Talk:Ostend Manifesto

Comment by 64.211.101.2

I have added a quote to this because I found it to be enlightening to actually read what was written in the manifesto. I came across it in Potter, though the quote should be from the manifesto itself. This is my first ever posting to wikipedia and I wanted to see how easy it is. 64.211.101.2 21:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Impressive

I'd like to applaud the efforts of whoever wrote this article. It truly is something to be proud of. I have made some minor adjustments, which I hope you find useful. Additionally, one question remains after reading the article: who coined the term Ostend Manifesto? It mentions one editor coining Manifesto of the Brigands but not the name by which it is known today. Regards, Darwin's Terrier (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. None of my sources attribute the term Ostend Manifesto to a single source. The Brigands moniker was the closest I could find. I did retrieve some of the minor details (e.g. they couldn't decide on a location, they spent a week at Aix-la-Chapelle) from sources dating to 1893 though, so it wasn't for a lack of trying. Perhaps I overlooked something, but I think it was just the logical name that everyone adopted to refer to it. Recognizance (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Darwin that this is an impressive article. As an historian, I'll support Recognizance's assertion of the validity of the name. Although I believe the agreement has some text at the top referring to it as a Manifesto, which is, generally, a public declaration of intentions or principles. Generally, in text books and in class lectures (I have done so and so have my teachers), it is referred to as a Manifesto, so I think most people trying to look it up would use Ostend Manifesto in the search engine. I don't think this "nomer" needs a citation, or clarification, or disambiguation of any sort. We can take the citation/source thing too far, and requiring a citation on what this agreement is officially called would be in that category. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation fixes

I just fixed 6 MINOR PUNCTUATION faults to make your punctating after/before quotes consistent. NICE JOB!!! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Ruth. :) I e-mailed Robert E. May about the article and got some useful feedback. He described it as "a really fine piece" and, aside from a few wording tweaks, "The only other suggestion is that you don't discuss the "Africanization" scare, that had so much to do with the initiative for Cuba in the first place. You might want to revisit my Southern Dream book on this point, pages 30-36 and 54-57 on this." I think I had made a note of this originally but it got lost somewhere. I don't have the book on hand right now though, so I'm going to make a trip tomorrow to check it out. Recognizance (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have that one, and we didn't use it in my pro-sem class, although I remember looking at it. His comment is good. And it is a really fine piece of work. let me know if you need anything else from me. and I'd appreciate it if you'd have a look at the article on German Unification when you have the chance, and leave me some feedback. I'm hoping to do the FA process w/ it but I want it in shape first. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. I'll definitely take a look at the unification article; the shaping of the modern state of Germany has always been one of those topics I thought it would be interesting to read more about some day. Kind of like the section of US history where the conservative, Southern wing of the Democratic Party shifted to the Republican Party, which is what got me fascinated with George Wallace before I finished the article in my sandbox. Recognizance (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Recon, nice work on the article. Very nice. :) I'm going through the process now with Unification. Got the images worked out, now we're debating text. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved Wikisource link

I moved the wikisource link up to the top, so its clearly visible when you load the page. Didn't see any discussion on it here, so I figured I'd be bold. 71.87.215.67 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Soulé barred from discussing : context needed for clarityy

Soulé was barred from discussing Cuba's acquisition for nearly a year. Barred by Spain? by US Congress? Discuss publically/ discuss with his Spanish opposites? Opaque--Wetman (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerning some duplicate information

Hello, all. It's come to my attention that some information within the article had been apparently duplicated such that it is now in two places. The second paragraph of the lead says, "To Marcy's chagrin, Soulé made no secret of the meetings, causing unwanted publicity in both Europe and the U.S.", and the last paragraph of the section Writing the Manifesto says, "To Marcy's chagrin, the flamboyant Soulé made no secret of the meetings." In fact, an older version of the article reveals that the information had been copied and pasted in an unaltered state (without removing the word "flamboyant"). Although the lead should certainly summarize the content of the article, using nearly identical phrasing should be avoided. As I'm not particularly well-versed in this topic and haven't been involved in editing the article much, I figured I'd bring the issue up here before removing or tweaking the sentences in question. Any feedback or commentary would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! —zziccardi (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

full text

Could we promote the link to the full text to the "See also" section? Now it is buried among the footnotes. 62.12.14.27 (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A link to the full text of the document at Wikisource is already provided within the External links section of the article—right where it should be. —zziccardi (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well written article - But Pierre Soule's 'agenda'... (?)

I especially found this article interesting because it was informative on many levels about the pre Civil War period - had not realised myself the significance. The only thing that did leave me puzzled was the role of Pierre Soulé; he seems such a contradictory character. Considering how crucial his exposure of the Ostend Manifesto was to subsequent events, I found little to actually explain it. Maybe some historical BLPs are destined for the time being to remain enigmatic until more is known... but 'flamboyance' just somehow didn't fit as an agenda. But, otherwise congratulations for a clear explanation of a complex period - found much to learn from in terms of article style and subject context! User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 09:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoops... BLP (just realised - mea culpa). Further to my puzzlement and to explain the drift of it. If Soulé was exiled from France during the Bourbon restoration for being a revolutionary (escapes prison for first time), he's a lawyer - so républicain or even a Blanquist?. Moves to an American slave-holder state (via Britain). Later assists a legal action to free a kidnapped black slave (Solomon Northup). Shoots the slave-holding interest in the foot even though he's supposed to be working for it. On top of that, stays apparently loyal to the Confederacy, now he's in double jeopardy post bellum with los Federales because he 'obstructed' the grab for Cuba as well... Escapes (second time) to Cuba, from a possible death sentence for 'treason'. Then back to the U.S.; not my thing - but a plot for a convoluted historical fiction? Look no further... this guy must have upset so many powerful vested interests (no shortage of guns for hire at the time), manages to stay alive, raise a family and 'un-flamboyantly' retire? User:Pupsikon Pupsikon 12:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ostend Manifesto/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article fills in a gap in several areas of history: United States and Slavery, expansionism, Monroe Doctrine, Cuba, Cuba and US relations. I think it should have a B class, and mid-level importance. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 02:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)