Talk:Hartford Convention

message: While a marxist (i.e. economic and power driven) historical perspective is certainly important when discussing the Hartford Convention, this article could really, really talk about the non-economic factors that contributed to it's conception and why it was bad.  At the least, someone needs to discuss the changes in national unity (or rather, it's shift from non-existence to existence) that make the event make sense in the broader context.  I'll do this eventually, but feel free to beat me to it. --Shanoyu 08:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-economic factors

message: I would love to see the article include informed reasoning about how the Hartford Convention was as much or more rooted in culture than economic forces.  The economic forces are to me more objective and quantifiable, and hence relatively easy to address.
It is important to address the cultural differences that would make New England see itself as a separate culture.  Obviously, most discussions of sucession/disunion and also the idea of a part of the nation having a separate and unique culture have of necessity centered around the South.  It would be good to see it shown persuasively that succession as an idea was not solely a Southern, or even Southern-originated, idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.50.188 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural differences and the Hartford Convention 

message: Under Schouler's History, subhead "Delegations", there is a phrase, "Pickering's Confederacy of 18042", that seems wrong. Mdotley 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo report 

message: Shouldn't this be in Wikisource or something, but not Wikipedia?  I will remove it if there are no objections. Schi 19:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki often uses Encyclopedia Brit 1911 edition for historical articles. This is the same sort of thing--using a well-known historian to describe the events. (It is copyright-expired). I have rewritten the article to integrate Schouler's points, and added some additional info esp Morison's criticism. Rjensen 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job integrating it! Schi 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schouler's History

message: Why does the text attribute Madison's non-intercourse act to Jefferson? Jefferson was out of office when Madison passed it.
--Roman Babylon 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because Jefferson signed it on March 1, 1809 Rjensen 14:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Intercourse Act

message: The way the author of the last section "Negative Reception" protrays public opinion, without statements like 'the people felt...' makes it seem as though this is objective reality.  It gets especially bad when he describes the congress as 'craven' without ever saying that the people felt this.  I know that this does not conform to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, and I think that this should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.200.174 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of last section 

message: 151.203.24.201 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: page links to wrong Harrison Gray Otis

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.83.20 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: page links to wrong William Hall Jr.

message: I was curious who the representatives might be for the states of New Hampshire and Vermont.  i found this article (http://www.primaryresearch.org/PRTHB/Dane/Norton/1.jpg) which seems to show a primary source showing a Benjamin West (i do not believe it is this one though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_West) and a Miles Olcott.  rather than screw up the references though i will leave this up to you to add or not.  from this source (http://www.archive.org/stream/procmassconn00bostrich#page/n3/mode/2up) the representatives came from Cheshire and Grafton counties in New Hampshire and Windham County in Vermont, and when comparing lists of the signed versus the other linked document i find the only one not mentioned is a William Hall Jr. and therefore (by process of elimination) he must be the Vermont Representative, upon further research a William Hall Jr shows up in Rockingham Vermont, In Windham County, as a town officer in this document (http://books.google.com/books?id=ULmlDG8KLjYC&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=william+hall+jr+vermont&source=bl&ots=lSPCYCwPTK&sig=GwJRlv68cMb09ICNyeZPAEmmpNU&hl=en&ei=C2iXTuHDGufY0QHuxdCoBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=william%20hall%20jr%20vermont&f=false).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.134.83 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't use your links but I did find and add two other Google Books links that list all of the delegates, including the NH and Vermont ones. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Hampshire and Vermont Delegates 

message: In the opening paragraph it claims secession was discussed; while, in the Wikipedia article for The War of 1812, under "Long-term consequences" in the United States section, It says that this was a common misconception. I'm inexperienced and don't want to change it myself. Quasyhumonoid (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye! The problem here is that poor notes were taken. Afterwards, attendants appeared to be embarrassed over any such discussion and details got swept under the rug. I'm not sure that we know precisely what took place. I don't know that we should expect an exact duplicate of what we think went on when, indeed, we are a bit in the dark. The vagueness/ambiguity should be explicit? But would need a citation even for that! Student7 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of a large rewrite I have sourced the "common misconception" claims.  I also changed the article lead to be consistent regarding this. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The War of 1812 and the Hartford Convention. 

message: I have seen reports that near the end of the Convention, Federal troops were sent to tramp around the building where the delegates were meeting - just as a hint. Can this be verified? If so, it seems interesting enough to put in the article.
Urban Legend: A false rumour circulated at this time that some anti-war New England types were signaling British warships with blue lights, telling them where to land. “Blue Light Federalist” was a reproach for years afterward. Some contemporary account of this, as it relates to the Convention, could be interesting. 94.30.56.180 (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Suggestions for Improvement

message: In the opposition to War of 1812 section, it claims "As early as 1804 some New England Federalists had discussed secession from the Union if the national government became too oppressive", poorly-citing Schouler Vol. 1.
* Problem 1: Schouler vol 1 doesn't go as late as 1804
* Problem 2: There's no mention that I can find (searching it on "secede" or "secession") for any such talk
I checked Vol. 2 (which does cover 1804) and similarly there was no relevant mention of secesstion.
I feel like either (a) this fact needs to be better cited so as to be able to match up to something in the text, (b) a better source needs to be obtained (I haven't got one available), or (c) it needs to be stricken.
Any subject-matter-experts want to chime in?
--DBalling (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schouler and Secession Talk in 1804