Talk:Spanish Florida

Untitled

Is it me or is this article identical to this first paragraphs of the History of Florida article? FoekeNoppert 11:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

For now, yes, but this article can be expanded more than it could as part of a larger article.--Cuchullain 22:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Founding of Pensacoa

The settlement founded in 1559 on what is now Pensacola Bay was called Ochuse. The name "Panzacola" or "Pansacola" does not appear in Spanish records until the middle of the next century.[1] There is no connection between Ochuse and Pensacola, other than that they were both on the shore of the same (rather large) bay. -- Donald Albury 13:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there used to be a ton of that stuff at Pensacola, Florida and History of Pensacola, but that's been mostly fixed now. But while we're on it, why no mention of Lucas Vazquez de Ayllon? --Cúchullain ^t/c 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with him. I don't see why his colony shouldn't be added. I don't have time to look into it right now, though. -- Donald Albury 15:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see it's already mentioned, just not in its own section. That's probably sufficient; I'll see about adding one or two of the sources I have discussing him.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pensacola considers its founding to be 1559. It may have used a different name then, but the current city claims continuity with the 1559 settlement. Settlements have gone by different names over different eras. The modern state of Louisiana for example was once the New Orleans territory, and Missiouri was once the Louisiana Territory. Emperor001 (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic example of why we rely on reliable, secondary sources rather than what the subject itself says. Pensacola may trace its founding to 1559, but that's just a marketing gimmick. De Luna's settlement at Pensacola Bay lasted only two years, and then the area wasn't resettled again by the Spanish until the end of the 17th century. That's a gap of nearly 140 years. In contrast, settlement in what is now the state of Louisiana has been continuous, even though it changed hands a number of times.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Spanish constitution of 1812

I have removed mention of the Spanish constitution of 1812 from the infobox for a second time. If anyone wants to place this in the infobox again, I request that they cite a reliable source on how it is relevant to the history of Florida. It is not something that I remember seeing in any history of Florida. The events currently in the infobox are changes in de jure possession, or, in the case of Pinckney's Treaty, de jure changes in the boundaries of Florida. Neither happened in 1812. -- Donald Albury 15:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also worth pointing out that if there's nothing about the 1812 Constitution in the body of the article, it certainly should be mentioned in the infobox.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not be mentioned in the infobox, I assume you meant. Pfly (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "not mentioned" ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Viva Florida 500 WP will assist in this article's development

We listed this page in our Todo section at the landing page for the Friends of Wikipedia:Viva_Florida_500_WP Our aim is to assist in getting cites, references and embellish the article with new factual information by using our state's 500th anniversary to meet and greet new wikipedia editors.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Constitution of 1812

Once again someone has added the Spanish Constitution of 1812 to the list of major events in the infobox, hiding the link under "Provincial constitution". That was certainly not a "provincial constitution", and the article on the constitution makes it clear that it had little effect even in Spain before 1820, and notes that Spain's overseas possessions were in a "power vacuum" at the time. The other events in the infobox were major changes in the status of Spanish Florida, either a transfer between Spain and another country, or a major redefinition of its boundaries (the Pinckney Treaty). I see no evidence that the Constitution of 1812 had any effect on Spanish Florida. -- Donald Albury 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Colony" and Fort Caroline reference

As I've done elsewhere, I've reverted most of the changes replacing the words "colony" and "colonists" with "settlement" and "settler". Once again, as I explained for instance here, the terms were perfectly appropriate, and follow the usage in Michael Gannon's History of Florida and various other sources. The edits were unproductive and were in some cases detrimental, for instance describing Carolina as a "settlement" (it was a colony comprised of several settlements). Additionally, I've had to remove the citation for the Fort Caroline material. The cite given was: Sauer, Carl Ortwin (1971). The empire state of the South: Georgia history in documents and essays. University of California Press. pp. -196-197. Retrieved 5 July 2009. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help). The Google Books link doesn't work and the citation is all wrong; The Empire State of the South was written actually by Christopher C. Meyers, and those pages don't mention anything about Fort Caroline. It's also factually wrong on at least one item; Charlesfort was abandoned in 1563, well before Fort Caroline was founded the following year.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what happened with the book. The cite is supposed to go to Sixteenth Century North America, which is by Carl Ortwin Sauer. It does not contain the incorrect information about Charlesfort. I'll add it in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Pascua

The articles in Spanish and French say Ponce de León named it "La Pascua Florida", but this article says he named it "La Florida". Which one is it? Enacional (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It's "La Florida" because "La Pascua Florida" (Feast of Flowers) refers to Easter, the day Ponce and his men first sighted the land; he named it "La Florida" after the feast day. See La Florida Del Inca and the Struggle for Social Equality. I have replaced the cite of unreliable website "Findmypast.com" with a reliable source. Carlstak (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense and your source seems good. Thanks! Enacional (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spanish Florida. 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/20090502192215/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1028&ResourceType=District to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1028&ResourceType=District
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131116064548/http://teachingflorida.org/article/san-luis-de-talimali-or-mission-san-luis to http://teachingflorida.org/article/san-luis-de-talimali-or-mission-san-luis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409093314/http://www.uwf.edu/jworth/spanfla.htm to http://www.uwf.edu/jworth/spanfla.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Florida in the Cantino planisphere?

The current version of the article states as a matter of fact that Florida appears on the Cantino planisphere of 1502, and that this would prove that some unknown Portuguese explored the region prior to that date. I edited the text to clarify that such a theory is only a minority view. However, Zeng8r (talk · contribs) reverted my edit saying that "Need some good, credible, readible sources if you're going to reverse the established well-cited cited text to say that "most scholars" don't think that the Catino Planisphere shows Florida".

Challenge accepted. Here you are a list of sources that argue for and against the identification of that Cantino map feature as Florida.

Those who believe Florida is drawn on the Cantino planisphere:

• Wroth, Lawrence C. (1944). The early cartography of the Pacific. The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. Portland, Maine: The Southworth-Anthoensen Press.
• Cummings, William P (1958). The Southeast in early maps. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Milanich, Jerald T.; Milbrath, Susan (1989). "Another World". First Encounters: Spanish Explorations in the Caribbean and the United States, 1492-1570. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. pp. 1–26. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

Those who believe that piece of land on the Cantino is something else, and that there is no support for a Portuguese pre-discovery of Florida:

• Fuson, Robert H. (1988). "The John Cabot Mystique". Essays on the History of North American Discovery and Exploration. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• León Portilla, Miguel (1989). Cartografía y crónicas de la Antigua California. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
• Sáinz Sastre, María Antonia (1991). La Florida, siglo XVI: descubrimiento y conquista. Colección España y Estados Unidos. Madrid: Editorial MAPFRE. ISBN 978-84-7100-475-8.
• Kelsey, Harry (1998). "Spanish Entrada Cartography". The mapping of the Entradas into the greater Southwest: symposium papers based on the symposium "Entrada: The First Century of Mapping the Greater Southwest" held at the University of Texas at Arlington on February 20, 1992. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press. pp. 56–106. ISBN 978-0-8061-3047-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
• Varela Marcos, Jesús (2007). "Martín Waldseemüller y su planisferio del año 1507: origen e influencias" (PDF). Revista de estudios colombinos (3): 7–18.

Those who explain the debate but do not take side:

• Suárez, Thomas (1992). Shedding the Veil: Mapping the European Discovery of America and the World. World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-02-0869-1.

The article needs to be modified to reflect this plurality of points of view regarding the Cantino map. The alleged Portuguese pre-discovery can only be mentioned as a hypothesis, and not as a fact as is the case in the current version. --Hispalois (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the current version of the text does a good job explaining the facts and the contrasting opinions. Zeng8r (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Extent of Spanish Florida

This edit changed the text to state that Spanish effective control never reached beyond the present state of Florida. The colony at Santa Elena in present-day South Caroline was not finally abandoned until 1587. The mission at Santa Catalina de Guale was not relocated out of Georgia until 1684. Beyond the Presidio of St. Augustine, and the fort at San Marcos, the Spanish maintained missions, farms, ranches and outposts from the St. Mary's River to south of St. Augustine and across northern Florida to the Appalachicola River for most of the 17th century. The statement that Spanish control over Florida was confined to the vicinity of St. Augustine, St, Marks and Pensacola may apply to the 18th century, but not to the previous century. I prefer the previous wording for the extent of Spanish control in Florida. - Donald Albury 13:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You’re absolutely right. Thanks for catching this. I’ll fix it. deisenbe (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually suspect there may have been some sort of Spanish presence (but not sustained control) across northern Florida during the 18th century, but there are damned few sources. I have found this map from 1750 showing a Spanish fort established at the mouth of the Apalachicola River in 1719, connected by a trail to St. Marks that seems to be an extension of the old Spanish trail from St. Augustine. There is also a list of named sinkholes passed by a patrol led by a Lieutenant Diego Peña as it traveled from the Itchtucknee River to the Suwannee River in 1716. Not much to go on, and certainly no reliable source connecting the dots. - Donald Albury 14:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it OK now? @Carlstak, you might give me a few minutes before just reverting everything.

I’d never seen that map or heard of a fort at the mouth of the Apalachicola, although it seems to be more like where modern Carrabelle, Florida is. Funny place to build a fort - no natural defenses, not much fresh water, no port - this is just a guess, but I’m wondering if it was not actually at Prospect Bluff. Funny there’s no other reference to it. deisenbe (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at this map: https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/323256 deisenbe (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I had to hunt for a reproduction in fine enough detail to read the small lettering, but Vignoles’ map of 1823 has written at that point “White Bluff Lookout”. Never heard of that either. deisenbe (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look at the time stamp, but I think reverting grossly incorrect information is better than letting it stand for even a few minutes. Carlstak (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I like the way it reads now. Thanks for improving that. The 1764 map is interesting. Fort Espagnole at the mouth of the Apalachicola, an unnamed fort on St. Joseph Bay, and Fort de Crevecœur to the north of St. Joseph Bay. If those forts were all in use at the same time, the French and Spanish were bumping chests. - Donald Albury 14:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

New Spain in the lead

The second paragraph of the lead now begins with Florida was never more than a backwater region for Spain and came to serve primarily as a strategic buffer between New Spain (whose undefined northeastern border was somewhere near the Mississippi River. It included most of the Greater Antilles) and the expanding English colonies to the north. This feels awkward to me. One issue is that the Viceroyalty of New Spain included what is now Mexico, parts of the southwestern U.S., Central America, Florida, and the islands of the Greater Antilles (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Jamaica (until 1655), Hispaniola (minus what became Haiti in 1697), and even Trinidad). It is not really accurate to say that Florida was a buffer between New Spain and the English colonies when it was itself a part of New Spain. My understanding is that Florida was maintained by Spain to prevent other European powers from establishing bases near the route the treasure fleets took returning to Spain.

I am thinking a better phrasing would be something like, Florida, along with the islands of the Greater Antilles, was part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. The colony was always poor, but was maintained by Spain to discourage other European powers from establishing bases and colonies near the route taken to Spain by the Spanish treasure fleets. Donald Albury 15:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think the current phrasing is a bit awkward, too. I agree that your suggested phrasing is better. Carlstak (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Comparing Florida of Greater Antilles colonies

@Jeff in CA:, the change you made to the lead bothers me. Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Puerto Rico were not the backwater money sinks for the Spanish that Florida was. Florida was always dependent on the situado from New Spain, and when the situado was late or skipped entirely, the Spanish in Florida had to buy supplies from Havanna on credit. Considerable numbers of Spanish immigrated to the Greater Antilles (but not Florida), and Spain held on to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and, for a shorter period, Santo Domingo long after the rest of their American empire was lost. Donald Albury 13:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. I don't think I've ever seen a scholarly source that describes these places other than Florida as a "backwater" or something comparable. Carlstak (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)