Talk:Petticoat affair

message: i can't tell if the atrocious spelling in this article is intentional due to historical citations or just whoever typed it had bad spelling. i don't see any [sic] where necessary. --alveolate (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: I changed "Van Buren, the only bachelor member..." to "the only unmarried member..." since his wife, Hannah Hoes Van Buren, died in 1819. I don't know how important his marital status might have been in the situation. Yopienso 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Per American_Lion:_Andrew_Jackson_in_the_White_House, the order and reasoning of the resignations actually goes like this:
1. Van Buren proposes to Jackson that he resigns (the "petticoat" problem), Jackson refuses his request
2. Eaton volunteers to resign because of the problems his wife is causing
3. Van Buren and Eaton both resign in the first week of April, 1831; Van Buren to take over as envoy to England, Eaton to run for the Senate
4. Ingham, Berrien, and Branch are all forced to resign in the 3rd week of April
The article seems to imply that Eaton resigns last. Also, AFAIK these are all the members of the cabinet, whereas the article states that "some" of the members resign.
Please let me know if I have anything wrong. I get this information from American_Lion:_Andrew_Jackson_in_the_White_House, Chapter 12, pp.172-174.
Nemilar (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabinet resignations 

message: This article is so poorly structured as to be unreadable.  It needs to be reverted to a coherent earlier version - perhaps that of Feb 2015.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.157.137 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me. we can keep it. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly unintelligible 

message: I found this article was beyond repair, so I replaced it with an old version. This will be unfair to many editors (including myself) who have contributed during the past 6 years. I see it as a start, or a re-start, if you will. YoPienso (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found the 31 Dec. 2104 revision acceptable. There may be a more recent one. Not taking the time to find it. YoPienso (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 16 April 2014 seems better--later versions have too much detail. I removed the "single source" tag since there are multiple sources. YoPienso (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bold, drastic move--take it back to Parkwell's 4 August 2009 version 

message: The article states:
:Jackson appointed Eaton as his Secretary of War, and Eaton's entry into a high-profile cabinet post helped intensify the opposition of Mrs. Calhoun's group. In addition, Jackson felt that Calhoun and other anti-Jackson officials were fanning the flames of the controversy in an attempt to gain political leverage.[citation omitted]
If the vice president (Calhoun) is an "official" "anti" to his own president, that should be explained/discussed.  The 12th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted for the purpose of having the president and VP be on the same side.  Did it fail somehow? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More background needed?