Talk:Wade–Davis Bill

	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.

National Archives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives articles

Name[edit]

I propose moving the article to Wade-Davis Bill (hyphenated), since this is about two people (Wade and Davis), and the actual name of the bill seems to be the "Wade-Davis Bill" --Czj 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good idea--I just checked 3 major books and they all hyphenate, Rjensen 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information correct? I looked this bill up in an American history book (The American Pagent) and found this description; "It required that 50 percent of a state's voters take the oath of allegiance and demanded stronger safeguards for emancipation that Lincoln's price of readmission" (pg:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the list of people who voted against the bill, it lists "Davis (UU)" If this is in fact Henry Winter Davis it makes no sense and should be mentioned, but most likely, if it is in fact "Garret Davis," Senator from Kentucky (which would make more sense as Henry Winter Davis was only a Representative) then he should be listed as a Unionist (U) according to the page on the 38th United States Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by We4get1918 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful[edit]

This article doesn't actually explain what the Wade-Davis Bill does. If someone who is unfamiliar to the Wade-Davis Bill is reading, they would be confused. --Valorum27 (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]