Talk:David Swinson Maynard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
[edit] Democratic and Republican
These terms seem somewhat out of place in the article. I'm not sure what Doc Maynard's politics really were, but I do know the idelogies of the two parties have changed a lot over time - and on many issues they have swapped places since the 1800s. I know the web article referenced here uses the terms, but I think they should be changed to something more time-independant, such as "liberal" and "conservative". Ocicat 00:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Liberal and conservative weren't the issues at all. The Democrats at the time were a coalition including much of the Northern working class (especially immigrants), Southern landed interests, and Western agrarians. They were generally pro-slavery, but otherwise often favored a politics similar to what the British would call Tory Chartism. The Republicans were, of course, the anti-slavery party, but also the party of the rising industrial class and of New England Puritanism. (It's all actually more complicated, but that's a decent short summary.) I don't think an article on Maynard is the place to try to give an complex explanation of the mid-19th century and Civil War era political alignment. Partisan lines were, indeed, an issue in Maynard's conflict with the Denny-Mercer-Boren crowd, but the partisan issues of the 1850-1870 U.S. don't translate easily into 21st century terms. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Party membership is an objective fact about the person; whether the parties correspond to today's liberal/conservative division is far more subjective and not relevant to the biography of someone who lived more than a century ago. It's not as if Maynard is going to endorse a candidate for the next election. rewinn 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- And especially since Judy Nicastro won't be running this year. (Sorry, that will only be comprehensible to Seattleites; I know you should never explain a joke, but she was a very independent 1999-2003 member of the city council who shared Maynard's dislike of excessive propriety. She once, frustrated over other councilmembers—and the daily papers'—moralizing over strip clubs, described Seattle as "Mayberry with high rises.") - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Too true. So much of Seattle's history is bound up in the battle between moralists and moneymakers. Bill Speidel says the reason King County splits at Puget Sound (it originally went all the way to the ocean) is that Prohibitionists were especially strong in the coastal cities, so Maynard engineered an "independence" movement to free the Penisula from Seattle's domination. This left the drinkers a majority in King Cty; the saloons re-opened; business boomed in Seattle while the Penisula remained primarily an extractive industry hinterland. Of course, you might not read this in the official histories. rewinn 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- And especially since Judy Nicastro won't be running this year. (Sorry, that will only be comprehensible to Seattleites; I know you should never explain a joke, but she was a very independent 1999-2003 member of the city council who shared Maynard's dislike of excessive propriety. She once, frustrated over other councilmembers—and the daily papers'—moralizing over strip clubs, described Seattle as "Mayberry with high rises.") - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
