Changes

I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)

I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)

::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)