Wikipedia:Peer review/Political career of John C. Breckinridge/archive1

Political career of John C. Breckinridge

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I started trying to expand John C. Breckinridge and quickly discovered there was too much about the man for a single article. This is the first of what I think will eventually be three sub-articles. I've never done a biography sub-article before, so I want to see how well or poorly I did. Obviously, after having done this much work, my goal is FA, so you may review it as you would at FAC. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to make sub-articles here, you really must deeply consider that the "political career"-article warrants its separate existence from the general "biography". Thus, in particular, in neither of the articles should it be significant overlaps with the other (so you'll need to work on BOTH articles). I think you are right to put political influences and philosophy into the "political career" article, but perhaps his war role is too general to be contained within that specialized article, and should be in "biography" instead?

Arildnordby (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I started working on the article proper, then decided there was far too much for a single article and created this one. My ultimate plan is to have this article, one on Breckinridge's military service in the Civil War (currently being drafted), one on his escape and exile from the U.S., and the primary biographical article. Until I finish the three sub-articles, I won't really know how much detail is appropriate in the biographical one. I plan to put the sub-articles through their paces, then trim and adjust the main article accordingly, per WP:DEADLINE. Hope that's OK.

With regard to his war role, I assume you mean his service as Confederate Secretary of War. I went back and forth on whether to include it in the political career article (since it was a political office) or the one I'm currently working on about his Civil War service. Ultimately, I concluded that it was probably best to keep all the political offices in one article, with the Civil War article focusing on his military career, including various assessments of his performance as an officer. I'm open to differing views on that, however. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see your dilemma. But that creates a dilemma for us who are to review as well: Your set of articles are not currently in what you could call stable state, in that you as principal editor will shift material back and forth, still having lots of constructive ideas on your own "interfering" if you like with what an outside perspective on an essentially finished article. Thus, to help us as reviewers, it will be a great help that you meanwhile points our focus to sections you regard as basically done, rather than to whole articles that are, regarded as a whole, likely to undergo major transformation on your part. (If, on your spare time, you could take a look at the peer review on my Impalement article, I'll be grateful)Arildnordby (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I tend to think of this article as basically done. I wanted to get feedback on the quality of the prose, the level of detail (too much, too little, too much focus on particular areas), the comprehensiveness of the coverage, the appropriateness with which the assessments of various historians are presented, compliance with the manual of style, etc. I really see the major changes coming in the biography proper. I had started that expansion, but very early on in my progress through Davis' 600+ page biography, I saw that article was going to become HUGE, so I immediately ceased development on it and began this sub-article. What I anticipate, then, is a reduction in the material already in the biography proper, "moving" it, essentially, to this article. But in actuality, it's already in this article; it just hasn't been trimmed from that one yet. Hope that makes sense.

My particular style of article development requires me to write the details before I attempt the summary. That's why I always write the lead last. In this case, I need to develop the detailed sub-articles, then decide how much of that detail needs to also appear in the biography proper. There will necessarily be some overlap; although the political career article gives the details of Breckinridge's vice presidency, for example, the fact that he was vice president and a synopsis of his actions while acting in that capacity have to appear in the biography proper for completeness' sake. Some readers won't want all the details. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at it!Arildnordby (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead section: I find this far too detailed, in that much of this material ought to exist in the main body text, rather than in a swift (but accurate) overview as a lead should be. By no means regarding my version as perfect, here's a radical alternative of summarizing lead section, perhaps the "perfect" lies somewhere in the middle to your own lead section?

"The political career of John C. Breckinridge included service in the state government of Kentucky, the United States federal government, and the government of the Confederate States of America.

A champion of strict constructionism, states' rights, and popular sovereignty, he supported Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas–Nebraska Act as a means of addressing slavery in the territories acquired in the Mexican–American War.

At the 1856 Democratic National Convention, he was nominated for Vice President and upon electoral victory, Breckinridge became the youngest vice president in U.S. history.

In 1859, the Kentucky General Assembly chose him for senator in 1861. Nominated as well as canditate for US presidency, Breckinridge lost the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln. As Senator, he futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states and opposed allocating resources for Lincoln to fight the Civil War. Fearing arrest after Kentucky sided with the Union, he fled behind Confederate battle lines and joined the Confederate States Army. He was subsequently expelled from the Senate.

Breckinridge served in the Confederate Army from October 1861 to February 1865. Concluding that the Confederate cause was hopeless, he encouraged Davis to effect a national surrender. After Davis was captured, Breckinridge fled to Cuba, then Great Britain, and finally Canada, remaining in exile until President Andrew Johnson's offer of amnesty in 1868. Returning to Kentucky, he refused all requests to resume his political career and died of complications related to war injuries in 1875."Arildnordby (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm known for over-long and over-detailed leads, but I do think your version omits some important details. Let me give it a shot.

"The political career of John C. Breckinridge included service in the state government of Kentucky, the United States federal government, and the government of the Confederate States of America. In 1849, Breckinridge became the first Democrat to represent Fayette County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives, and in 1851, he was the first Democrat to represent Kentucky's traditionally Whig 8th district in almost thirty years. A champion of strict constructionism, states' rights, and popular sovereignty, he supported Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas–Nebraska Act as a means of addressing slavery in the territories acquired in the Mexican–American War.

After reapportionment made his re-election unlikely in 1854, Breckinridge returned to private life and his legal practice, but he was nominated for Vice President at the 1856 Democratic National Convention. When he and James Buchanan won the election, he became the youngest vice president in U.S. history, but enjoyed little influence in Buchanan's administration. In 1859, the Kentucky General Assembly elected him to a U.S. Senate term that would begin in 1861. Dissident Southern Democrats nominated Breckinridge for president in 1861, and despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern States, he lost the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln. In the Senate, he futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states and opposed allocating resources for Lincoln to fight the Civil War. Fearing arrest after Kentucky sided with the Union, he fled behind Confederate battle lines and joined the Confederate States Army. He was subsequently expelled from the Senate.

Breckinridge served in the Confederate Army from October 1861 to February 1865, when Confederate President Jefferson Davis appointed him Confederate States Secretary of War. Concluding that the Confederate cause was hopeless, he encouraged Davis to effect a national surrender. Davis's capture in April 1865 ended the war, and Breckinridge fled to Cuba, then Great Britain, and finally Canada, remaining in exile until President Andrew Johnson's offer of amnesty in 1868. Returning to Kentucky, he refused all requests to resume his political career and died of complications related to war injuries in 1875."

Better? If not, let's discuss individual facts that you would suggest removing. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

a) "In 1849, Breckinridge became the first Democrat to represent Fayette County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives, and in 1851, he was the first Democrat to represent Kentucky's traditionally Whig 8th district in almost thirty years."

Note of year of first entry in state politics appropriate, but the more detailed info on context should belong in main text, but possibly include he was first Democrat in 30 years from his district, for eample:

"In 1849 Beckenridge was the first Democrat elected from his county in the Kentucky House of Representatives and in 1851 he was the first Democrat to represent 8th district in almost 30 years". It is no need to make Fayette explicit (it can be contained in link), and it is unnecessary here to point out the 8th district as traditionally Whig (Breckinridge's success against the local odds is evident from his being the first Democrat in 30 years elected)."

I'll get back to more points later.Arildnordby (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to mention "his county", you might as well go ahead and say "Fayette County", in my opinion. No need to hide it with an Easter egg link to save a few characters. The point about the Whigs, however, is well-taken. I can live with that change. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

b) I do not think the highly technical reason for Breckinridge's temporary withdrawal is in place here. "Regarding his chances of 1854 re-election unlikely, Breckenridge returned to private life. In 1856, however, he was nominated for Vice President at the 1856 Democratic National Convention"Arildnordby (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Never thought of reapportionment as being "highly technical", but I'd be willing to adopt your solution. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if readers wonder why the Democratic wunderkid who just won three straight elections in a Whig district suddenly finds his chances of re-election "unlikely". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Remember that for me, and other non-USAns, reapportionment is highly technical, about as highly technical it is to you about "adjustment candidates" in Norwegian parliamentary tradition. As for wonder about wunderkids, political favour and support change swiftly for a number of reasons, so it isn't really that strange with sudden reversals and returns of fortune.Arildnordby (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, point taken on this one. I'm OK with that change. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

c) " Dissident Southern Democrats nominated Breckinridge for president in 1861, and despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern States, he lost the election to Republican Abraham Lincoln." Here, I find it too circumstantial that it was dissident Southern Democrats who nominated him, and also how the voting preciselyturned out. Those sure are important in main text, but in lead?. Thus, I'll go for "In 1861, Breckenridge was nominated for president, but lost to Abraham Lincoln, and took up seat as Senator". Or something like that.Arildnordby (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that his nomination was somewhat irregular and that, despite this, he still did pretty well in the election. You don't think those are salient points for the lead? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think lead should summarize the really central points (nomination and loss), the main text could show it was a close race under irregular circumstances.Arildnordby (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the "local" (read, U.S.) knowledge that the 1861 election is probably one of the best known in U.S. history is coloring my view of its importance in the lead. I'll consider this a little more. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

d) Otherwise, I think lead is OK now.Arildnordby (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, for something completely different: I believe that family influences really belongs primarily in biography. The critical factor is to get out here is Breckenridge's political platform as "inherited" by his grandfather (possibly modified by non-democrat family). In general, the "Political Career" ought NOT be stand alone as it is now, but delving into those moments particularly important there. I feel that I'm going to read this through critically with the following questions predominant in my mind: i) What were Breckendridge's primary political positions? ii) Who were his principal allies? iii) Primary enemy factions? iv) What is the timeline for principal career points? v) Principal work and successes in elected positions?

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with your premise that this article ought not be stand alone. From my perspective, it really should be stand alone. Also, I included a lot of detail about the family influence on Breckinridge's political philosphy in this article precisely because I thought it was too detailed for the biography proper. In that article, I'll already be summarizing huge, important periods in Breckinridge's political career (and dealing with them in more detail in this article). I can only imagine a reviewer looking at the biography proper and wondering why there are two paragraphs on family history viz a viz political philosophy and (hypothetically) two paragraphs on his time as vice president, given the relative disparity in importance between the two. It could be seen as running contrary to WP:UNDUE. I believe examining the source of Breckinridge's political views, especially influences on his disputed personal position on slavery, are within the scope of this article. I'd like to hear feedback from other reviewers before making changes here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying these points aren't covered, but that by my first readings these points tend to get submerged in lots of other details. For example, it is asserted that Breckenridge's most important work was with a "bank reform", but that isn't addressed nowhere as thoroughly as his work relative to asylums and his appointment as director. If "bank reform" was his most important work, then THAT should be given primary focus, not everything else he was involved in. I hope you see I try to be constructive here, but it will take quite a time for me to develop specific points of criticism, since the article is very detailed to begin with.Arildnordby (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope the bank reform issue is an anomaly within the article. Davis says it was his most important work, but gives no detail, and the other sources don't mention bank reform at all, leaving me in a conundrum. I can't really leave it out if it was his most important work, but I lack the information to elaborate. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But, lacking details, the very least you ought to do is to move "bank reform" at the very top relative to Breckenridge's work, rather than as an incidental detail at the bottom? Thus, the section on "work" proceeds from the "most important" to "less important"?Arildnordby (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a reasonable suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

On reconsideration. The 1861 presidential election, due to its gory aftermath, is WAY too important to be given short thrift as I suggested. In fact, I think you ought to ADD something here, within the lead, making it clear how that election became a principal battleground on the issue of slavery, with Lincoln on the abolotionist side and Breckinridge (perhaps uncomfortably?) on the "pro-slavery" side? Inserting a sentence or two about this prior to the sentence concerning his futile efforts as Senator will not make this awkward, but will show how Breckinbridge tried to continue a policy he fronted during the 1861 presidential campaign?

A very radical alternative (or formulation of that point) would be to start your lead section by mentioning Breckenridge as the principal antagonist of Lincoln in the fateful 1861 election, i.e, emphasizing this as the pivotal moment of Breckridge's career, and only later on in the lead recapture the chronological rise to "just" fame you already have explained Breckenridge deserves.

These are then two ideas that might whet the apettite for the general reader to read the more detailed article?Arildnordby (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I know I'll get dinged for repetition in the lead if I try the second solution, but let me take a stab at the first, while incorporating your earlier feedback.

"The political career of John C. Breckinridge included service in the state government of Kentucky, the United States federal government, and the government of the Confederate States of America. In 1849, Breckinridge became the first Democrat to represent Fayette County, Kentucky in the Kentucky House of Representatives, and in 1851, he was the first Democrat to represent Kentucky's 8th district in almost thirty years. A champion of strict constructionism, states' rights, and popular sovereignty, he supported Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas–Nebraska Act as a means of addressing slavery in the territories acquired in the Mexican–American War.

Considering his re-election unlikely in 1854, Breckinridge returned to private life and his legal practice, but he was nominated for Vice President at the 1856 Democratic National Convention. When he and James Buchanan won the election, he became the youngest vice president in U.S. history, but enjoyed little influence in Buchanan's administration. In 1859, the Kentucky General Assembly elected him to a U.S. Senate term that would begin in 1861. Dissident Southern Democrats nominated Breckinridge for president in 1861; he was one of three candidates opposing Republican Abraham Lincoln. Despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern States, Breckinridge lost the election to Lincoln, and the election prompted the secession of the southern states to form the Confederate States of America.

Though he sympathized with the southern cause, tn the Senate, Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states. After the firing on Fort Sumter, he opposed allocating resources for Lincoln to fight the Civil War. Fearing arrest after Kentucky sided with the Union, he fled behind Confederate battle lines and joined the Confederate States Army. He was subsequently expelled from the Senate. He served in the Confederate Army from October 1861 to February 1865, when Confederate President Jefferson Davis appointed him Confederate States Secretary of War. Concluding that the Confederate cause was hopeless, he encouraged Davis to effect a national surrender. Davis's capture in April 1865 ended the war, and Breckinridge fled to Cuba, then Great Britain, and finally Canada, remaining in exile until President Andrew Johnson's offer of amnesty in 1868. Returning to Kentucky, he refused all requests to resume his political career and died of complications related to war injuries in 1875."

Ran out of time before I could thoroughly copy-edit, but see what you think. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a LOT better lead than your first, by giving sufficient weight to the pivotal 1861-65 years, relative to the other years. That lead is for keeps, I think! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Proceeding, I think your first section's title "Political Philosophy" jars somewhat with its content. I feel "Formative years" might be a better title?Arildnordby (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the long delay. Busy at work, and my little girl has been sick. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

SO..you now understand the blessings of the idle loner's life I enjoy? :-) :-) I'll place this on my watchlist, and we can work on and off on it.Arildnordby (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. If this review closes, we can pick it up on the article talk page. I know it's a long article and may take a while to get through, but a non-U.S. perspective is always important on these kinds of articles. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

On "Early influences": "..letter to Robert Breckinridge, who became his surrogate father after Cabell Breckinridge's death, he wrote.."

Here, a) is it really necessary to keep the info of surrogate fatherhood in the political career article? If you think yes, then that particular info ought to have a reference attached to it. Otherwise, if you don't think the info necessary, drop it.

I think it is necessary because it shows that he had a strong relationship with his uncle. This abolitionist wasn't "crazy Uncle Robert"; he was a "surrogate father", and his opinion carried weight with young John C. Breckinridge. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay! but then put in a reference there, for example to the page number in which Davis(?) where it is stated that Robert did become John's surrogate father.Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There are two cites at the end of that sentence. One of the two mentions the surrogate father relationship. Don't remember which one right off. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Then, neither will the reader understand which, if any, reference refers to the factoid of surrogate fatherhood, and which, if not both, are comments on the significance of the letter itself. Therefore, this can be easily improved, by in the reference concernig surrogate fatherhood simply say something like "On Robert as surrogate father, see..", whereas for the reference on the letter, write "On letter, see.."Arildnordby (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I've never had that request before, nor have I ever really seen it done in a Wikipedia article. In my past FACs, it has always just been sufficient to provide all the citations at the end of the sentence without qualifiers. Is there a policy I'm not aware of? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

b)"..he wrote.." The last active individual in previous sentence is "William Birney" (who was an abolitionist, and perfectly well could scoff at people's fears of emancipation that the 1841 letter includes), and I suggest you write "..John wrote.." instead, to keep the individual referenced to clear.Arildnordby (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Moderate Reputation: "As late as the 1856 presidential election, some believed that Breckinridge was an abolitionist" Who are these "some"? Any influential ones? Political allies? Enemies? Newspaper commentators? The sentence would improve by tangentially including a principal believer in Breckinridge's abolitionism, say by writing : "As late as the 1856 presidential election, some believed, for example A and B, that Breckinridge was an abolitionist"Arildnordby (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's kind of a passing mention in the text that some charged him with being an abolitionist during the 1856 campaign. That might be enough to conclude that it was political enemies making the charge. What do you think? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd rather say something like "some even charged him with being abolitionist in the 1856 campaign", than using "believe". "Believe" is too ambiguous and vague, really (Furthermore, you can perfectly well charge someone for some attitude you don't believe they have. politics is the art of lying, after all..:-))Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Point well taken on the "believed" vs. "charged" issue. I just changed that one word, which I think takes care of the issue. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky election: ".. which was heavily Whig". To a non-USAn, you have already said he was the first Democrat elected, and "obviously", then, tradition spoke against his actual success, whoever "the Whigs" were (clearly not the Republicans, but somebody else!). The very first thing you should do is to include a link on Whig, bacause absolutely nobody outside US knows who the Whigs in pre-Republican US actually were. I can't see you have done that at a previous stage in your article, and you really ought to make such a link to "whigs" (I'm sure an article on them exists).

"Whig Party" is linked in the first sentence of the body. To re-link it here would probably run counter to WP:OVERLINK. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't see that one!Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The intricacies of local state elections need not be delved into, but is what you really mean to say that: ".. which traditionally had been strongly Whig" or even "".. which remained, however, heavily Whig". Hope I made my point clear here, leave, the judgments on this too you..:-) Arildnordby (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The former is what is meant; I'm not sure how that differs appreciably from what I said, though. Many more folks in the district identified with the Whig Party than the Democratic Party, and the district elected Whig candidates to nearly every office almost exclusively for years prior to Breckinridge's candidacy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"had been" traditionally Whig means that Breckinridge effected a change in the outlook of the voters, "remained heavily Whig" that he was effectively, a Democrat one-shot (due to personal charisma?). It's a quibble on my part, you might keep what you've written if you won't put such specific suggestions into the heads of the readers.Arildnordby (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying. Actually, Breckinridge was kind of a "one-shot" in the district, but within a few years of his candidacy, the Whig Party kind of died out on its own. The Whig dominance didn't continue long after Breckinridge, but it wasn't directly connected to his candidacy. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I think the non-committal "was heavily Whig" you have in the text per now should stand. As I said at the start of this comment, if any more precision means delving into local political intricacies, you basically should avoid it. But, I wanted to air to alternate word choices that might have been preferable to the one in the text, and I think that it is now clear "was heavily Whig" is the best out of those 3.Arildnordby (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"Formative years": Be hyper-accurate with your Johns here! You write: "..John Breckinridge believed the federal government.." and for quite some time mean the grandfather, rather than John C. Isn't it more safe to write in that sentence "..John Breckinridge sr. .."?Arildnordby (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody really called the elder one "John Breckinridge, Sr." I guess I just need to make sure I consistently refer to the younger one as "John C." Did I miss one of those anywhere that you see? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes, I think, the article editor is entitled to demand of the reader to read closely what is written, rather than the editor having to spell it out for the lazy ones. In this case, I agree with you; when the text is read closely, there won't be any ambiguities here.Arildnordby (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A first impression on J.C.B's general political outlook:

When I read the more detailed sections, I feel that I would have had benefit from a prior guide-line to his basic/predominant political views, i.e, a spelling out of how his "strict constructionism" guided his ideas. For example, in general opposition to federal funding, along with fight against tariffs and advocacy for free trade. You certainly do give some examples of this, but they come in-between election fights and exceptions to "the general rule" (i.e, where he DOES accept federal funding, for example). You are very good at showing how his views on slavery must be understood as flowing from his general ideas of strict constructionism, but I do wonder if your article might improve if you make those slavery sections as subsections within a "Political stance"-section, in which the long/stable lines in B's political outlook is detailed. Anyhow, to effect such a major change in article structure is premature at this point, I think, but I wanted to point it out, so that the idea might mature, or eventually be rejected by both of us. I'll proceed sectionwise to begin with in my next comments, major restructuring might wait.Arildnordby (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This was my original intent, but what I found was that there was comparatively little about his political views viz a viz issues other than slavery, which is understandable. Apparently, you were able to draw the connections when they were called for (e.g. strict constructionism, generally, didn't allow for federal spending on internal improvements) so I wonder if a radical restructuring is necessary. Whatever we might gain from examining the various stances of his political career early on in the article, we would almost certainly lose as much or more in basic chronology. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's a dilemma. However, the constructive way then for me to read your article is to point out places where a simple word insertion of the type "in line with constructivist thinking, John C,..." (or, "in contrast with"). I do NOT think this needs to be done at all places, that would, not the least, make the article tedious and repetitive, but an occasional reminder to the lay reader might be in order. (I think, BTW, you have been good at pointing expressly to John C.s clear breaks with typical constructionist thinking, but to me, political views aren't either/or categories, but points on a sliding scale (or points on a map with multiple scales) where it also will be benificial to the reader to be reminded of the clear constructivist position John C. will have had on some positions). I'll take one point that puzzled me on slavery: From what I have understood, such like the "Fugitive Act" that southerners wanted to retain places a duty on non-slave states to return back fugitive slaves, does it not? But, this breaks completely, as I see it, the constructivist idea of the states being bound together merely on a voluntary basis, subject to the will of the people in each state, rather than the states being provinces of a Superstate called the USA, where federal laws can be quite intrusive in local practices. The "Fugitive Act" limits the scope northerners can act within their own states, relative to their southern neigbours. Hope I made my puzzlement clear here..:-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to add. What I've come up with as a sort of "solution" is that within (John C's) constructionism, the Federal Government had no right to define what "legitimate objects for property" was (other than that ownership rules like inheritance or rules for sale had been followed), but that federal authorities had a duty to ensure that lost property were returned, or compensated for the private individual. I'm not sure if I make sense here..Arildnordby (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've got it. The idea was that "property" was protected by the federal constitution, so any state law interfering with that protection was unconstitutional to the strict constructionist. It wasn't just Breckinridge that felt this way, of course. There were lots of other constructionists that came to the same conclusion. This is one of the nuances that many people fail to recognize about the Civil War when they say it was "fought over slavery". As you can see from the article, Breckinridge may well have abhorred slavery as an institution, but his constitutional scruples caused him to side with the Confederacy. Not saying that was a good decision, but it was at least logically consistent, in a way. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I had to think quite a bit about that! Glad I got it right. Now, I made a minor comment as well in regard to clarifying your references on the surrogate fatherhood as well, you might take a look at it.Arildnordby (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky years: "Heck wrote that most of the session's bills were "local or personal... and in any case, petty".[53] Breckinridge's first speech favored allowing the Kentucky Colonization Society to use the House chamber; later, he advocated directing Congress to establish an African freedmen colony and pay to transport settlers there.[ Funding internal improvements was traditionally a Whig stance, but Breckinridge advocated conducting a state geologic survey, making the Kentucky River more navigable, chartering a turnpike, incorporating a steamboat company, and funding the Kentucky Lunatic Asylum. As a reward for supporting internal improvements, he presided over the approval of the Louisville and Bowling Green Railroad's charter and was appointed director of the asylum."

Here, I do not deny, or oppose the content of the first sentence that most session bills were petty, but I think you agree that the cases you DO mention here afterwards cannot be called petty or personal at all? Here, I believe Heck's assertion is important enough to include (if not examples of that pettiness), but I do think that your first sentence ought to be your last instead, in the shape like this, for example: "Despite such acts, Heck writes that most of the session's bills were "local or personal... and in any case, petty". Again, it's a question of hierarchy of importance, in which "more important" issues should be listed first (like the bank reform), less important (but still noteworthy!) listed last. BTW, I leave it to your judgment on the referencing issue you responded to lastArildnordby (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, it is aesthetic to keep Heck's overview to begin with as you've done, but perhaps insert a sentence after it like "However, some more important bills were also passed". Just something for you to chew on..Arildnordby (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Those judgments are relative, really. Breckinridge's advocacy for giving the Kentucky Colonization Society use of the legislative chambers and the congressional directive (essentially, a non-binding resolution) to support their mission were "petty" in terms of long-term or broad impact, and also probably very personal to Breckinridge. Internal improvements issues were notoriously local, rarely affecting statewide transportation. Even the lunatic asylum may have been local to the extent that the legislature probably dictated where to build it. Only the geological survey and perhaps the asylum (in terms of its function) were really of statewide import. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"First term (1851–1853)" This is a dense, highly informative section, but precisely because of this, might benefit from "chapterization", say with the semi-colon template. Some points I react to: a) You say John C. and Lynn Boyd became factional enemies, but I don't see any such animosity evidenced in your article? Should you add examples of this, perhaps?

I did find it curious that both Heck and Davis mention the animosity between the two, but neither really gives any elaboration or concrete examples. I was on the lookout for such things because I was also curious, but the only real sign of conflict between the two were electoral in nature. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

b) I feel that the whole Young Americans-debacle ought to be placed in a single, paragraph:

Confrontations with Young Americans

"Breckinridge resisted United States Democratic Review editor George Nicholas Sanders' efforts to recruit him to the Young America movement.[70] Like Young America, Breckinridge favored westward expansion and free trade, but he disagreed with the movement's support of European revolutions and disdain for older statesmen.[70] On March 4, 1851, Breckinridge made his first speech in the House, defending presidential aspirant William Butler against charges by Florida's Edward Carrington Cabell, a Young American and distant cousin, that he secretly sympathized with the Free Soilers.[71] Then he denounced Sanders for his vitriolic attacks on Butler and for calling all Democratic presidential candidates except Stephen Douglas "old fogies".[72] The speech made Breckinridge a target of Whigs, Young America, and Douglas supporters.[73] Humphrey Marshall, a Kentucky Whig who sought Millard Fillmore's re-election, attacked Breckinridge for claiming Fillmore held unclear views on slavery.[74] Illinois' William Alexander Richardson, a Douglas backer, claimed Breckinridge unfairly implicated Douglas in Sanders' attacks on Butler, but Breckinridge showed that Douglas endorsed the Democratic Review a month after it printed its first anti-Butler article.[75] Finally, Breckinridge's cousin, California's Edward C. Marshall, charged that Butler would name Breckinridge Attorney General in exchange for his support and revived the charge that Breckinridge broke party ranks, supporting Zachary Taylor for president.[76] Breckinridge ably defended himself, but Sanders continued to attack him and Butler, claiming Butler would name Breckinridge as his running mate, even though Breckinridge was too young to qualify as vice president.[77]"

Then, the next section might be like this, for example:

Other political developments

After his maiden speech, Breckinridge took a more active role in the House.[77] In debate with Ohio's Joshua Reed Giddings, he defended the Fugitive Slave Law's constitutionality and criticized Giddings for hindering the return of fugitive slaves.[77][78] He opposed Andrew Johnson's Homestead Act, fearing it would create more territories that excluded slavery.[77] Although generally opposed to funding local improvements, he supported repairing two Potomac River bridges to avoid higher costs later.[78] Other minor stands included supporting measures to benefit his district's hemp farmers, voting against giving the president ten more appointments to the U.S. Naval Academy, and opposing funds for a sculpture of George Washington because the sculptor proposed depicting Washington in a toga

Breckinridge visited Kentucky when the legislature rose in April, then returned to Washington, D.C. and made daily visits to an ailing Henry Clay.[79] Clay died June 29, 1852, and Breckinridge garnered nationwide praise and enhanced popularity in Kentucky after eulogizing Clay in the House.[69][80] Days later, he spoke in opposition to increasing a subsidy to Collins Line for carrying trans-Atlantic mail, noting that Collins profited by carrying passengers and cargo on mail ships.[81] In wartime, the government could commandeer and retrofit Collins's steamboats as warships, but Breckinridge cited Commodore Matthew C. Perry's opinion that they would be useless in war.[81] Finally, he showed Cornelius Vanderbilt's statement promising to build a fleet of mail ships at his expense and carry the mail for $4 million less than Collins.[81] Despite this, the House approved the subsidy increase

To emphasize: I think the actual content you have given in this section is extremely interesting and well written, but I think you might improve a bit on how to structure and highlight the varied material, in a way that makes the reader grasp all of it, instead of tiring halfway through.Arildnordby (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I worried about overusing headings, but I think your suggestion has some merit. My first concern is that those additional headings would make the image of Boyd spill over into another section. That's obviously fixable by deleting the image or choosing a new image relevant to one of the suggested subsections. The other concern is what to do with the following two sentences: "Considered for Speaker of the House, Breckinridge believed his election unlikely and refused to run against fellow Kentuckian Linn Boyd. After Boyd's election, he assigned Breckinridge to the lightly regarded Foreign Affairs Committee, and the two became factional enemies." They don't really belong with the preceding paragraph, and they certainly don't belong in either of the suggested subsections. I don't really think they make a very good paragraph by themselves, either, especially given how little we know about the relationship between Breckinridge and Boyd. Open to suggestions. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Second term, Election subsection: Here, you cite differing contemporary estimates on sleazy campaigning outlays. If Davis and Heck or other modern scholars have chosen to come up with their estimates, I think such estimates might be valuable to include in the section, in addition to the ones you've mentioned.Arildnordby (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they didn't. It would probably be difficult to do, since keeping and preserving accurate records of such things would be less-than-desirable from a candidate's perspective. :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll get back to the other issues, but for now, on Boyd vs John C. I'm glad you share my sense of the incongruity between the use of the word enemy here, with lack of examples. Furthermore, reading your article, John C. strikes me as a person who didn't develop personal hatreds, or just took a fight, just out of combative nature. Rather, to me, he seems to have preferred to decline fights if he thought it would be too much hassle, or deferring (including to Boyd) to the election of "antagonists". Thus, even though your sources say that they were enemies, is that an assertion you need to transmit, when the sources are inadequate on examples? That Boyd was an alternate candidate to breckinridge at different times is amply evidenced by your other writings, and even if Heck and Davis want to make a drama of "enemies" here, I don't think you need to do that.Arildnordby (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that is reasonable. At present, it is only really connected to Boyd's failure to reciprocate Breckinridge's deference with an important committee assignment, so we can probably drop it and allow the facts of later elections speak for themselves, as you suggest. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If any of your sources have a letter or something in which John C. expresses disappointment at the ingratitude Boyd showed him, then that would, in my view, a better insertion than the "factional enemies" element.Arildnordby (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If such a letter does not exist, do you think your sources warrants an explicit assertion that the assignment John C. was a snub, or act of ingratitude? That element is, as for now, adequately emphasized by the "factional enemies" phrase, but if that is to be removed, then I think a rephrasing of the remainder is in order to highlight to the reader that Boyd acted, in fact, rather shabbily towards John C. I don't feel that the "lightly regarded" phrase on its own is sufficient emphasis of that point.Arildnordby (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Either Heck or Davis – maybe both; I can't remember off the top of my head – mention that many people had expected him to get a plum committee assignment, especially given his deference, but neither elaborates as to who was included in that "many people", which makes it difficult to use. Davis kind of talks about the idea that it was a snub, if I recall correctly, but that's just one person's opinion, and not even a contemporary, at that. As for a letter from JCB himself, Davis emphasizes in several places that JCB usually avoided political intrigue and finger-pointing, even when such finger-pointing was obviously justified, so I suspect little would be forthcoming on that front. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As for judgments of petty cases: If Heck regards these cases as examples of such pettiness, I think you should explicitly state that, by way of introducing them like: "As examples, Heck mentions..", or something like that. Otherwise, the reader is left uncetain about whether to regard the given cases as the typical bills passed, or if they are to be regarded as exceptions to that rule.Arildnordby (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little uncertain on that point myself. You'll notice that the detail about the bills Breckinridge supported is attributed to Davis, so it may be that Heck thought them petty, but Davis not so much. It could also be that Heck's biography is fewer than 200 pages and Davis' is over 600, so Davis just had more room to elaborate. Without any way to connect Heck's judgments to Davis' detail, I'm kind of left to my own devices. I rather think Heck's description could apply to these measures, but it may not. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the subsectioning issue relative to John C. being considered Speaker. Personally, I thought that Speaker is a highly honourable position, and that therefore, it is rather unusual that a rather new politician like John C. should get it? Thus, it might possibly be warranted to expand that a bit, for example by noting those who did want to honour him in that way. If such an expansion is possible on basis of your sources, then the problem of subsections, with the present sentence being too short as a stand alone subsection will disappearArildnordby (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, a freshman rep being elected speaker would never happen today, but it wasn't unheard of at that time. In fact, the much-talked-about Henry Clay had done just that a few years prior. At that time, it was more a recognition of ability and, to some degree, eloquence, while today it is almost exclusively a matter of seniority. Again, Davis is rather vague about who sought JCB's election as speaker, so there is no way to characterize them as a bloc. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

On Heck vs. Davis. Since Davis must be regarded as the most significant biographer for John C., I believe that his value judgments are the ones to retain in your article at points of uncertainty, as a general rule. If Heck's judgments bring in a refreshing quality to the article, by all means include them then, but if they generate uncertainties or puzzles instead, perhaps you should consider dropping them? To simply retain Davis' list of bills, without Heck's opinion of them, illustrates quite well on its own the rather humdrum, day-to-day affairs, and readers might be left to decide for themselves whether to regard this as "important" stuff or as petty. And that is for the best, I think, when none of your sources give clear guidance on what types of bills are the usual ones, and what types are the exceptions to that pattern.

That's not a bad suggestion. I expanded from the Heck biography first and added this assessment because there was so little about what Breckinridge did in the state house, but after the expansion from Davis, it isn't really necessary. Removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

However, precisely because Davis is John C.s main biographer, I think his opinion of John C.s assignment as being a snub is worthwhile enough to mention. Furthermore, most readers will not be aware that it wasn't impossible for a freshman to become Speaker; I believe it would be a valuable addition to your article to say precisely that, referring to the precedence case of Henry Clay.Arildnordby (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Plain sailing until US Vice President. Here, I believe the charged word "enemy" relative to Boyd should be changed to antagonist; you have given ample evidence of the competition between these two for positions previously, so "antagonist" is warranted, if not "enemy".