Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition Party (United States)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition Party (United States)

This article is misleading and inaccurate. Basically, it has created a formal "Opposition Party" out of whole cloth based on the fact that the opposition to the (Democratic) Pierce Administration in the 34th Congress was basically disorganized and not a national party. As such, the Congressional Biographical Directory calls the party affiliation various congressmen in that Congress "Opposition," which basically just indicates the disorganization of the Democrats' opponents. Someone has used this to basically create an article which tries to claim that this was an organized political party, and even suggests they were a distinct entity from the Know Nothings, who were, in fact, just one element of the Opposition which happens to be indicated separately in the Congressional Biographical Directory. The article is a mess, and should be destroyed. john k (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2*008 (UTC)

Keep Using the link in the references section to pull the 34th congress roll, I see the part lines as follows: 100 Oppositions, 83 Democrats, 51 Americans. The "Americans" were members of the Know Nothing movement- they organized the American Party in 1854. It's a bit hard to gather how it fits in the political party articles, but it seems best described as the last Whig remnants following the formation of the Republican Party. If you look at the congressional records for the 33rd and 35th congresses, you'll see Whigs in the 33rd (plus some Free Soils, which were a very early beginning of the Republican Party); in the 35th, no Whigs, and a number of Republicans. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the former Whigs largely called themselves the "Opposition" (as did ex-Democrats, as far as I know). But they weren't an organized political party, and the statement on the Clerk's website about party balance is just an attempt to create order out of a very chaotic situation. There was no such thing as an "Opposition Party," and the article entirely consists of misleading extrapolations from very vague information on the Congressional website. john k (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There would have to be some level of organization, as they were the majority party in congress. Also, keep in mind that the ex-Whigs that weren't joining the Republican Party were pro-slavery, and within a few years had no platform to go on (or were in the Confederacy), leaving it a very short-lived ideology. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Just because there was no formal organization, the Opposition Party label is still notable enough to warrant its own article. It does need to be better-sourced, and possibly re-worded somewhat to clarify that it was more a label than an actual cohesive political unit. But this article is definitely fixable. No need to destroy it.--Aervanath's signature is boring 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There is no evidence that there ever was an "Opposition Party" label. There were a bunch of politicians who opposed the Pierce administration with no common organization, who called themselves the "Opposition". Articles on the formation of the Republican Party, on Know Nothingism, and on the Dissolution of the Whigs can deal with this subject - there is no need for a special article. john k (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed from Keep) After doing some more digging, I can't find any detailed information about the "Opposition Party" anywhere except Wikipedia and its various mirrors. There might have actually been an "Opposition Party" (I'm not an expert), but until sources are found to support it, this counts as original research. And if john k is right, then no such sources will actually be found.--Aervanath's signature is boring 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although we must explain upfront that it was more the scattered remnants of the Whigs. There are sufficient sources in e.g. Google Books to discuss this as a topic, and doing so does not mean that we endorse a view of them that is more formalized than evidence would suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 22:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Whig Party. RGTraynor 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this wasn't an official party, it appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article, though the article should certainly note the organizational status(es) of the party/movement and the name(s) it used. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is "it" precisely? If it's not an organized political party, how can we have an article called Opposition Party (United States)? What does this article do that articles on Know Nothingism, the dissolution of the Whigs, and the formation of the Republican Party cannot do? Basically, after Kansas-Nebraska in the spring/summer of 1854 the Whigs fell apart. Some southern Whigs became Democrats, others became Know Nothings, and still others stayed as Whigs; some Northern Whigs joined in anti-Nebraska "fusion" parties with Free Soilers and anti-Nebraska Democrats, some maintained the Whig organization but attempted to incorporated anti-Nebraska Democrats and Free Soilers into the party (with both these types ultimately forming the new Republican Party in 1856), others became Know Nothings, and still others tried to maintain the Whig label without bringing in new elements. By the time the 35th Congress met in December 1855, things were totally a mess. The term "Opposition" used by the Congressional Biographical Directory appears to apply to all non-Democrats in the 35th Congress, except those identified as Know Nothings (although even here, it may be inaccurate). That means it includes both ultra-conservative Whigs (including some southerners!) who refused to give up the label but also refused to join the Know Nothings, and proto-Republicans (including ex-Democrats in many states!) who had been responsible for dissolving the Whig party and creating new fusionist groupings. The term "Opposition" is also used during the Buchanan administration to refer generally to ex-Know Nothings who continued to form the opposition to the Democrats after Know Nothingism itself had died. To try to group all these disparate elements into a single "Party" (with a capital "P") is the opposite of illuminating the situation - the whole reason the Biographical Directory and the Clerk label these people as "opposition" is because they were not a political party. The article is inherently flawed, and the specific material can and should be dealt with elsewhere. john k (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also suggest that if anyone thinks this article should be kept, you ought to be working on removing nonsense from the article, because it mostly consists of total nonsense. john k (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - In Ordeal of the Union, Allen Nevins essentially describes the partisan breakdown as 108 Republicans, 83 Democrats, and 43 Know Nothings - which is to say, the vast majority of the "Opposition" congressmen are actually Republicans (or Proto-Republicans). Every southern "Opposition" man is here being counted as a Know Nothing, I suspect, as are some northerners - e.g. Henry M. Fuller of Pennsylvania, the Know Nothing candidate for Speaker, is listed in the Congressional Biographical Directory as "Opposition". On the other hand, N.P. Banks, elected as a Know Nothing, was considered a Republican by this point, and was the Republican candidate for speaker. Basically, the use of "Opposition" just confuses things, without providing any explanative clarity, except that the situation was confusing. john k (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article has multiple independant sources, including the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress. (In the latter case all of the over examples 100 are from 1855-1860, showing it's a specific group, not a catch-all label.) Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please. It has two sources - one, the database of the Biographical Directory of the US Congress, which, undeniably, classifies certain politicians in that period as "Opposition," and two, the clerk of the House. It's worth noting that, while "Opposition" in all cases in the Biographical Directory means "anti-Democrat," it is used for two distinct and completely separate groups. Firstly, proto-Republicans in the 34th Congress, who are pretty much all classified as Republicans in the 35th, but who were, to all intents and purposes, already Republicans by the time the 34th Congress actually met in December 1855; and, secondly, non-Know Nothing southern opponents of the Democrats between 1855 and 1861. In neither case can this really be said to constitute a coherent national party, and I'd love to see an actual historian who says this. It's a convenient classification for a database, not an actual historical term that is used by historians. I don't understand why people who know nothing about this subject insist on weighing in here. john k (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment On the contrary, Bancroft Prize winning historian William Freehling uses the term in the second volume of 'Road to Disunion'. Plus there are the cites from published historians James Baggett and Brian McKnight. So how can you not see 'an actual historian who says this'? Edward321 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete and add the information to Whig Party (United States), together with the material john k has added here, That's apparently where these people came from & they might be seen as in some sense a continuation of it. Subject to his correction on this, it might be a good place to put the information.DGG (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of it, I think, really belongs in the article about the formation of the Republican Party, insofar as it's useful. The list of members, which is just taking everyone the Biographical Directory calls "opposition" and listing it, doesn't seem necessary anywhere. I'd think Holt's Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party would be the best place to look for the definitive discussion of this stuff. john k (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no formal Opposition Party in the United States - it was a confederation of former members of the Whig party. "Opposition party" as a political term is synonymous with "minority party" in the U.S.... but "minority party" is a redirect article pointing to Two-party system; redirect to two-party system. B.Wind (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Use of the term is supported by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a keep voter. I believe a retitling of this article may best solve some of the primary objections (viz. it wasn't a formal party). At worst, I think a merge to the tail end of Whig Party (United States) or the introduction to Constitution Union Party would be highly preferable to any merge with Republican Party (United States), even if they all ended up there later, as these were the affiliations chosen by the bulk of the not-a-party's affiliates. It was a unique period of party realignment in the US and it's not surprising that there was some "air" between landings. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you suggest as the alternate title? I think the issue is that it's a complicated process, and that this article basically seems to be a description of everyone who the Biographical Directory refers to as "Opposition" rather than any kind of clear attempt to describe what's going on. We have several distinct issues here. First, there's the period of party chaos from 1854 to 1856, and how to describe the party labels of people in that period. In particular, how do we deal with people who stayed Whigs until late 1855, but then supported Frémont for president? Or people elected as Know Nothings but who supported Frémont? Or southerners who continued to consider themselves Whigs, but ended up supporting Buchanan? What about Free Soilers elected in coalition with Know Nothings? It's complicated, but creating the idea of a monolithic "Opposition Party" to describe all these people, plus more straightforward Republicans and Know Nothings (except sometimes not Know Nothings!) is unhelpful. Second, you have the southern Whig Party continuations which continued on until 1861, after the death of the Know Nothing movement, as well as a few very conservative old whig types in the north (e.g. Edward Everett), who all ended up supporting John Bell and the Constitutional Union Party in 1860. This group should be described in an article somewhere, I'm just not certain what the proper place for it would be. Our coverage of this whole period is bad. For instance, we don't actually have articles on either the Native American Party or the American Party as distinct from our article on the Know Nothing movement broadly. That's not particularly helpful. john k (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article should be fixed, not deleted Yahel Guhan 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.