Talk:Tennessee's 1st congressional district

message: There was some chronologically incorrect and  non-NPOV statements within this article pertaining  to the lenght of time that the Tennessee First Congressional Seat has been held by various Republican office holders --- the Oppositon Party pre-dated the Republican party and the  Civil War era National Union Pary was an entirely new political party established by the collaboration of both Republicans and Democrats (as contrasted by the maonstream "Radical" Republicans who were in 1864 again supporting the election of  Frémont as U.S. President)4.88.58.36 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Math

message: The Opposition Party existed both  independently  of the Republican Party before 1856 and  also concurrently with the  Republican Party in 1856 and on into  the 1858 elections.
The Opposition Party arose in 1854 from a split within the Whig Party, primarily along the question of  permiting slavery within the United States (and case you can read between the lines, the Opposition Party was constituted of former Whigs in opposition to both slavery and pro-slavery Whigs.).  Any attempt to double-count other third parties as Republicans within this Wikipedia article is  inaccurate, misleading, and  suggestively partisan.4.88.59.239 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Opposition party

message: Consider the following passage
Like the rest of East Tennessee, slavery was not as common in this area as the rest of the state due to its mountain terrain, which could not support a plantation economy.[2] 
http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=S044
Which is purposefully misleading as the TEH&C Slavery article makes no mention of "plantation economy", and the associated Wikipedia article attributes this economic-historical descriptive as applying to an entire section of a country (e.g.: the southern United States prior to the American Civil War" and not a vasty smaller area as then defined by the Tennessee 1st Congressional District.  In actually, one of the earliest founder within the Tennessee 1st Congressional District --- John Carter (widely belived to be the illegalitimate son of Virginia plantion owner King Carter --- established his own frontier plantation along the banks of the Watauga and Doe Rivers of  Carter County. 
And as I stated above, I am thinking that one pharagraph of the article should be edited as the follwoing:
While the ownership of plantations and large numbers of slaves was not common in East Tennessee, individual ownership of few slaves by many people was common within the Tennessee 1st Congressional District prior to the American Civil War.  The Tennessee 1st Congressional District was also home to two of the earliest abolitionist periodicals published within the United States, The Manumission Intelligencer and The Emancipator, both founded in Jonesborough in 1819. As a result of these local anti-slavery publications, many people within the district with Union Army during the American Civil War and the Republican Party during and following the U.S. Reconstruction era.
A couple of lopsided passages that need to be edited out follows:
This allegiance continues to this day, with Republicans dominating every level of government. While a few Democratic pockets exist in the district's urban areas, they are not nearly enough to sway the district.
An earlier author conveniently neglects to mention for proper NPOV balance that both Confederate soldiers and sympathizers (both accussed and proven) were widely disfranchised of the right to vote by Republicans in East Tennessee during and across the entire State of Tennessee immediately following the end of the American Civil War upto the time that William Gannaway Brownlow resigned as Tennessee Governor in 1869.
Another passage that needed the Crystal template cites:
Given this district's overwhelming Republican tilt (see below), Roe is all but assured of becoming the district's next congressman.
One could also state (incorrectly) that "...given this district's overwhelming Republican tilt [?], incumbant freshman U.S. Representative David Davis is all but assured of winning re-election during the 2008 Republican Primary", but Davis has been widely reported within the news media as blaming "crossover" Democrats for his defeat during the 2008 Republican Primary. In actuality, Davis was apparently the first incubent freshman MOC from the district to be defeated during the Republican primary by a non-prior incumbent MOC since Zachary D. Massey (Sevierville) who served as a frehman incumbent in 1910 - 1911.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bee Cliff River Slob (talk • contribs) 14:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited the "lopsided" sentence to try to tone down the language, and mentioned some evidence (already in the table of representatives) to back up the statement.  Bee Cliff River Slob, I find your cause-and-effect to be faulty; you state that the local abolitionist publications influenced local thought, but perhaps the abolitionist viewpoint already existed in the area, which is what brought about the establishment of the publications in Washington County.  The way it is stated in the article now doesn't inject unverifiable causality.  Your theory about the disenfranchisement of Confederates post-war falls apart on the evidence of pre-war elections, both for Unionist George Washington Bridges and against succession from the USA, as well as opposition to the Confederacy in East Tennessee during the war (see Tennessee in the American Civil War#Tennessee secedes) -- Foetusized (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates et al added: Crystal, citecheck, lopsided

message: The article has a Source section, with a single link to The Political Graveyard.  Some of the information from that site that had been used in this article -- particularly  -- was wrong and has now been corrected.  Should we delete this section and its link to inaccurate information? -- Foetusized (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source