Talk:Henry Wisner

Voted for Declaration of Independence

There is in fact a good bit of foundation to the fact that Henry Wisner voted for the Declaration. Thomas McKean made this point clear in a letter from 1813

Letter Of Thomas McKean to Caesar A. Rodney

Philadelphia, August 22, 1813

I recollect what passed in Congress in the beginning of July, 1776, respecting Independence; it was not as you have conceived. On Monday, the first of July, the question was taken in the Committee of the Whole, where the State of Pennsylvania (represented by some gentlemen then present) voted against it. Delaware (having then only two representatives present) was divided; all other states voted in favor of it; whereupon, without delay, I sent an Express (at my private expense) for your honored Uncle, Caesar Rodney, Esquire, the remaining member for Delaware, whom I met at the State House door in his boots and spurs, as the members were assembling. After a friendly salutation (without a word on business) we went into the Hall of Congress together, and found we were among the latest. Proceedings immediately commenced, after a few moments the great question was put. When the vote for Delaware was called, your uncle arose and said: "As I believe the voice of my constituents and of all sensible and honest men is favor of Independence, [and] my own judgment concurs with them, “I vote for Independence," or in words to the same effect. The State of Pennsylvania on the 4th of ,July (there being only five members present, Messrs. Willing, Dickinson and Morris, who had in the Committee of the Whole voted against Independence, were absent) voted for it, three to two; Messrs. Willing and Humphreys in the negative. Unanimity in the thirteen States, an all-important point on so great an occasion, was thus obtained; the dissention of a single State might have produced very dangerous consequences.

Now that I am on the subject, I will tell you some truth not generally known. In the printed public Journal of Congress for 1776, Vol. 2, it would appear that the Declaration of Independence was signed on the 4th July by the members whose names are there inserted ; but the fact is not so; for no persons signed it on that day, nor for many days after; and among the names subscribed one was against it-Mr. Read-and seven were not in Congress on that day, namely Messrs. Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor and Ross, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Thornton of New Hampshire; nor were the six gentlemen last named at that time members; the five for P. were appointed delegates by the Convention of that State on the 20th of July, and Mr. Thornton entered Congress for the first time, on the November following, ,when the names of Henry Wisner of New York and Thomas McKean of Delaware are not printed as subscribers, tho' both were present and voted for Independence.

Here false colours are certainly hung out; there is culpability somewhere. What I can offer as an apology or explanation is: that on the 4th July 1776 the Declaration of Independence was ordered to be engrossed on parchment, and then to be signed; and I have been told that a resolve had passed a few days after, and was entered on the Secret Journal, that no person should have a seat in Congress during that year, until he should have signed the Declaration, in order (as I have been given to understand) to prevent traitors or spies from worming themselves amongst us. I was not in Congress after the 4th for Some months, having marched with my regiment of Associators of this city, as Colonel, to support General Washington until a flying camp of ten thousand men was completed. When the Associators were discharged I returned to Philadelphia, took my seat in Congress, and then signed the Declaration on parchment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.247.89 (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Wisner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204115143/http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/amarch/getdoc.pl?%2Fvar%2Flib%2Fphilologic%2Fdatabases%2Famarch%2F.27283 to http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/amarch/getdoc.pl?%2Fvar%2Flib%2Fphilologic%2Fdatabases%2Famarch%2F.27283

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Category: American slave owners

I think this category should be restricted to people whose slave-owning history was notable in itself. There is not a word about this issue in the article.

Dispute title of Founding Father

Multiple sources are needed to support a claim that as far as I know has never been made specifically about Henry Wisner. I understand @User:Randy Kryn added this title believing Smith qualifies because he signed the Continental Association, but I contend reliable sources are needed for an assertion that's being made as of this writing in 25-30 articles. All based on one source and often, as in the current case, without a citation.

For those who don't know, this is part of an ongoing dispute over a single source where the text being cited does not directly support the claim. Other sources have been provided but they too are lacking, though on other grounds, namely reliability.

To be clear, the issue centers on one of Wikipedia's most basic principles, verifiability (WP:VER). Nothing else is at issue. Feedback from other editors would be appreciated. Allreet (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Will get back to this as I try to keep up with Allreet who has been at his crusade of canceling founders for what seems like months on dozens of pages and tens of thousands of words. For example, he has opened and closed three (3, III) simultaneous RfC's on the same question because he didn't like the results (a Wikipedia record?), and is now looking for a different conclusion (which wouldn't count anyway given the results of three simultaneous RfC "loses") I'll answer further within a day or two, can only juggle so many of his new discussions at a time (which he knows and is maybe - surely? - counting on) but I do ask him now, is he going to add this campaign to the Peyton Randolph page, who, given Allreet's wishes, would lose Founding Father status on Wikipedia? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Randy Kryn: No point in waiting.

COMMONSENSE allows exceptions to WP's rules if they interfere with our ability to edit. It doesn't refer to using common sense to draw conclusions or apply consistency. So just because we recognize signers of three "founding documents" (Declaration, Articles of Confederation, U.S. Constitution) as Founders doesn't mean we're compelled to consider signers of the fourth document (Continental Association) Founders as well.

The larger problem, however, is that the four documents are regarded very differently. Many if not most sources/historians accept the Declaration as criteria for "fatherhood" and almost as many the Constitution. But just a few recognize the Articles, and hardly anybody (IMO, nobody) accepts the Continental Convention. Yet you treat all the documents as equals. They're not, and more than just my opinion, it's a documentable reality.

So even if you're correct about Werther and your other two sources, we can's say "Henry Wisner is a Founding Father" because that would indicate wide if not universal acceptance. The most we could say, considering this is such a minority view, is that "some sources consider him a Founding Father", a pronouncement so meaningless it's not worth making.

BTW, based on this, we can't call signers of the Articles of Confederation founders either, as I just discovered you did in your one-person editing campaign last year. You'd think you would have sought some input from the larger community before forging ahead in re-writing history on such slim reasoning and so little evidence. Allreet (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Non-signing voter and author founders?

A quandary on this one and a couple more, Allreet. He "voted for Independence on July 4, 1776, at the creation of the Declaration of Independence", which seems to be one of the criteria sourced at the Founding Fathers page when it comes to the Constitution (but not the Declaration?). I left Silas Deane as well but removed a couple of others, including Thomas Lynch the elder although he attended much of the independence deliberations. Thoughts? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And then there's Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who refused to sign the Constitution but participated in its creation as one of five members of the Committee of Detail along with Oliver Ellsworth. Neither are presently named in the Founding Father's list. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers: I don't know if anybody recognizes members of the Second Continental Congress who voted for or participated in framing but didn't sign the Declaration. Not so with the Constitution. Some delegates who voted against and/or refused to sign the Constitution are still recognized as founders. That may make little logical sense, but all we can do is report what sources say. Allreet (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)