User talk:Hotstreets/Sandbox

Comments on the May 8, 2005 version:

in response to the numerous cries from Ohioans seems a little biased -- what Jackson was responding to was a political crisis. Perhaps I didn't look closely enough, but the cited sources didn't clearly document any popular outcry to the president.
The "three representatives" sent by Jackson are significant enough to be named and linked: Richard Rush, Benjamin Chew Howard (these were the only two commissioners selected by Jackson; the third, Elisha Whittlesey (redlink for now, but look at what links here), was a representative from Ohio, who apparently accompanied them as some sort of mediator with the Ohio faction.
allowed the Harris line to be re-marked without interruption by Ohio can be misinterpreted -- why would Ohio want to interupt the re-marking of the Harris line, which was in it own interest?
Mason, however, flatly refused the deal, and continued to believe the Ohioans as foreign invaders also seems a little biased. Neither of the sources cited appear to support such a strong phrasing. P. 21 indicates "Mason refused to acquiece in the propositions" and he "partially followed suite [in disbanding the militia]; but still continued making preparations for any emergency that might arise." p. 216 only says that "Mason rejected these proposals".

Good to see work progessing. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have made changes on each of those points. Thanks for the feedback! This is my first major article rewrite, so I'm still learning as I go here. Is it okay to put in now, in your opinion? Hotstreets 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]