Talk:William Stanbery

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) person(s).

United States: Ohio 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.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Reason for censure

When I discovered the reason for his being censured, I realized how little the game has changed - just the players :-)

-- Michael David 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These Sentences Seem Contradictory

These two sentences, in light of what follows them, seem like they're contradicting each other.

"He was elected a Jacksonian to the United States House of Representatives in 1827 to fill the vacancy caused by the death of William Wilson. He was reelected as a Jacksonian in 1828 and as an Anti-Jacksonian in 1830."

So, in 1828, he's elected as a Jacksonian, and two years later is re-elected as an Anti-Jacksonian?! I double-checked "Jacksonian" to make sure I wasn't missing something, but, nope, they were pro-Jackson.

This was a man who completed hated President Jackson and hated his policy of forcibly removing the Indians! So much so that "In April 1832, he made accusations about Sam Houston, who was visiting Washington, D.C. at the time, on the floor of the House. He was attacking President Andrew Jackson through Houston, and accused him of being in league with John Von Fossen and Robert Rose. The three men bid on the supplying of rations to Indians who were being forcibly removed because of Jackson's Indian Removal Act of 1830."

Whatever he said on the floor of the House was enough to get Sam Houston so riled up that they got into it in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue, with Houston attacking Stanbery with his cane, and albeit for a misfire of his gun, Stanbery would have shot the guy!

I guess it's possible that he could have just loved Jackson in 1828, and sent him flowers and candy every week, and then, because of his Indian Removal Act in 1830, decided he hated the guy with a passion. (Jackson was the guy who double-crossed the Creek Indians, and forged their chiefs' signatures on a treaty while they were away looking at the lands he was proposing for them.) So, possibly he seemed like a reasonable guy until 1830.

I'm just asking the question of whether Stanbery completely changed his platform. (Today, a campaign opponent would say that he "flip-flopped." Or that, "he was for him, before he was against him." You know how that goes. As Michael David says, above, the game hasn't changed, only the players.)

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Attack" section

I removed a subsection that was unsourced. A web search showed that the passage closely follows a work of historical fiction published by something called Smashwords. The rather confusing version in this article has already been commented on above. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]