Talk:Petticoat affair

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's History C‑class Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

Spelling

i can't tell if the atrocious spelling in this article is intentional due to historical citations or just whoever typed it had bad spelling. i don't see any [sic] where necessary. --alveolate (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I changed "Van Buren, the only bachelor member..." to "the only unmarried member..." since his wife, Hannah Hoes Van Buren, died in 1819. I don't know how important his marital status might have been in the situation. Yopienso 05:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should explain what affect this incident had on social, political, or economic ways of the feature.

I believe John Timberlake died of pulmonary disease; the suicide was only a malicious rumor. --69.109.30.84 07:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayup, one of the silliest political scandals in US history, right up there with the Monica Lewinsky affair. LOL. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet resignations

Per American_Lion:_Andrew_Jackson_in_the_White_House, the order and reasoning of the resignations actually goes like this:

1. Van Buren proposes to Jackson that he resigns (the "petticoat" problem), Jackson refuses his request

2. Eaton volunteers to resign because of the problems his wife is causing

3. Van Buren and Eaton both resign in the first week of April, 1831; Van Buren to take over as envoy to England, Eaton to run for the Senate

4. Ingham, Berrien, and Branch are all forced to resign in the 3rd week of April

The article seems to imply that Eaton resigns last. Also, AFAIK these are all the members of the cabinet, whereas the article states that "some" of the members resign.

Please let me know if I have anything wrong. I get this information from American_Lion:_Andrew_Jackson_in_the_White_House, Chapter 12, pp.172-174.

Nemilar (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- you are incorrect about martin van buren. he became VP, then president because he supported jackson in reference to the eatons. van buren supported them and in the way you write, you make it seem that van buren is pushing the president to settle things in the cabinet, when it is jackson who decided to get rid of and reorganize those in his cabinet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.178.92 (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unintelligible

This article is so poorly structured as to be unreadable. It needs to be reverted to a coherent earlier version - perhaps that of Feb 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.1.157.137 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. we can keep it. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bold, drastic move--take it back to Parkwell's 4 August 2009 version

I found this article was beyond repair, so I replaced it with an old version. This will be unfair to many editors (including myself) who have contributed during the past 6 years. I see it as a start, or a re-start, if you will. YoPienso (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the 31 Dec. 2104 revision acceptable. There may be a more recent one. Not taking the time to find it. YoPienso (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16 April 2014 seems better--later versions have too much detail. I removed the "single source" tag since there are multiple sources. YoPienso (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More background needed?

The article states:

Jackson appointed Eaton as his Secretary of War, and Eaton's entry into a high-profile cabinet post helped intensify the opposition of Mrs. Calhoun's group. In addition, Jackson felt that Calhoun and other anti-Jackson officials were fanning the flames of the controversy in an attempt to gain political leverage.[citation omitted]

If the vice president (Calhoun) is an "official" "anti" to his own president, that should be explained/discussed. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted for the purpose of having the president and VP be on the same side. Did it fail somehow? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]