This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 22, 2012, December 22, 2015, December 22, 2018, December 22, 2021, and December 22, 2022. |
The present wording of the article is awkward, approaching incomprehensibility.
In particular this period:
"The Embargo act was to strictly stay with the precedent George Washington set (the Neutrality Proclamation) doing this act let them stay well clear of the option of war, ..."
S. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.214 ( talk) 10:03, 3 February 2003 (UTC)
"Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807" WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.29.124.26 ( talk) 01:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Any chance that famous picture of Ograbme the Turtle can be incorporated into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.207.100 ( talk) 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikified as part of the wikification drive
also spell checked. feel free to de-wikify any dead links -- Wavemaster447 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The text seems like it was copied from a termpaper, and needs reworking. I started on it. Rjensen 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like someone played a joke with this page. Someone added the name "Mickey Moust" as a historical figure on this page. Just thought I would report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylimesp ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
... "flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality"? ... "egregious example of British aggression"? ... "presumptuous official orders"? ... "President Thomas Jefferson acted with restraint as these abuses mounted"?
What's going on? I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia? AWhiteC ( talk) 19:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I examined the guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
"Neutral point of veiw" requires that we "convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately" based upon "reliable sources". What authors seriously contests that the lede in question fails to do so? Name them.
"Words to watch" reminds editors that "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias." A malcontented editor has lodged a complaint as to the handling of some sourced material. What evidence has been provided that contradicts the statements that flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality occurred, or that Chesapeake–Leopard Affair was an egregious example of British aggression? Name the authors who dispute this, or question it. Name them. I'm not saying they don't exist, just name them. The editor claims "some non-American sources (and there will be some) would improve things. "There will be some" when, and if, the editor provides them. 36hourblock ( talk) 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears that AWC is willing to forego his "non-American sources" and settle for the "biased" Hofstadter, Perkins, Kaplan, Levy. Perhaps edits can be made that comform to the (unnamed) historians who AWC favors. Is this how we are proceeding in this sordid matter? Very well.
Fla-grant (adj.) So offensive that it cannot escape notice: flagrant disregard for the law. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flagrant
E-gre'gious (adj.) Conspicuously bad or offensive. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egregious
These words convey historical realities, not judgments, as understood by the historians who used the words to describe the events. Are there any sources that contradict these historians?
Insertion of the word "initially" implys that the editor had read the matieral cited and paraphrased to include the word. Am I correct in assuming this?
On the matter of inserting the word "alleged", we should ask if historical data supports this - according to mainstream sources. I don't want to see any "piggy-backing" on the existing citations unless the editor is certain that the citation can support them. And no postmodernist interpretations of the subject. 36hourblock ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I find the tone of the article to be partisan and ideological, using the Embargo's defects to support a doctrinaire "free trade" posture against protectionism in support of manufacturing. While a complete embargo is, admittedly, an extreme form of protectionism (and deserving of criticism on economic grounds), there were plenty of people, like Tench Coxe and the late A. Hamilton, who thought the U.S. public should be discouraged from buying so many British manufactures, especially those that could be produced at home. With the exception of slavery, this was the most divisive issue facing the United States prior to the Civil War. The author implies that the Act itself produced the divisions. What would Henry Clay say to that?
I could be wrong about the author's "free trade" ideology and motive, but I would like to hear from him/her on that score. To try to discover the author's compulsion for using such strong judgments as "inflicted devastating burdens," I offer up my favorite Clay speech in which he threw scorn on the call for “Free trade! Free trade!”
“Gentlemen deceive themselves,” Clay thundered. “It is not free trade they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt.”
Clay thought free trade existed only in proponents’ imaginations. “The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse’s arms, for the moon or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven.” Free trade that is fair, equal and reciprocal “has never existed,” he said, alluding to all of the government support that Britain and France gave to their own manufacturers.
Bill B. Lastudies ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a problem of focus with the standard "Britain supreme on the sea, France on the land" in a context extending beyond the continental struggle. Does there exist any subtle manner for referring to "land" while restricting the suggestion to continental Europe ? -- Askedonty ( talk) 09:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
To the regular editors of the this page: I just stuck a "lead too long" template on the article. If you disagree, you can remove it, but please at least think about rewriting the lead section into a few paragraphs. As a casual reader who wants a quick summary, it's a bit daunting. Just my $.02. -- Alexbook ( talk) 00:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"The embargo, which lasted from December 1807 to March 1809 effectively throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the United States suffered. In commercial New England and the Middle Atlantic states, ships sat idle at the wharves, and in the agricultural areas, particularly in the South, farmers and planters could not sell their crops on the international market."
" 2005 study by economic historian Douglas Irwin estimates that the embargo cost about 5 percent of America's 1807 GNP."
This is laughable globalist propaganda. Great job, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.75.35.165 ( talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the table on Insurrection Act of 1807, President Jefferson invoked the Act in 1808 to help enforce the Embargo Act on Lake Champlain. Sounds like there's more to the story there. -- Beland ( talk) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 22, 2012, December 22, 2015, December 22, 2018, December 22, 2021, and December 22, 2022. |
The present wording of the article is awkward, approaching incomprehensibility.
In particular this period:
"The Embargo act was to strictly stay with the precedent George Washington set (the Neutrality Proclamation) doing this act let them stay well clear of the option of war, ..."
S. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.214 ( talk) 10:03, 3 February 2003 (UTC)
"Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807" WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.29.124.26 ( talk) 01:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Any chance that famous picture of Ograbme the Turtle can be incorporated into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.207.100 ( talk) 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikified as part of the wikification drive
also spell checked. feel free to de-wikify any dead links -- Wavemaster447 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The text seems like it was copied from a termpaper, and needs reworking. I started on it. Rjensen 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like someone played a joke with this page. Someone added the name "Mickey Moust" as a historical figure on this page. Just thought I would report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylimesp ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
... "flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality"? ... "egregious example of British aggression"? ... "presumptuous official orders"? ... "President Thomas Jefferson acted with restraint as these abuses mounted"?
What's going on? I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia? AWhiteC ( talk) 19:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I examined the guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
"Neutral point of veiw" requires that we "convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately" based upon "reliable sources". What authors seriously contests that the lede in question fails to do so? Name them.
"Words to watch" reminds editors that "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias." A malcontented editor has lodged a complaint as to the handling of some sourced material. What evidence has been provided that contradicts the statements that flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality occurred, or that Chesapeake–Leopard Affair was an egregious example of British aggression? Name the authors who dispute this, or question it. Name them. I'm not saying they don't exist, just name them. The editor claims "some non-American sources (and there will be some) would improve things. "There will be some" when, and if, the editor provides them. 36hourblock ( talk) 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears that AWC is willing to forego his "non-American sources" and settle for the "biased" Hofstadter, Perkins, Kaplan, Levy. Perhaps edits can be made that comform to the (unnamed) historians who AWC favors. Is this how we are proceeding in this sordid matter? Very well.
Fla-grant (adj.) So offensive that it cannot escape notice: flagrant disregard for the law. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/flagrant
E-gre'gious (adj.) Conspicuously bad or offensive. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egregious
These words convey historical realities, not judgments, as understood by the historians who used the words to describe the events. Are there any sources that contradict these historians?
Insertion of the word "initially" implys that the editor had read the matieral cited and paraphrased to include the word. Am I correct in assuming this?
On the matter of inserting the word "alleged", we should ask if historical data supports this - according to mainstream sources. I don't want to see any "piggy-backing" on the existing citations unless the editor is certain that the citation can support them. And no postmodernist interpretations of the subject. 36hourblock ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I find the tone of the article to be partisan and ideological, using the Embargo's defects to support a doctrinaire "free trade" posture against protectionism in support of manufacturing. While a complete embargo is, admittedly, an extreme form of protectionism (and deserving of criticism on economic grounds), there were plenty of people, like Tench Coxe and the late A. Hamilton, who thought the U.S. public should be discouraged from buying so many British manufactures, especially those that could be produced at home. With the exception of slavery, this was the most divisive issue facing the United States prior to the Civil War. The author implies that the Act itself produced the divisions. What would Henry Clay say to that?
I could be wrong about the author's "free trade" ideology and motive, but I would like to hear from him/her on that score. To try to discover the author's compulsion for using such strong judgments as "inflicted devastating burdens," I offer up my favorite Clay speech in which he threw scorn on the call for “Free trade! Free trade!”
“Gentlemen deceive themselves,” Clay thundered. “It is not free trade they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt.”
Clay thought free trade existed only in proponents’ imaginations. “The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse’s arms, for the moon or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven.” Free trade that is fair, equal and reciprocal “has never existed,” he said, alluding to all of the government support that Britain and France gave to their own manufacturers.
Bill B. Lastudies ( talk) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a problem of focus with the standard "Britain supreme on the sea, France on the land" in a context extending beyond the continental struggle. Does there exist any subtle manner for referring to "land" while restricting the suggestion to continental Europe ? -- Askedonty ( talk) 09:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
To the regular editors of the this page: I just stuck a "lead too long" template on the article. If you disagree, you can remove it, but please at least think about rewriting the lead section into a few paragraphs. As a casual reader who wants a quick summary, it's a bit daunting. Just my $.02. -- Alexbook ( talk) 00:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"The embargo, which lasted from December 1807 to March 1809 effectively throttled American overseas trade. All areas of the United States suffered. In commercial New England and the Middle Atlantic states, ships sat idle at the wharves, and in the agricultural areas, particularly in the South, farmers and planters could not sell their crops on the international market."
" 2005 study by economic historian Douglas Irwin estimates that the embargo cost about 5 percent of America's 1807 GNP."
This is laughable globalist propaganda. Great job, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.75.35.165 ( talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
According to the table on Insurrection Act of 1807, President Jefferson invoked the Act in 1808 to help enforce the Embargo Act on Lake Champlain. Sounds like there's more to the story there. -- Beland ( talk) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)