "The value of Cuba was of special importance to Southern Democrat economical and political interests."
  • Would "Southern economic and Democrat political interests" be clearer?

I suppose we can remove the word Democrat, but actually no, that would make it less clear because the Southern branch of the Democratic Party was the one that wanted it annexed. In fact I prefer it as-is because the Southern Democrats were the ones whose interests (economic and political) would be best served.

Copy editor chiming in:

How about: Cuba was of special importance to Southern Democrats, whose economic and political interests would be best served by the admission of another slave state to the Union.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Am liking that. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• "its admission would greatly strengthen the South's current slave-based economy"
  • How would it strengthen it?

The general idea is that their slaved-based economy was an endangered species, so adding a slave state would further entrench slavery into the country's framework. But I think that particular wording was left over from when I found the article, so I'll change it. I partially kept it - does "its admission would greatly strengthen the position of Southern slaveholders, whose way of life was under fire from Northern abolitionists" work? Recognizance (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, the doctrine of Manifest Destiny had become increasingly sectionalized as the decade progressed"
  • Would some version of the word "faction" be a better here?

No. The word sectionalized refers to different sections of the country having opinions which were increasingly different. I'll see what I can do with that.

Sectionalism is correct here (historian speaking). Sectionalism is the specific form of particularism that took place in the United States, especially important in ante bellum US. Wiki links here plus, a parenthetical definition, if needed?--Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ruth. I was half asleep (as you probably saw from the sporadic edits to this page) or I'd have explained that. I wikilinked sectionalism for those unfamiliar with the term. Recognizance (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't sure. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Both Potter and Schoultz note the considerable ambiguity in Marcy's cryptic[22] words, and Bemis suggests he may have referred to Cuban independence but acknowledges it is impossible to know Marcy's true intent.[23]"

Historians debate the considerable ambiguity of Marcy's cryptic words: for example, David Potter and Lars Shoultz (reference) suggest Marcy preferred annexation of Cuba as a slave state, but, alternatively, Bemis hypothesizes that Marcy preferred Cuban independence. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As the one who read the source material, I think this would actually be twisting the authors' intentions. Rather than a debate, they were just observing how ambiguous the part about detaching Cuba from Spain by some other means was. Hence Bemis' acknowledgement that he's purely speculating about independence - no one's sure what exactly Marcy meant other than get it out of European hands. Recognizance (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Who are Potter, Schoultz, and Bemis? As a reader, I don't get what they are referring to if I don't check the ending citations. Something like "Authors David Potter and Lars Schoultz note..." etc. would be better.

Done. Recognizance (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article itself doesn't talk about what the manifesto was a whole lot...

Strictly speaking it was just a dispatch to Marcy about what they'd decided during their deliberations. I can expand more on the contents of the message if you'd like though. Recognizance (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that'd be nice. I can't tell when the Manifesto actually is in the article! :/ "The resulting dispatch declared that "Cuba is as necessary to the North American republic as any of its present members, and that it belongs naturally to that great family of states of which the Union is the Providential Nursery"." <-- was that it? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The last edit clarified this; thanks. This is a very good article; be proud! Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Otherwise, the article looks grand! All of the images look like they are properly licensed as well. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 06:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the clearest explanations of Ostend Manifesto I've encountered.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ruth! :) Thanks for chiming in, and thank you both for the praise. Your input is very much appreciated. I have addressed the issues you raised and implemented Ruth's suggestion in the first point.

I should note that I reverted a couple of places where you put brackets around the first letter of a quote and made it lowercase. For insance

One historian would conclude in 1893, "[w]hen we...."

Perhaps this was something to do with the MoS. But as Ruth can tell you, grammatically it was correct with the capital W. Maybe you were as tired as me! :P Let me know if there's anything else to do. Recognizance (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was not aware that those were grammatically correct! :) Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)