Talk:Daniel Webster: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Russell D. Jones
(Throwing my hat into the ring)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
Line 2: Line 2:
==Conservatives and Liberals??==
==Conservatives and Liberals??==
Aren't these post-Civil War labels?  I find it anachronistic to call Webster a "conservative"; Webster was dead before [[J. S. Mill]] defined Liberalism.  Webster was a Whig.  Leave it at that.  Besides I don't know of a single conservative that doesn't believe in free trade, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.  Damn liberals!  And it gets really confusing to oppose Webster to the [[Democratic Party]] which in the Antebellum period was the conservative party.  And being "a spokesman for modernization and the industrial interests" in the 1830s makes him a raving radical!!  This first paragraph needs some work.  If Webster was a conservative he'd be [[old republican]] and agrarian.  Russell D. Jones 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Aren't these post-Civil War labels?  I find it anachronistic to call Webster a "conservative"; Webster was dead before [[J. S. Mill]] defined Liberalism.  Webster was a Whig.  Leave it at that.  Besides I don't know of a single conservative that doesn't believe in free trade, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.  Damn liberals!  And it gets really confusing to oppose Webster to the [[Democratic Party]] which in the Antebellum period was the conservative party.  And being "a spokesman for modernization and the industrial interests" in the 1830s makes him a raving radical!!  This first paragraph needs some work.  If Webster was a conservative he'd be [[old republican]] and agrarian.  Russell D. Jones 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
== A very small hat thrown into the ring ==
I am moving the previous last sentence of the lede paragraph here, " He aspired to the White House but was an elitist, not a "man of the people," and the people knew it."  This is a nice ringing expression, as are many things from the presumed author. Nevertheless, it is a judgment, it makes some assumptions about what "the people" knew, and I don't think should be present without sourcing.
Objective expert commentary is one thing; editorializing is another. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:48, 14 March 2009

This article is developed but not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  (1782-1852) Leading American politician of the antebellum Whig Party, famous for his oratory, his legal and diplomatic skills, and his efforts to prevent the Civil War in the name of American nationalism. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  History and Politics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

Conservatives and Liberals??

Aren't these post-Civil War labels? I find it anachronistic to call Webster a "conservative"; Webster was dead before J. S. Mill defined Liberalism. Webster was a Whig. Leave it at that. Besides I don't know of a single conservative that doesn't believe in free trade, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Damn liberals! And it gets really confusing to oppose Webster to the Democratic Party which in the Antebellum period was the conservative party. And being "a spokesman for modernization and the industrial interests" in the 1830s makes him a raving radical!! This first paragraph needs some work. If Webster was a conservative he'd be old republican and agrarian. Russell D. Jones 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A very small hat thrown into the ring

I am moving the previous last sentence of the lede paragraph here, " He aspired to the White House but was an elitist, not a "man of the people," and the people knew it." This is a nice ringing expression, as are many things from the presumed author. Nevertheless, it is a judgment, it makes some assumptions about what "the people" knew, and I don't think should be present without sourcing.

Objective expert commentary is one thing; editorializing is another. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Webster&oldid=362814"