Talk:United States/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

List of flags and ethnic populations

Golbez, the list of flags/populations seemed like a nice addition. "Poorly written"? It was a simple list of flags and populations. Why couldn't you have at least made contact with our new arrival, say howdy, thanks, and ask for a reference, or provide one, before taking the axe to that addition? Seems to me the editor had one -- unless he just pulled that info out of thin air. Doesn't look like it. If it 'ignored the Scottish', that could have been dealt with also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a simple list of flags and populations. Let's start with that: "English" next to a British flag, with no mention of Scottish? Irish with an Irish flag, which does nothing for my Northern Irish ancestry? "Demographics" aligned solely with existing countries? "Jews" with an Israeli flag? Jews a distinct demographic from Germans and Poles? Three-letter codes for the countries? Commas for periods? Spelling errors galore? No sourcing? This article demands more than a "simple list of flags and populations." I stand by my reversion. If you want to make it awesome, by all means go for it, but there was nothing more for me to do there. It was unsourced, poorly written, and as I saw it, unsalvageable. Even if it were sourced, the spelling errors changed, and changed to more than a mere bulleted list, it would still not qualify for this article based on the loose definition of demographics it employs. Apparently, all Brits are English, all Jews are Israeli, and Asian Americans don't exist. So, there's two reasons to reject it: Its form (being just a bulleted list with no prose or anything), and its substance (if it were sourced in that form I would still have reverted it, due to its loose treatment of Britain, Jews, and ignorance of the existence of the Asian continent). Fixing only one would not have been sufficient to keep it in the article. --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to Race and ethnicity in the United States, it's flat out wrong. By combining Scottish, English, Welsh, and Scotch-Irish into "English", it made that #1, when in reality the largest single group in the U.S. is of German heritage. And let's not forget it omitted African heritage. And MEXICAN. Apparently, the only continent that matters to our new friend is Europe. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Finally, it claims to be "ethnic groups" but draws the distinction along modern borders. That's not how that works. --Golbez (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently. Did you ask him? Any of the short commings you mentioned could have been dealt with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I could bring it up after the fact, but I see no reason to keep a wholly deficient edit on a page while we wait for someone to fix it. That may have worked back in 2004 on a low-visibility article, I don't see why it should happen in 2013 on one of the most visible articles on the site. You're welcome to bring it up, you seem to care more. And no, I disagree that the shortcomings could have been dealt with, as it was flawed on its premise. You haven't even indicated how the list could be useful in an improved form, let alone how it was useful before. You said it was a "nice addition", you apparently did not notice it only included Europeans and Jews (who are apparently all Israeli), so if you, who presumably looked at the list before defending it, didn't notice its massive issues, why should we leave it around for people reading with a less editorial and critical eye? --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"You'll have to excuse some editors, they are some times too quick to delete the contributions of others when no sources are provided and they are within their rights." You're doing a disservice to the editor by telling them the only problem was the lack of source, and not with the content itself, or how it was expressed. It was not removed because it lacked a source, it was removed because it was bad data presented poorly. Though, maybe you haven't really noticed how bad the data was, you didn't notice the issues until I pointed them out to you. I don't care if he could source that data, it was bad data and I'd remove it just the same. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, you're the one who said it was "completely unreferenced" before outright deleting it, so I think we can safely assume this was the major reason. Now listen to you. Ethnic population figures -- 'not good for the article'?? -- Right... The missing ethnic groups could have been included. Most lists are incomplete when first initiated. So what? Any missing data could have been added by other editors. Again, it was a simple list of flags and population numbers. Aside from it not being '100%' complete, 'how' was it "poorly written"? 'How' is it "bad data"? 'How' was it "flawed on its premise"? 'How' was it "presented poorly"? You forgot to say -- all the way around. Did you have an offical list of such figures that indicates otherwise handy? Obviously not, or you would have referred to it instead of piling one opinion on top of another, on top of another ... And I'll pass on your (yet another) opinion about it not being good for the article and your silly cross examination of my greeting to our new friend. You need to lighten up, or buy yourself a punching bag with a Wikipedia logo on it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The lack of referencing was but one of its problems. You did see the rest of my edit summary, yes? I didn't say "ethnic population figures" (ps British is not an ethnicity) weren't good for the article, but these certainly weren't. "Most lists are incomplete when first initiated" Yes, and this one should have been initiated on the talk page or in a sandbox. "Any missing data..." Again, I question where any data was 'missing'. It blatantly omitted everything outside of Europe, why should I take on faith that the presented data was accurate? Especially when we can see, with "Jews" and "English", that it was not? This was not merely an issue of missing data, it was an issue of incorrect and miscategorized data. "A simple list of flags and population numbers" Yes, and we deserve better in this article. Would the article be quality if it had a long list of state flags and names, from the U.S. state article? No. And, the article is not a sandbox, it's a mature, visible article and we should demand quality from it rather than let deficient sections sit around moldering. "How was it 'presented poorly'"? Well, sir, I can't tell you to get new glasses, but if you think a list of flags, three letter codes, incorrect data, inaccurate descriptions, and misspellings constitute a good presentation then you're blind or worse. Do I have an official list? Of course not. But I know it would include people outside of Europe. The best I can offer is our rather nice articles on race and demographics in the United States. Perhaps we can take sourced data from those and present it in an interesting and compelling way rather than slapping up a low quality edit that you are inexplicably continuing to defend. If you liked it so much, put it back, so I can revert it and we can thoroughly mock you for idiocy and take the heat off our new friend who likely made their mistakes without malice. --Golbez (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is really rich. You say you didn't refer to an official (or any) list but assert, once again, that the list has "incorrect data". How do you know? (!) Aside from citing some misspellings and missing data all you've done really is unload a lot more opinion, including that bit about mockery and your no so subtle inference that my intention for inclusion of the list is based on malice. I said nothing about what constitutes a "good" presentation. I did however say it was a nice addition inasmuch as the article is lacking in ethnic population representation. Oh yes, that would be 'not good' for an article about the United States, a country made of different ethnic groups. -- In any event, there is no ethnic break down in terms of population in the entire article. It would be nice to do this without the extreme rise in blood pressure. -- Btw, the article would be better if it had a "long list" (or one with three or four columns) depicting state flags in miniature in conjunction with state populations. In spite of your own misgivings here you've come up with a good one. Evidently you're just too pissed off right now to see it. We'll talk tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I know that a list of "ethnic groups" of the US containing "English" and "Jews" but omitting the Scottish, African, Asian, and Mexican ancestries is incorrect? Think about that question. Go on, it'll be fun. Really think hard on it. Actually, let me try this: Do you think such a list could possibly be correct? If so, please explain why, because I need a laugh and/or cry. Here, let me help you along: If a list is omitting crucial data, then the list is not incomplete, it is incorrect. For example, if I gave a list of the states and only included 40 of them and misnamed three of them, and included all of the northeast as the state of New England, that is not an incomplete list, it is an incorrect one. Especially when the data is available in a better form elsewhere on Wikipedia. Instead of fighting for this list, maybe you could divert your efforts towards adapting what is already in the detail articles into a paragraph or two in this one? If it even needs it? PS: No, the article wouldn't be better with a long list of state info, because we have an article for that. --Golbez (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again... "not incomplete, it is incorrect". Since you are all of the sudden so keen on the data involved, why don't you put this energy into some constructive use and come up with a complete "correct" list of ethnic populations?
Re: State populations. A list of state's flags with populations would be a summary of what is on the dedicated page for states and would indeed be good for the article. Since state populations, basic information, is also missing in this article we need to give that summary inclusion. After all this is the United States article. It doesn't have to be a "long list", as I said, we can divide it up into three or four columns and would take up about a half page (+ -) with a link to the dedicated page below it. State flags in miniature along side the state's name and population, only, would be a nice addition, IMO. It could be a condensed version of this table. This article already includes a list of populations for major cities, so why not states? Seems the article should of had this basic information long before a list for major city populations appeared. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Since you are all of the sudden so keen on the data involved, why don't you put this energy into some constructive use and come up with a complete "correct" list of ethnic populations?" Back atcha. --Golbez (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: (edit conflict) "Back atcha" -- with what? You're the apparent authority on the topic. Unforuntately you're more inclined to come up with ways not to use this information than you are otherwise. The easy approach. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You asked me to put my energy into making a list. I said you should do it. Not difficult to understand. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez. The very idea of creating a list of ethnicities correlated with nationalities is a poor one indeed. It also seems like far too much for this article, which should be giving a general overview, not overwhelming the reader with numbers. CMD (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A list of ethnicities with population figures would be a general overview. "Overwhelming" is a bit of an overstatement. It would be no more overwhelming than the numbers in the current list for city populations, or the numbers in the chart for Economic indicators. Also, there is a pie chart for religious groups. This page is lacking in (very) basic summary information, so much so that even a new comer saw it, all the while some experienced editors, myselfincluded overlooked this void. There's not even a summary statement with a link to this information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Golbez's removal was entirely appropriate. The list was erroneous and unsourced. It is up to those wanting to keep it to improve it. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I didn't insist on replacing it as it was and hoped we could fix any issues. The article is still lacking in basic info'. Anyone inclined to do some constructive work? It would be nice if those who are all keen on this information would come up with ways to build, rather than to leave voids. We should at least include a summary statement with a link to the pages containing the given information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Filling voids

Better a void than a defect. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Better inclusion of basic information than a void.--Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Then if it's "basic information" that is better than a void, put it back, and put your name on an edit that says no Scots, Africans, Asians, or Latin Americans are in the country. --Golbez (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting the idea that Scots, etc should not be included? From the start my position was to fix any issues. Now I'm suggesting a simple statement with a link, and you're still coming off with 'smart' remarks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You said having the list there, as it was, was better than not having it there (since you disagreed with my statement of 'better a void than a defect'). Am I misinterpreting your words? If you think having the list there as is is better than not having it there, then put it back and put your name on the list that omits every non-European. If you don't think having the list there is better than not having it there, then why the hell did you disagree with my statement? And if this isn't about the list at all, then why the hell aren't you directing your apparently considerable energy for argument towards making a valid edit? --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are misrepresenting my words. I never said the list "as is" is better than a void, and once again, my position from the moment you raised objections was to fix any issues, just as I have reasserted directly above in full view of your rant here. And you're still at it. Not very happy today are we? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm never happy. Stop arguing with me about that time I made the article better than it was before, and actually do something productive. I mean, honestly, what is the point of this? You just said what was there wasn't an improvement, and you aren't lifting a finger to make it better, so what the hell is your purpose in this argument? Are you trolling me? --Golbez (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Trolling is your department, obviously. We were discussing ways to fix issues and look to alternative ways to do this. Thought that would be the best approach instead of diving right in and making edits, given your 'positive' attitude. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you a gift and let you have the last word. Good day, sir. --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian and African slave ownership

Are there any sources that specifically state Indians owned slaves during the settlement and colonial period? If so please list. That way we can include that Indians owned slaves as well. I also believe blacks owned slaves, possibly other blacks. Are there any sources that verify that blacks owned other black slaves during the settlement and colonial period? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery in the United States has information on both Indian and black slaveowners. --Golbez (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm' your question is a ruse. African involvment with slavery was in Africa -- chiefs who sold other Africans destined for the new world. No one has asserted that Africans had other Africans as slaves in America, however, there were plenty of African overseers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that there's strawman building here, there were black slaveowners in the United States. Not that this warrants a mention here, it was very much a minority position. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : (Edit conflct) -- Agree, there's always an exception to the rule, but that doesn't warrant a 'Black slave holders in America' section, not on this page anyway. In any case, the Settlements section should primarily cover the settlements. If some of them took on slaves, (and I suspect very few of them did, given the costs of feeding, sheltering and support involved) we mention it, without devoting half the section to it. Cm', here's a publication you might want to look into. It gives a different account of the Puritans and their relation to Indians from the one you've been handing us. I'm looking into others and may be including some in the bibliography for use here so we can source a broader and more objective account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Insert" That is a good source on Puritans and Indians Gwillhickers. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not looking for a general time frame reference, rather a specific time frame. Blacks, in America, may have owned other blacks or Indians between 1619 and 1700. I have been told that Indians owned slaves. I need a specific time period and source. I would like to know what specific North and South Eastern tribes owned slaves, if any. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. What section do you have in mind for inclusion of all of this material, such as you would have it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Insert": I suggest the Settlements section for inclusion of this information. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to establish that this advent occured to the extent that it warrants the coverage that you are so ready to give it. Try putting some of that enthusiasm into the Settelements and the settlers, overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. I found a source myself. Very interesting. The Cherokees were active in the slave market who owned 4,000 black slaves. Yes. Free blacks did own black slaves. There were 3,700 black slave owners. Here is the source: (2012) Understanding American Government: No Separate Policy Chapters Version pg. 460 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This will set up that slavery was not only for white people. Indians and Blacks were involved. Indians were forced into farming by whites, however, that is not an excuse to have owned slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm', I think this has gone on long enough. The settlements section is not the place to go at length about slavery. Again, we need to cover the arrival of settlers, the establishment of settlements, why they were established (i.e. religious freedom, etc), why certain locations were chosen, why names were chosen, how laws were established, how they managed to survive, religious practices, moral customs, the arrival of women, etc. Much of this content is missing. Somewhere in there we can mention that certain settlers and Indians often fought, took prisoners and sometimes enslaved them, but not without qualifying to what extent. No blanket and misleading statements as you're so inclined to make. If you want to expound on one settlement, one religious group, e.g. the Puritans, you need to go to that page and see if editors there will agree with your take on matters. Also, it is not your place to say what is, or what isn't, an excuse for slavery, that's a judgment call and this is an encyclopedia account, not a narrative or an essay, and the Settlements or any other section is certainly not the place either. Last, since the first African slaves arrived during the early settlement years, we can say this, but again, not in a way that implies that colonists generally used them. They generally did not and had all they could do to provide for themselves, much less provided for and support a slave or slaves. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The average New England household had two black slaves at the end of the colonial period. Please do not deny or minimalize slavery. Religious freedom was a myth. The Puritans believed in a religious dictatorship without any freedoms. Native Americans did not practice religious freedom either. Lack of religious toleration ultimately led to King Philip's war. Indians were commonly viewed was savages who could not be trusted, even if converted. The Puritans were a political body who wanted a state religion. There was no freedom. Slavery was sanctioned during the 1640's by the Puritans. The Puritan leader was Oliver Cromwell. Remember America was not always led by a King. Cromwell and the Purtitans were for a awhile in charge of the colonies. Charles I was beheaded. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we are getting into too much detail about issues that are not of great significance to a short historical section. TFD (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TDF. The section needs to simply define the settlements, why they were established and not get into too many details about any one individual, any one religion, any one settlement or any one tribe. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm', the "end of the colonial period" was the late 1700's and "New England" is one section of the eastern seaboard whose settlements extended all the way to Florida. And again, you're stuck on the Puritans, who were protestant reformers who indeed fled England so they could practice their form of religion. Btw, Charles the 1st was beheaded in London, not by the colonists as you seem to suggest with your typical out of context claims here. That the Puritans, in particular, were strict about their religion does not negate the fact that many settlers came to America to practice their religion freely and to obtain other freedoms. Also, slavery was common in some New England households later on in the colonial period, esp in places like Boston, largely by Christian households who were against slavery and took in Africans as a way of helping them. i.e. Slaves in Boston were largely house servants with their own quarters. America was not the only place in the world were slaves were generally well looked after. Again, you've been handed the flat earth version of slavery, typically espoused by social activists, largely ignorant of American history and others with political agendas during the 20th century, who routinely promoted the myth that slaves by and large were kept in chains, wore rags, fed slop and were routinely whipped. In the process, a whole segment of American slave owners has been swept under the historical rug who indeed treated slaves very well and worked them no more than free farmers worked, albeit, long hours. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Edward Coles as you know are classic examples of this advent. If you want a separate paragraph for slavery, make sure we include this important distinction. The paragraph should relate the arrival of slaves and their general role and lead into the political and social division slavery caused in a largely conscientious society. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the Indian slave lines should be deleted as too much niche detail, especially since there's no mention of the widespread pre and post Columbian practice of slavery among Indian tribes. I don't think we need a paragraph on the English Civil War either. If anything the section needs more on the settlers themselves, as you've been saying. VictorD7 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If the practice of Indian slavery occurred in any significant measure compared to African slavery I would think we have heard about it much more than we have over the years, which is almost never. Indians as slaves generally didn't work because nearly all Indians were intractable, i.e. very stubborn, which is one of the reasons most of them didn't assimilate to western practices of farming and ranching. We need to scrutinize and qualify any statements that bluntly say 'colonists enslaved Indians'. If enslaving the Indians was a viable practice they wouldn't have bothered to buy and ship African slaves from the other side of the world in such great measaure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(Insert) That was partly because the exposure to diseases, especially in the relatively close contact neccessary with slavery, killed them off quickly. African slaves were more resilient. Rwenonah (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC) The New England slave owners and traders were just as much slave owners and traders as their Southern counterparts. I am concerned when slavery was legally sanctioned in the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell

I added information of Oliver Cromwell in the Settlements section. This could lead into the second Anglo Dutch War that finally got rid of Dutch Rule in New York. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Added a link to the Second Anglo-Dutch War for context. There were four Anglo Dutch wars, the First Anglo-Dutch War being fought by Oliver Cromwell and the British Navy. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You're all over the map. Come back to the Settlements discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I thought that Cromwell's rule was important to article since the British Naval fleet and troops were sent to suppress the colonial royalists. Massachussets interestingly did not remain loyal to the crown. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose to move the information on slavery in the Settlements section, both Indian and African, into one paragraph. That would help the reader clarify when slavery began and how African slavery began to expand in the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery began thousands of years ago. Your proposal won't help this be clarified. CMD (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It began to expand after Bacon's Rebellion, 1676, and developed out of bonded servitude, and not a "tradition" that "had existed in Europe since the 1400s." As the section already says, "By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions." The theories that it was an extension of feudalism, started by the Africans or copied from the aboriginals is just revisionism. TFD (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the term was used too loosely. I'll change "tradition" to 'practice'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am refering to when slavery was instituted by law in the colonies. The Puritans were the first to institute slavery during the 1640's. Virginia I believe instituted slavery in the 1660's. After the Civil War part of Reconstruction in 1867 was to overturn all the slavery laws rooted in the Southern states. My proposal was to put all the slavery information into one paragraph rather then serperate paragraphs. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep it definitive, encompassing but simple and brief. The below draft is consistent with and links to the account that is already related in the Slavery in the United States article. We should keep commentary and drafts separate. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

CMJ, you are referring to the Massachusetts Body of Liberties 1641,[1] It actually did not institute slavery, but restricted it to "lawful captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us." They apparently believed that slavery was justified under common law, and probably already had slavery. AFAIK, no colony ever legislated slavery. TFD (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, TFD. If "CMJ" is referring to cmguy777. The Body of Liberties (1641) was legislation and was authorized by the Puritans. Their "justification" of slavery does not need to be part of the article, but rather they codified slavery in the New England colonies. The Puritans legislated slavery before the Virginia colony. No. The Puritans instituted slavery. You mention common law, but the Puritans, did not follow the pretext of Christ in terms of loving your enemies. The Puritans were more about enslaving their enemies. Christ said the servant is greater then the master. The Puritans were acting more like Romans then Christians in lording it over people. The Puritans used old testament to justify slavery. Christ also stated not to gather treasures on the earth but rather make treasures in heaven. Paul tells how Christ freed men from the bondage of sin. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Cmguy777. What I meant was that the Body of Liberty did not create the right to own slaves, but actually restricted the right. So I do not think it is correct to say slavery was "codified". TFD (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Restricting slavery to "lawful captives" is sanctioning slavery or legislating slavery. Although the BOL seems to contradict itself. The only sanctioned slavery in the New Testament was the voluntary slavery of Paul to Christ. "Willing sell themselves" is highly suspect. The last part "sold to us" is the expression is that we buy slaves who do not volunteer themselves. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If the City Council passes a by-law saying that no one may park on the street from 12AM to 6AM, it is not correct to say they have legalized daytime parking. Religion is not used in the law to justify slavery but actually to limit it. Slaves "shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of god established in Israell concerning such persons doeth morally require." TFD (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD. The Puritans used the old testament and mixed the old testament laws with Christian dogma. There were no "Christians usages", in the old testament as the Puritans mistakenly or purposely make to justify slavery. Christianity started with the ministry of Christ, not during old testament times. Christ, whom the Puritans supposedly followed, had no slaves, fed people freely without any charge and healed their sick. The Puritans twisted Bible versuses to use to their own advantage and to enslave people. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I do not understand. The Body of Liberty 1641, except the criminal law, is taken from English common law. Coke wrote in 1628, that "he that was taken in Battle should remain Bond to his taker for ever, and he to do with him, all that should come of him, his Will and Pleasure, as with his Beast, or any other Chattel, to give, or to sell or to kill." (Institutes of the Lawes of England, Part I, Book II Chapter 13, p. 317)[2] There was no difference between English, Virginian or Puritan slavery laws - it was accepted as part of common law and required no statutes to establish. The Puritans at least limited the power that the slaveholder had over his slaves. TFD (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Common law? The Puritans wrote this law down and was passed by their council. Legislation is codified law. Anything written down is legislation. There really is no difference between common law and codified law, except on is written down. A law is a law. There is either a law or not a law. The Puritans sanctioned slavery in their "Body of Liberty" that ironically legalized slavery in the New World. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Again owning slaves was a right under common law. The Body of Liberties did not "legalize" slavery, it merely provided restrictions on a right that individuals already had. In the same sense, a statute that says one cannot park at night does not legalize parking during the day, it merely limits a previously existing right, viz., the right to park. TFD (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Drafts

• The first slaves from Africa arrived in the new world in 1619 and soon became instituted in several colonies in North America, the Caribbean and Brazil. Most were shipped to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was short. Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. (because of less disease, lighter workloads and better food and treatment) so the numbers grew rapidly by excesses of births over deaths, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. Because of the religious and moral objections and the resultant political differences over the institution of slavery a civil war finally resulted in 1860 which put an end to the practice in America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Commentary to drafts

• I think you'd have to at least replace 'first slaves' with 'first African slaves', if that's the case, since as already demonstrated slavery predated Columbus. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)  Done

• The article needs to establish when slavery was legally sanctioned and that slaves included Indians and Blacks. The article also needs to state that East Indians were colonial slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• The source, Slavery in America, p. 49, says, "In 1619, Dutch traders brought ashore near Jamestown in Virginia some 19 blacks whom they had seized from a captured Spanish slave ship. Settlers eagerly sought their labor. Probably they hired the blacks as indentured servants, bound to work for a fixed term of years, rather than as slaves for life. At that time, English law considered baptized Christians exempt from slavery, and the Spanish usually baptized slaves in Africa before embarking them. Little else is known about their lives, although at least one for a time enjoyed freedom and property. Others certainly came in the early days as indentured servants, but by 1660 the Virginia labor force included blacks in bondage for life."[3] As is clear from the source, slavery developed independently in the English colonies, and was justified on Lockean, rather than medieval principles - unlike Spanish slavery. One difference is that the American slave was considered strictly the personal property of his owner, and therefore had no rights. TFD (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I said above, no legal sanction was required for slavery because it was considered legal under common law as a property right. TFD (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TDF, (hope you don't mind me moving your comments to this section.) -- The details of which you refer (Lockean v medieval principles, etc) are better served in the pages dedicated to slavery in America. For our purposes the simple overage regarding the arrival of slaves and slavery in America should suffice imo. Btw, the Settlements section should mention indenture servants, but seperate from the paragraph on slavery, as they were not actual slaves.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. But slavery was established by the extension of the period of servitude to life for Africans, and is therefore hard to separate from limited servitude. And while the establishment of slavery in Puritan England is interesting, its establishment in Virginia is more important. It is a bit misleading btw to say that the first slaves came to America in 1619 without mentioning that they probably ceased to be slaves upon arrival. TFD (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Golbez above on the qualifier (though I see you did that before I posted this). Also, keep in mind that the expressed preference of most respondents here is to reduce the amount of time spent on slavery in the section, so if added this paragraph should probably be accompanied by deletions elsewhere. VictorD7 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Slavery can also be summarily mentioned in the Civil War and Industrialization section and that should suffice. As I poited out before, the term 'slave' or 'slavery' occurs 32 time on this page. What other term, besides the 'United States' occurs so frequently? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A large part of American history revolved around slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Jim Crow south, in addition to racism in the North. There is also the era of Civil Rights from the 1960's that has remained somewhat of presence in current American politics. Slavery and racism did not gradually stop existing. The Federal government had to get involved. Race issues run deep in American history. Why deny this? Slavery in the North is a relatively new subject being investigated. Slavery has to be mentioned sometime in the article. I understand there is a limit on the amount of space in the article, however, slavery is an important issue for the article and needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Why deny this?" What the hell kind of a crack, accusation, is that?? Slavery is mentioned some 32 times in the article, more than the Constitution (27 times), Bill of rights (3), Independence (15), Revolution (12), freedon (8) women (12). Please get off the soapbox and open your eyes. All the people, young men, boys, who were marched off to war, walked into a hail of gun fire and cannon shot had far worse fates than those who lived, LIVED AND PROSPERED, under slavery. Get a perspective. Btw, the word 'soldier' is mentioned once in the article. Have a nice day. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

instead of which put an end to the practice in America, maybe which resulted in the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution, officially ending slavery. The passing of an amendment is a pretty big thing, since only 27 have been passed, and because of the long process for ratifying new amendments.Kude90 (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, yeah, but I would suspect in our generally historically illiterate society of 'modern times' most people wouldn't get that. Perhaps we should link to the thirteenth Amendment using put an end as the handle. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I would be more inclined to hold your views, except for the Klu Klux Klan, was a violently murderous group of scoundrals that went around in ghoulish costumes terrifying both blacks and whites. The KKK was permiated throughout the whole United States, not just the South. Thankfully, President Ulysses S. Grant had the fortitude and integrity to challenge KKK and shut them down. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not defending these kooks, but I suspect the number of murders committed by this group was insignificant, no doubt highly publicized, and of course exaggerated to no end. However, the KKK was a nice touch. And I suppose if we included a photo of them wearing their hoods we could double that effect. In reality I suspect only 1 out of 10,000 blacks ever had any kind of actual contact with this group, who only existed after the Civil War, after slavery had ended. We were talking about slavery in the article weren't we? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I would not take such a light view of the KKK or any white supremacist group. President Grant destroyed the KKK for awhile, but then there was a revival at the turn of the 19th Century. Lynchings were common in the South, however, Congress would fail to pass an anti-lynching bill and Congress even today has not specifically outlawed lynching people. I believe the one of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960's may have indirectly outlawed lynching. To be subject to lynching, let alone being lynched, is a horrible prospect for all black men in the South during Jim Crow. St. Louis was a city that had a high lynching rate in the 1920's. I believe our society today is more racially tolerant, however, there is no guarantee that will always be the same. Yes. KKK is an American invention. I support a photo of them in their costumes in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Murder has always been against the law, whether by gun, knife or lynching, even before the Civil War or the KKK came around, and I don't take any sort of murder lightly, thank you. Yet I'm not going to blow anything out of proportion and idolize this group as you're doing. Lynchings of blacks by the KKK occurred, and were highly publicized when they did occur, but they were no where close to "common". All you're doing by espousing this distorted and slanderous BS is to polarize the races. You always speak in out of context generalities, and this episode takes the cake. "KKK is an American invention." You should learn someday that ritual killing, whether based on race, religion or nationality has existed long before America came around. Kindly get back to the discussion of slavery as concerns the Settlements section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need a whole new section for niche "Environment" complaints?

An editor recently created a new "Environment" section that simply consisted of an energy usage point already made in the Energy section, a mention of two oil spills, and a short, cherry-picked list of things of questionable relevance the US hasn't done, including stuff like the Kyoto Protocol and at least one international agreement that isn't notable enough to have its own Wiki page. It said nothing about the environment per se and even got its facts on Kyoto wrong, falsely claiming the US hadn't "signed" it (it signed but didn't ratify it). So I reverted and explained why. She put the section back in with different commentary, this time consisting of only three sentences, one on C02 emissions, another factually incorrect Kyoto claim (this one on how many nations haven't ratified it), and this one in the midde: "The energy policy of the United States is widely debated; many call on the country to take a leading role in fighting global warming, which it has not done." So I reverted again and suggested she take the issue to the Talk Page first to hash this out. She refused, unilaterally creating yet a third, expanded version of the section just a few minutes later, this one adding a couple of vaguely defined, cherry-picked "issues" about water quality.

The section smacks of agenda pushing. There's no attempt to take a comprehensive look at the US environment; it's rather a series of scattershot complaints and opinions with at least one factual inaccuracy. It doesn't warrant an entire section of its own in my opinion. If someone could build a compelling case for including one or more of the lines, it would surely be easy to fold them into existing sections. Most nation articles don't have an "Environment" section. Indeed, despite having withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, Canada's page doesn't even mention the word "Kyoto" or even "environment" for that matter. This is the kind of section that will likely blow up in partisan point/counterpoint disagreement over time, especially since it's been placed higher than the fundamental "Demographics" section on the page, below only "History" and "Geography", giving it a place of exalted prominence.

Wikipedia isn't the venue for niche advocacy. If we have a section devoted to environmental "issues", why not give "Abortion" a section of its own? After all, with tens of millions killed in recent decades that's had a lot bigger impact than CO2 emissions. Perhaps the "2nd Amendment" should have its own section. Or "Race Relations". Or the state of the "American Family" (or "Marriage"), complete with the varied sociological impact. Perhaps a "Child Abuse" section, which, again, has been a more impactful phenomenon on society so far than CO2 emissions. Maybe we can also create a "Space Program" or "NFL" section. Etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. It seems like such a section could only be included in this country's article, and none other. Can you imagine someone adding a section to the article on Mozambique about how it's not taking a leading role in global warming? Now, sure, Mozambique contributes far less to global warming, but still, I think this is a situation where if a general issue can't be put on every country page, it shouldn't be on any. All countries get geography, government, divisions, economy, demographics, etc., but only the United States would get a special section on the environment (outside of geography) and their responsibility thereof. For example, while Mozambique wouldn't get it, China wouldn't either, and that obviously would be wrong.

That said, the disproportionate per-capita usage of energy and how the US is or is not working to reduce its usage of damaging fuels, or its leadership or lack thereof in the global strive towards this, is perhaps worth a mention, but certainly not in its own section, but as a sentence or two in Economy or Foreign Relations or what not, or even relegated to a subpage. (And for all I know it already is there; I hate loading up the article, it takes so long) I'm not seeing anything here that screams out being necessary to be in this summary article. --Golbez (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally agree with Victor and Golbez. When I saw mention of the Kyoto protocol alarms went off. There was a lot of controversy surronding that as many of its provisions were directly aimed at the practices of US Armed forces. In any case it seems anything covered in this new section is already covered or can be worked into existing sections with the exception of the Kyoto Protocol, which imo, is a political detail/controversy we don't need to be mentioning here. I believe we should remove this section before it turns into a global warming or other such forums.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Anything relevant to environment belongs in the geography section. This article already has 79 kB of text (the fait accompli expansion on all things slavery is not helping with this). No large amount of new information, let alone enough to make new sections, should be added without discussion. CMD (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

a) Does the possibility of disagreements warrant deletion? No. b) Agenda pushing? What " agenda"? c) Strange as this may be to think, there are other factors than death toll or sociological impact. d)Actually, China has an environment (sub)section. So do, for example, Japan, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea, etc, etc. If having it as a subsection is better, feel free to change it. e)It's not there already. f) Kyoto Protocol to limit the U.S armed forces? Seriously? I'm sensing conspiracy theories. Rwenonah (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC) And can we please keep things germane and to the point? I could link global warming to medieval calligraphy techniques, I just choose not to, as it is after all unrelated. So please keep abortion and the NFL out of the discussion also. Rwenonah (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Environment section should be removed for reasons stated above.

• Agree -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section. There are many things the U.S. did, and didn't do, politically and environmentally. This is not the place for such a (narrow) outline as was the case with that section. Funny how the editor didn't mention all the things the U.S. has done for the environment. e.g.The Great Lakes were in serious trouble years ago. Lake Michigan was at one time declared a dead lake. No more. The Great Lakes have made a terrific recovery. The U.S., esp California, is the leader in solar and wind power usage. That wasn't mentioned either. Again, this article is not the place to outline all the things the U.S. did and didn't do for the environment. Besides, the section was misnamed. It should have been named Environmental issues, and again, it would be out of place in this article still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree--Rwenonah (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the place to mention it, then? Many nation articles have " Environment" sections. And while we're discussing " funny" things, it's funny that the article mentions absolutely nothing about this topic already. Even massive events such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill or even global warming are not mentioned. There are many things the U.S did and didn't do politically and environmentally. I wouldn't call the Great Lakes one of them, as they are now experiencing a major invasive species crisis. This is a massive topic, and both positives and negatives should be shown. Rwenonah (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, across the United States, 200,0000,000 people live within ten miles of polluted water. So I'd hardly say that the U.S. is doing a great deal to address water quality problems, whatever may have happened with the Great Lakes.Rwenonah (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree In my opinion we need an environmental section. My problem is that the material I reverted was bad quality. It did not even try to give an overall view of the issues involved. It seems to be based on a careless google search. The first source was 99% about China's environmental problems and only mentioned the US in passing. The second was an ephemeral evening news report on an upcoming conference that happened 8 years ago. the third cite was a dead link. There are many WP:RS that cover the field, especially in the last year or two, that were simply ignored. This is a very important topic in a very important article and must be covered with much greater care. Rjensen (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an environmental subsection under Geography? I mean, some countries do have unique environmental issues that are relevant to their articles. (Yes, this kind of goes counter to what I said before, but that was as its own section, rather than a subsection, and also this appeared to be more about world leadership rather than local environment). For example, a mention of the Aral Sea is relevant in Kazakhstan, or Chernobyl for Ukraine, and, yes, a mention on Deepwater Horizon may be relevant for this article. But the section as it was was simultaneously too broad ("many"? who is many? widely debated by whom? what aspect is debated? this line is pure polemic) and too specific (are these dead zones really all we have to say about the environment?). We need to come to a solution through discussion, not through Rwenonah edit warring to keep their pet version in the article. --Golbez (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree/Agree The actual environment, where we discuss the forests, lakes, rivers, deserts, the great plains, etc is one thing. Discussing the scientific and political issues associated with environmental quality is quite another. And when you start dragging in (not you personally) cherry picked and dated issues like the Kyoto protocol then we're getting into a lot of controversy and political guff. As for polluted water, one could say the entire earth is covered with it, to one degree or another, even the oceans, so to carry on about the U.S. and polluted water is a slippery sloop and a topic of endless debate and edit wars. Was the purpose of the proposed section to also cover endangered species, the 'endangered species act' (per se') and how the U.S. has or has not complied with it? Global warming? There's a can of worms. Acid rain? Will we be dragging in UNESCO and its environmental role in the US? These things are not about the United States, the country. Such a section could easily bloat out to absurd proportions and again, would be a forum of endless debate and the cause of a lot of edit wars as we have just witnessed. We should mention environmental issues, perhaps in the Geography section, and provide links to pages where these things are (supposed to be) well covered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. While I'm not opposed to folding some pertinent info into existing sections, I'll point out that we should also be on guard against recentism regarding specific events. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As most of us have concurred, the geography section is the place to incorporate links regarding the environmental issues, which as can be seen, already exist in that section, esp at the top with its main articles links:

Main articles: Geography of the United States, Climate of the United States, and Environment of the United States

The section also has links for the Endangered Species Act and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Between all of these links I am confident that mention of water/air pollution, etc, in the U.S. in already well covered, no doubt in spades. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that is totally false. If you look at these pages, none mention environmental issues, except a sentence which mainly redirects to a severely defective environmental issues page. And while we're discussing "cans of worms", or, more applicable, " endless debate", please look at the page. I see several fine examples of " endless debate", several involving many of the editors above. Evidently some topics already on the page seem to have be something of a " can of worms" or to be rather " controversial". While some of the editors above may consider polluted water to be unimportant as it " covers the entire earth" (except the land',one would think), that is a POV and these are not adequate reasons for the non- existence of a section on this topic.Rwenonah (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you feel the Environmental issues in the United States or any other page is "severely defective" you are free to remedy that situation. This page is not the place to expound on particular environmental issues and associated issues. The summary statement just added by another editor lets the readers know there are environmental issues and controversy/disagreement. Again the geography section has plenty of links taking the reader to pages where these things are covered. Again, if you feel they are "severely defective" you should go to any given page and look into matters. Also, it is a good practice to resolve controversies before dragging them over on to another page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't object to an Environment section. It seems reasonable that there should be a section for such an overwhelmingly important subject, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a "niche" subject. But the text must be balanced and neutral, whereas the wording being challenged here seems a bit one-sided. -- Alarics (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a brief section 3.1 Environmental issues under "Geography." Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I can live with a subsection since the content you've added is neutral enough and in summary form with adequate linking. We just need to be mindful of individuals who come to WP to make an environmental statement, often with a chip on their shoulder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well Abortion, Marriage, Race Relations, the 2nd Amendment, and Child Abuse are all overwhelmingly important subjects too, though none have their own sections. In the expansive sense "environment" refers to all sorts of things already touched on in the article, most being non political and having nothing to do with pollution or endangered species. Like Gwillhickers I don't oppose Rjensen's creation of a neutrally worded, appropriately summary level subsection for "Environmental issues", though I am wary of what it could turn into in the future. VictorD7 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Involuntary servitude

Involuntary servitude = prison. That was new for the 19th century -- before 1800 the US had jails for short-term prisoners but few long term prisons. (Criminals were whipped and expelled from town). Rjensen (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. What is the difference between involuntary servitude and slavery? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

List of the 50 states

Several of the recent feedback comments have asked for a list of the 50 states. Maybe the map is insufficient? Or maybe people just aren't paying attention? Maybe "Political divisions" is too vague a section title? -- Beland (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Settlement section - alternative proposals for entire text.

The current Settlement section looks haphazardly constructed, is skewed in focus, and suffers from chronological and thematic issues. I’m not sure a piecemeal approach will fix it, so I threw together some comprehensive alternative proposals. These are not how I’d write it from scratch since I mostly preserved the existing text, but I streamlined some stuff, dropped some items, moved some segments around, and added some new things, and I think they restore proper perspective while offering a more logical foundation on which to make further changes. It's primarily important to add more content about the colonists themselves. The first proposal might be too long (about a third longer than the current text), though it improves proper balance by applying the level of detail currently applied in cherry-picked fashion in the section to other pertinent topics, and it might be appropriate if there's a broader effort to more fully develop the rest of the History section. That’s followed by an alternative, short version with less detail that’s significantly shorter than the existing section. After that is a middle ground proposal that’s comparable to the existing text (just slightly longer). I’m not worried about sources right now since sourcing is for disputable facts, and this is basic material likely covered by existing sources anyway. If not, we can always add sources later. This is about editing, and we’re going to have to write this ourselves. Comments are welcome. I’m just trying to get the ball rolling in accordance with calls by Golbez and others to improve the thematic coherence of the History section. At the very least this should provide an idea of other things the section can talk about.

Long Version

After Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the “lost” English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery.

James I on April 10, 1606 chartered The Virginia Company with the purpose of establishing English settlements on the eastern coast of North America. The Virginia Colony was planted in 1607 with Jamestown. Despite initial hardships and large loss of life, the settlement eventually stabilized and became the first successful English colony in North America. Efficiency greatly improved when personal land grants replaced the early communal operation in the 1610s. Tobacco proved popular in Europe and became a major Virginia cash crop. To attract colonists and curb the existential dangers of a potentially tyrannical or incompetent governor, in 1619 the New World’s first elected legislative assembly was created, called the House of Burgesses. By that point the colony’s population had grown from 104 in 1607 to just under 1,000.

In 1620 Congregationalist Pilgrims and some fellow travelers founded the Plymouth Colony. The Mayflower Compact they signed before disembarking was a milestone in social contract history. Tens of thousands of Puritans later settled in New England, establishing the nearby Massachusetts Bay Colony that eventually absorbed Plymouth, and Connecticut. Rhode Island was founded with a particular emphasis on religious freedom and majority rule.

Beginning in 1614, the Dutch settled in present day New York State; their colony of New Netherland, which had earlier conquered New Sweden, was taken over by England in 1674 after the Third Anglo-Dutch War, but a strong Dutch influence persisted in the Hudson Valley north of New York City for generations. The English founded various Middle Colonies in the late 17th Century after seizing the area from the Dutch, and they tended to be ethnically diverse, with Pennsylvania in particular attracting a large German minority in the 18th Century.

Settlers were a diverse mix of adventurers, profit seekers, people escaping religious persecution, and those who simply saw an opportunity for a better life. Many came as indentured servants, either convicts or people who otherwise couldn’t afford passage voluntarily signing contracts, and were set free after completing their specified term of service. Two-thirds of all Virginia settlers between 1630 and 1680 arrived indentured.[56]

Trade with and Christian evangelism to local Indians were established in the colonies’ early days, though relations would alternate from friendly to tense, and were characterized by periodic bouts of warfare, often with some tribes allying themselves with the English against common foes. Incidents like the massacre of 1622, the Pequot War, and King Philip’s War caused great destruction and threatened the existence of entire colonies, but resulted in reprisals that ultimately saw the power of enemy tribes reduced or broken, facilitating the expansion of English settlements.

At times colonists followed the common Indian practice of enslaving defeated survivors, keeping them as laborers, giving them to allied tribes, or selling them to overseas European colonies. The first African slaves arrived in the early 1600s, though slavery wouldn’t become a major institution in the American colonies for several more decades. Slavery was widely practiced around the world and existed in every colony, but eventually developed on a larger scale in the south than the north because the land was more suitable for large scale cash crop cultivation there. However, New England was commercially active in the lucrative "Golden Triangle" African slave trade, involving planters, shippers, and the African tribal chiefs who provided them with slaves.[53][54] Most slaves were shipped to European colonies in the Caribbean or South America, but better conditions in North America led to lower mortality rates, high birth rates, and eventually a relatively large black slave population. By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions.[57]

Most settlers in every colony were small farmers, but other industries developed. Furs, fishing, lumber, rum, construction, wheat, ranching, and eventually shipbuilding contributed to economic growth. By the late colonial period Americans were producing one seventh of the world’s iron supply. Cities eventually dotted the coast to support local economies and serve as trade hubs. English colonists were supplemented by waves of Scotch-Irish and other groups. As coastal land grew more expensive people pushed west into the hills and backwoods, seeking to carve an existence out of virgin wilderness.

With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established.[59] All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. With extremely high birth rates, low death rates, and steady settlement, the colonial population grew rapidly. Relatively small Indian populations were eclipsed. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty.

In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans, who were being conquered and displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain. Nearly one-fifth of those living in what would become the United States were black slaves, though only a minority of whites owned slaves.[61] The colonies’ distance from Britain had allowed the development of self-government, but their success motivated monarchs to periodically seek to reassert Royal authority.

Short Version

The voyages of Columbus spurred other explorers. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River.

The first successful English colony was established at Jamestown in Virginia in 1607. The second was the Pilgrim’s Plymouth colony established in what’s now Massachusetts in 1620. Both faced initial hardships and great loss of life, but stabilized and ultimately prospered. Both also saw efficiency greatly improve when personal land grants replaced the early communal operations. The continent’s first elected legislative assembly, Virginia’s House of Burgesses created in 1619, and the Mayflower Pact, signed by the Pilgrims before disembarking, established precedents for the pattern of representative self-government and constitutionalism that would develop throughout the American colonies.

Other colonies followed. The area around what’s now New York and Pennsylvania was controlled by the Dutch until the English seized it after the Anglo-Dutch wars in the late 17th Century. Settlers were a diverse mix of adventurers, profit seekers, people escaping religious persecution, and those who simply saw an opportunity for a better life. Many came as indentured servants, either convicts or people who otherwise couldn’t afford passage voluntarily signing contracts, and were set free after completing their specified term of service. By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions.[57] . English colonists were supplemented by waves of Scotch-Irish and other groups, and as coastal land became more expensive they continuously pushed west into the hills and backwoods, carving an existence out of virgin wilderness.

Relations with local Indians were established from the colonies’ early days, and ranged from friendly to violently hostile. Early attempts to destroy the colonies caused great damage but ultimately failed, resulting in defeats that broke enemy tribal power. With extremely high birth rates, low death rates, and steady settlement, the colonial population grew rapidly. Relatively small Indian populations were eclipsed, and tribes were often conquered or displaced.

With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established.[59] All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty. Products like tobacco, iron, and rum were exported on a large scale.

In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding Indians, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain. Nearly one-fifth of those living in what would become the United States were black slaves, though only a minority of whites owned slaves.[61] The colonies’ distance from Britain had allowed the development of self-government, but their success motivated monarchs to periodically seek to reassert Royal authority.

Middle Version

After Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the “lost” English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery.

James I on April 10, 1606 chartered The Virginia Company with the purpose of establishing English settlements on the eastern coast of North America. The Virginia Colony was planted in 1607 with Jamestown and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. Some 100,000 Puritans later settled New England, especially the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Both colonies suffered initial hardships and great loss of life, but eventually stabilized and became the first successful English settlements in America. Both also saw efficiency greatly improve when personal land grants replaced the early communal operations. The continent’s first elected legislative assembly, Virginia’s House of Burgesses created in 1619, and the Mayflower Pact, signed by the Pilgrims before disembarking, established precedents for the pattern of representative self-government and constitutionalism that would develop throughout the American colonies.

Other New England colonies were established. Much of the territory between them and Virginia was controlled by the Dutch until England seized it in the late 17th Century following the Anglo-Dutch Wars, leading to the creation of the Middle Colonies. Trade with and Christian evangelism to local Indians were established in the colonies’ early days, though relations would alternate from friendly to tense, and were characterized by periodic bouts of warfare, often with some tribes allying themselves with the English against common foes. Incidents like the massacre of 1622, the Pequot War, and King Philip’s War caused great destruction and threatened the existence of entire colonies, but resulted in reprisals that ultimately saw the power of enemy tribes reduced or broken, facilitating the expansion of English settlements.

Most settlers in every colony were small farmers, but other industries developed. Tobacco was popular in Europe and became a major early cash crop. Furs, fishing, lumber, rum, construction, wheat, ranching, and eventually shipbuilding contributed to economic growth. By the late colonial period Americans were producing one seventh of the world’s iron supply. Cities eventually dotted the coast to support local economies and serve as trade hubs. English colonists were supplemented by waves of Scotch-Irish and other groups. As coastal land grew more expensive people pushed west into the hills and backwoods, seeking to carve an existence out of virgin wilderness.

Settlers were a diverse mix of adventurers, profit seekers, people escaping religious persecution, and those who simply saw an opportunity for a better life. Many came as indentured servants, either convicts or people who otherwise couldn’t afford passage voluntarily signing contracts, and were set free after completing their specified term of service. Two-thirds of all Virginia settlers between 1630 and 1680 arrived indentured. By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions. This was especially true in the south, where the land was better suited for large scale cash crop cultivation than the rocky ground and cool climate of New England, though New Englanders, especially rum producers, participated in the lucrative "Golden Triangle" African slave trade, involving planters in European colonies in the Caribbean, shippers, and the African tribal chiefs who provided them with slaves.[53][54]

With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established.[59] All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. With extremely high birth rates, low death rates, and steady settlement, the colonial population grew rapidly. Relatively small Indian populations were eclipsed. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty.

In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans, who were being conquered and displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain. Nearly one-fifth of those living in what would become the United States were black slaves, though only a minority of whites owned slaves.[61] The colonies’ distance from Britain had allowed the development of self-government, but their success motivated monarchs to periodically seek to reassert Royal authority. VictorD7 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Added draft on slavery

I have just added the above draft on slavery to the Settlements section, combining it with some existing text on that subject. The subject is perhaps covered a bit more than some of us wanted but on retrospect, it is an important issue and deserves a good paragraph. Will be employing the source used in the Slavery in the United States page, already added to Bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. The first part of your draft is good, however, the second part on life expectancy in addition to a lead into the Civil War is unnecessary, in my opinion. I would stay within the time frame. Rather I would add information on Indian and East Indian enslavement. Yes. The one paragraph is good and is only needed to identify that slavery was established in the New World by colonists. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Given all the modern day stigma attached to slavery we need to differentiate slavery in America from slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil, that slaves lived longer and healthier lives and were generally treated much better, so much so that they prospered and increased in population to the tune of millions. It is understood that slavery was no picnic but we need to qualify how it was practiced in the United States. Mention of the Civil war is a good closing to the paragraph and doesn't go at any length where it deviates from the purpose of the Settlements section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are assuming there is a modern day stigma with slavery. I am not sure that there is a modern day stigma on slavery. The Golden Triangle has been established in the paragraph. If the colonists bought and sold slaves from Brazil, then that could be kept in the article. Although the health of slaves is important, that would be best for Slavery in the United States article. Why do we need to qualify how slavery was practiced in this article? That information is good, but not necessary for the Settlements section. Mentioning the Civil War is good, but again unnecessary for the article. Rather, I would put in information on Indian and East Indian enslavement. Why? That way the whole paragraph would be on slavery during the settlement period. For compromise, you can keep the "qualification" of slavery in the segment, however, I would add information on Indian and East Indian enslavement. That way the reader knows that Africans, Indians, and East Indians were enslaved. When the reader jumps to the Civil War section, slavery has already been established in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwhillickers, if you want the article to say that slaves were treated much better in the American colonies, then you need a source that says that. Cmguy777, I do not see why Indian and East Indian slavery is important. TFD (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I never actually said that slaves were treated better [in the article]-- and if we were to say this verbatim it would not be OR as we would not be advancing a new position. The fact that slaves lived longer, had better food, lighter work loads and multiplied into millions more than supports this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: TDF, the nationalities of those persons enslaved is important. This presents a more accurate historical account of slavery during the settlement period or colonization of America. To state that only blacks were enslaved would be misleading to the reader. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind, we are discussing a subsection of a brief section of a brief article. You need to not only establish that something is true, but that it is something a reasonable, neutral writer would include. TFD (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

TDF. Slavery was endemic in American life during the settlement period. Who is to judge what a "reasonable, neutral writer would include"? That is not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is to put in information into an article with a valid source. Adding information on the Civil War in the Settlements section is unnecessary. You never objected to that. If all else fails then bring up that article is too long arguement. A neutral article would include other races such as Indians and East Indians. A POV article would exclude other races. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Who is to judge"? Editors are to judge. That would include you and I. Who else? A 'neutrality patrol' bot? Noting the end of slavery by 'only' mentioning the Civil War with a link to the 13th Amendment is okay as it is -directly- related to slavery and gives context to the years of slavery leading up to that period. To get into further details (i.e.Lincoln, emancipation proclamation, pro slavery states, etc) about the Civil War in the Settlements section would be another matter. Is this really an issue? Seems we have enough on our plate around here all ready. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. (WP:WEIGHT) Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight.... (WP:TERTIARY)"

So policy tells us that unless articles about the United States that are published in reliable encyclopedias mention an aspect of the U.S., we cannot mention it.

TFD (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers and TDF, one paragraph on slavery in the Settlements section is not undo weight. I was actually trying to reduce the amount of space in the Settlements segment concerning slavery. I am not for mentioning the Civil War in the Settlement section. There was no United States at this time in history. I am for mentioning Indians and East Indians in the slavery section. We are not to exclude races in the article. That would be POV. Mentioning Indians and East Indians, removing the Civil War information, would help context and make the section neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain why mentioning Indians and East Indians would make the section more neutral by providing a similar encyclopedia article about the U.S. that mentions it. TFD (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the first slaves in Puritan New England apparently were other Puritans.[Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts, p. 1] TFD (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally termed "indentured servants" for a fixed period of time (an "indenture" is a form of contract). Collect (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The source said that Puritans had sentenced some convicted criminals to permanent slavery. TFD (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. TFD. I am for stating in the article the Puritans enslaved Puritans, Africans, Indians, and East Indians. Let's include all to be neutral and not exclude any group of peoples. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You still need to explain why any of this is important. Both the United Kingdom and Canada had slavery, but it is not mentioned in those articles because it is not considered significant. It is significant to the U.S. however because there is a large population descended from African slaves, and it helps to explain contemporary racial tension and north-south divisions. For every nation there are historical events that are necessary for understanding the country today - early Puritan slavery is not one of them. TFD (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree TFD. Early Puritan slavery had everything to do with establishing slavery in America setting up the Golden Triangle of slave trade. There has been a denial that there was slavery in the North. Ignoring slavery in the North is POV. That is why New England or Puritan slavery needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm', there you go again. Who has denied that slavery existed in the north? It seems you have this entrenched habit of setting up straw men to prop-up a point that otherwise can't stand on its own. At this point you need to provide a RS source that says in no uncertain terms that it was the Puritans who were responsible for "establishing slavery in America setting up the 'Golden Triangle' of slave trade". -- In the Triangle trade article (aka the Golden Triangle) the Puritans are not even mentioned once, nor are they mentioned on the Atlantic slave trade and History of slavery pages. On the Puritans page the word 'triangle' doesn't even exist. The "golden triangle" involved many peoples in many different places and was used primarily to ship crops, sugar and manufactured goods and sometimes slaves. Most slaves however were shipped by slavers -- ships that went back and forth from the new world and Africa only. You need to get off the soapbox and do some home work before you start preaching and pointing a sweeping finger. No one around here, much less any historian of any consequence, has ever denied slavery existed in the north. Just yesterday we were discussing slaves in Boston. (!!) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tom Juergens (2011) Wicked Puritans of Essex County, p. 69-70 This is actually an insightful historical source. According to Juergens the Puritans followed the Indians in practicing slavery. Juergen gives information on Puritans practicing slavery in Essex County and mentions the Golden Triangle. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How is that important to this article? TFD (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm', no one said that some Puritans didn't have slaves. I have read pages 69-70, and them some. This is the context Juergen mentions the Golden triangle:

• "What made the Golden Triangle golden was black slaves, who could take the heat and hard labor of working sugarcane in the islands."

Juergen mentions the Golden Triangle in reference to the islands. NOT Massachusetts or the Puritans. This is not at all the way your first claim above reads. The Puritans did not establish slavery and the Golden Triangle. Here are some other interesting quotes from Juergen:

• Slavery in what was to become the state of Massachusetts predated the Puritans, who simply legalized it and carried it on."
• "And during the various colonial wars, many Englishmen were taken by Indians as slaves and sold to the French in Canada."
• "Indians had always enslaved other Indians defeated in war, so it was business as usual when the Puritans followed suit."

This is a far cry from what you handed us above. The Puritans did not establish slavery, nor the Golden triangle -- and again, no one has ever denied that slavery existed in the north. And one last time, the Puritans were one colony, among many, in one point in time. There is no need to go into details about them in the Settlements section. We do however need to mention that many Indians routinely enslaved other Indians and also many of the early colonists, and now we have a yet another source to cite this advent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the Pequot war was the result of years of fighting off Indians, who again, committed many masacres and often took slaves and took them away from their homeland also. Modern day stigmas too often ignore such realities. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the Puritans did not start slavery, but they did start the Golden Triangle, rum for slaves. Juergen explains this. Juergens gives more perspective on this issue. That is why I thought his book would be useful for the article. Rausch does state that the Puritans started or established the Golden Triangle. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Juergens did not let the Puritans off lightly, he stated the Puritans of Essex County were "wicked" do to their involvement in slavery. I am not for putting that in the article, however, I believe his book has signifigant insight into what was going on into the Puritan and Indian culture of New England. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

settlements section

Gwillhickers, the Puritans did not start slavery, but they did start the Golden Triangle, rum for slaves. Juergen explains this. Juergens gives more perspective on this issue. That is why I thought his book would be useful for the article. Rausch does state that the Puritans started or established the Golden Triangle. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Merchants in the West Indies, and shippers, the people who were capable of connecting the dots, i.e. crossing the Atlantic, were the ones who set up the Triangle. The Puritans were just buyers of goods, esp sugar. They were not shippers/slavers. Juergens nor Rausch assert that the Puritans "established" the golden triangle for the simple reason they didn't own the ships or had the long standing business connections with African tribal chiefs as did the slavers, entities that were largely funded by European banks. Rausch asserts "they became" the hub, an important part, which I think is an over statement given the other accounts. He does not say they "established" it for reasons just mentioned. Again, Puritans are not even mentioned in the Atlantic slave trade and History of slavery: North America pages. Nor is the ' Triangle mentioned on the Puritans page.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the U.S. and we should not load up the history section with details that are tangential. What is important is that after 1660, a significant African slave population developed in the Southern states. All the other information is better treated in other articles. TFD (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Since one editor is insisting that the world of slavery revolved around the Puritans at least we can do is demonstrate through discussion that this is simply not true. From what I've read, the Puritans had Indian slaves, i.e. prisoners of war, mostly. At least we can refer back to this discussion should any one in the future want to put the Puritans at center stage in the Settlements section regarding slavery, esp African slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The Golden Triangle was a system that sanctioned slavery of both Africans and Indians. We should not ignore this system in the article. There was slavery in the North as uncomfortable as that might be to accept. The Puritans started, developed, and participated in this Golden Triangle of slavery. Indians captured in war were forced to work in the West Indies. All I wanted was a paragraph that explains there was slavery in both the North and South. There is a myth that only the South participated in slavery. The North has been ignored since there has been a denial or downplay that Puritans sanctioned slavery and owned slaves. Again, I don't believe the Civil War needs to be mentioned in the Settlements section since the United States had yet to exist. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Aside from reciting the obvious (i.e. "Golden Triangle was a system that sanctioned slavery"), you're simply reiterating the same falacies that have already been addressed, notwithstanding your notion that slavery in the north has been ignored. It has not been ignored in these discussions, nor in the section and the very sources you have provided refer to slavery in the north. I have also pointed out the specifics regarding the Puritans and the Triangle, per Rausch and Juergens. Slavers are who established and made connections in the Triangle simply becuase they had the ships, the funding and the connections with African tribal chiefs. The Puritans did not have these things. Again, none of the slavery pages cited/linked to above mention the Puritans. Getting tired of your apparent 'forgetfullness'. It's starting to resemble harrasment and hounding. You need to come to terms and move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I can move on. What about the Civil War mentioned in the Settlements section? Slavery is mentioned as a pretext for the Civil War. I don't believe the Civil War specifically should be mention in the Settlements section because the United States had yet to exist. The Civil War gets mixed up with the Second English Civil War of Oliver Cromwell. This is confusing to the reader and in my opinion the Settlements needs to stay within the time frame of the actual settlements by the EuroAmericans. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That too has already been addressed. The Civil War is only mentioned in refernce to the end of slavery. Again, please make a serious effort to remember recent discussions, the likes of which are still on the current page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Settlements section needs to say much if any more about slavery than the "By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions" sentence, since it's discussed in more depth later, and in the linked pages. With this level of detail disproportionately applied to slavery (but no mention of pre and post Columbian Indian owned slaves, mind you), however, the section needs a lot more non-slavery info (on the settlers themselves) to balance things out. Maybe stuff about the evolution of political organization (e.g. Mayflower Compact as a milestone in social contract history and establishment of democratic institutions in Virginia and elsewhere), early growth of capitalism, cultural traits, major colonial figures, non slave industries, etc.. VictorD7 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, from simply a narration point of view the Civil War is out of place and confusing to the reader in the Settlements section. We need to keep focused on the settlement and colonial era. The Declaration of Independence has yet to be written and the article is already talking about the Civil War in the Settlements section. Slavery ended with the 13th Amendment not the Civil War. VictorD7, slavery was part of captialism. Even Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and sold slaves in front of his merchantile store. Argueing further is useless under the present hostility on this talk page. At least the Virginia Historian had shown me some civility. God Bless America. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Slavery ended with the 13th Amendment? So, you don't think that human trafficking and forced prostitution constitutes slavery? How about involuntary servitude in the case of criminal punishment, as allowed by the 13th Amendment? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Slavery did end with the 13th amendment. Legal slavery. The only kind that the government can outlaw. Most "servitude" as you put it is not involuntary. It's either serve time, or do community service. Don't warp the issue here. Kude90 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Again open hostility. Slavery did end constitutionally with the 13th Amendment. Correction: involuntary servitude is constitutionally legal in case of conviction of criminal punishment. I was responding to Gwillhickers statement that slavery ended with the Civil War. There really is no discussion on this page, but only childish put downs and immature banter. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm', come on. Thanks to your insistence we have a whole paragraph about slavery in the Settlements section. Thanks to us, it's not all over the map. And it even refers to slavery in the North! We still need to get some footage in there about Indians who practiced slavery. Wonder why Juergens didn't refer to them as "wicked" also. Guess he wants to be accepted amongst his peers and get invited to a lot of parties. Me, I'm not big on parties. Most Indians were wicked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, sidestepping your dubious claim associating slavery with capitalism, at the very least it doesn't tell the whole story. I also don't see the hostility you keep referring to. For the most part the editors here have been very patient with you. VictorD7 (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the one paragraph on slavery and that slavery in the North has been refered in the article. Is there editor concensus that the Civil War that started in 1861 be put in the Settlements section? That information could be replaced by more information on the Golden Triangle. I agree that Juergens has a double standard on calling the Puritans wicked and not calling the Indians wicked. The purpose of the one paragraph should be to establish that there was slavery in the settlements and colonial period. We have to remember slavery was accepted and tolerated up until 1865. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free all the slaves. The Golden Triangle was very profitable for New England. That is capitalism. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Juergens does not call the Puritans "wicked", rather he catalogues wicked things they did, including slavery which he also notes Indians did. The title is ironic. And anyway it is not an academic source. TFD (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Juergens is a journalist. He was an intern at Boston University. I admit that his book lacks that academic touch from an established historian, however, I believe his book is useful and can be used as a source. Here is a video interview of Juergens on his book Wicked Puritans of Essex County. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

On watching the video Juergens looked really uncomfortable and unacademic. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not a fan of mentioning either the US Civil War or the Second English Civil War in the section, but I'm not sure what more Golden Triangle commentary you'd like to replace it with. Existing slave talk should be pruned, but, if that all stays, then we need to mention the widespread practice of Indian owned slaves (which your own source says inspired the Puritans regarding taking Indian slaves; indeed Indian tribes sold slaves to colonists who in turn sold them to European colonies in the Caribbean), and maybe a clarification that colonists enslaved Indians in far fewer numbers than blacks. The African slave paragraph should probably be lowered in placement until after the founding of the various colonies, especially since slaves weren't present in huge numbers until the 18th Century (and were still less than 20% of the population by 1770), and possibly merged somehow with the sentence I quoted above ("By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions"). It looks bizarre and out of place for it to appear prior to the establishment of all the colonies. Also, for context the sentence "All legalized the African slave trade" should be followed by a clause like "as did all the European powers of the day." or maybe "as did all the European powers of the day, and the west African kingdoms that thrived on the trade.". The current text falsely implies there was something singular about the American colonies viewing it as legal. Of course slavery was essentially a worldwide phenomenon at the time, and had been on most continents throughout human history. And there was a lot of capitalism going on. Farming, fishing, lumber, massive construction work of all kinds...by the Revolution the American colonies were producing one seventh of the world's iron. Slaves were employed in some of these industries but most workers were free. The section needs the balance of coverage tilted back toward the vast majority of people who weren't slaves or slave owners. VictorD7 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Second English Civil War was mentioned since the colonies for 1649 to 1660 ceased to be Crown Colonies. Interestingly Massachusetts did not object to not being ruled by a King. Massachussets was where the American Revolution began. In addition Cromwell ruled the colonies with an iron hand. Previous Kings had let the colonies do for the most part as they pleased. I believe this is signifgant enough to be in the article. The Civil War, on the other hand, took place in 1861 and the United States was not even in existence at the time. Slavery was ended by the 13th Amendment, although involuntary servitude was established for any convicts. This goes beyond the scope of the Settlements section. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

But it's a high level of detail for a supposed summary subsection, as is the slave commentary. The section requires a lot of pruning and/or restoration of balance by adding detail on other spheres. VictorD7 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

They did not "all legalize the African slave trade" because it was not illegal to begin with. All that is important is that they began widespread importation of African slaves and slavery became a major institution in the southern colonies from the 1660s on. TFD (talk)

Yeah, that was essentially my point, but I was addressing the text's current wording. VictorD7 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The New Englanders profited from the Golden Triangle slave trade, rum for slaves. The New England shippers brought the slaves to the New World. Sometimes the Barbary Pirates enslaved the New England shippers. How do you think old wealth money came to New England? The slave trade remained legal until 1808. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're throwing out random sentences. I'm not sure if or how you're trying to address anything that's been said, a problem exacerbated by you not indenting consistently in a nested reply format. Are you suggesting new material to be added? Defending the current Triangle inclusion? Something else? If one of the first two, then I'd suggest not simply stating pat facts, but articulating an argument as to why these points are more important than the other topics that have been raised and are currently ignored or briefly mentioned in far less detail in the section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7 I am for the inclusion of other subject matters in the Settlements section. I am for the current text as in the article concerning the Golden Triangle. What I wanted is removal of the Civil War statement and replaced with more information on the Golden Triangle, for example how the Purtians were involved with the slave trade. I am following Wikipedia indenting proceedures that are (no colon), :, ::, (no colon)... We can't keep spacing to the right or we will run out of room. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Juergens book on Essex county is a 100 page pamphlet by someone who makes no claims to being a historian or scholar --not a reliable historian. The book appears to be self-published and has not been reviewed by any history journal. (He says at Amazon.com that he was a "staff reporter at various New England daily and weekly newspapers, including the now defunct Beverly Times and the Register on Cape Cod. He has also been published in the Boston Sunday Globe and Offshore. Other jobs he's held include lineman, carpenter, cabinetmaker, real estate agent, real estate appraiser and paralegal. In between those noneditorial jobs, he has always returned to wordsmithing in one form or another, freelancing as a journalist, corporate writer, technical writer and technical book editor.") We only are allowed to use RELIABLE secondary sources, of which there are several hundred for this topic. I recommend using a standard recent university level textbook. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that a book written by a historian with a PHD in History would be the best source for this subject. Apparently historians have avoided or been in denial of this subject of slavery in the North. I do admire Juergens attempt to approach a subject that seems to be tabboo among historians, i.e. the Puritans profiting and participating in domestic and international slavery. Are there any historians with PHD's in History who have written exclusively on the Golden Triangle. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is being taken over by tiresome, petty-minded nationalists.

"as did all the European powers of the day, and the west African kingdoms that thrived on the trade." […] The current text falsely implies there was something singular about the American colonies viewing it as legal.

Should the article on Nazi Germany mention explicitly that other countries committed genocide? After all, without a mention of this fact, said article implies that the only country to have committed genocide was Germany. Or is there something crucial about the simultaneity of the crime? No need to mention other genocides on the Nazi Germany article because no other countries were committing genocide at the time? Or does it require the same crime to be committed simultaneously and against the same set of victims? Already becoming suspiciously specific, isn't it?

The whole point is not the purported implication of uniqueness—there is no such implication, only a fool would claim otherwise, and I'd love to see someone try and argue, without begging the question, that uniqueness of something is implied unless every other instance of that thing is mentioned explicitly in the same breath as that thing—but to make the United States look "not so bad" because others were at it too. If you would reply that that isn't so, then why the insistence on having it? No uniqueness is implied, and it's not like everyone doesn't know that slavery was present elsewhere at the time (and at other times)—just like everyone knows that other countries than Nazi Germany committed genocide (the United States was founded on genocide, for example)—so whence the need for this explicit mention of other countries? Should I pop over to the Nazi Germany article and add in explicit mention of the genocide of the Native Americans to cure the mistaken impression it currently gives that Germany is the only country to have committed genocide? Also I see there is no mention of American segregation in the same breath as German discrimination against Jews. Such serious omissions really ought to be amended forthwith.

It serves a demagogue well to set up a scapegoat or a public enemy to unite the populace behind him and by doing so, enable them to overlook incursions on human rights through fear and ignorance. It serves him well to designate a group as other and, for that reason, treat them as inferior, subhuman, and ineligible for the protection of the laws of civilized society. Do the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals of Hitler's Germany spring to mind as you read this?

Think first of the early history of the United States. Here are examples that speak to unethical medical experimentation long before the Nazi era. In the 1800s in the American south, Dr. Thomas Hamilton of Georgia placed a slave in a pit oven in order to study heat stroke. Dr. Walter Jones of Virginia and several colleagues poured scalding water over sick slaves in an experiment to cure typhoid fever. […] Dr. Crawford Long of Georgia conducted a controlled demonstration of anesthesia by amputating two fingers from a slave boy—one with ether and the other without. There is no record that either finger was diseased. […]

What of eugenics, academic forerunner of the racial purity doctrine that justified abuse of "undesirable elements" of society? The rediscovered findings of Mendel at the turn of the century advanced the ideas of social Darwinism. Evolution was widely studied among nations, but for unprecedented implementation of eugenic theory, again you must look to the United States. Beginning in Indiana in 1907, more than half the state legislatures were persuaded to pass laws permitting "involuntary asexualization." They did not distinguish between sterilization and castration. Epilepsy, feeble-mindedness, and insanity were grouped together as indications for sterilization, to avoid future generations with these afflictions.

As the states succumbed to this pseudoscience, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes added authority in the infamous Buck vs. Bell Supreme Court decision in 1927. Carrie Buck, the eighteen-year-old illegitimate daughter of an allegedly feeble-minded mother, herself gave birth to a child. Carrie reportedly had the mental age of nine, and her child was alleged to be feeble-minded. (As the child matured, long after the case was closed, the child proved to be quite normal.) The Virginia law permitted involuntary sterilization, and the board of the institution in which Carrie lived recommended it. Schoolteacher and self-anointed "expert" Harry Laughlin was a prolific author and speaker on the subject of eugenics. He was asked to review her records. Without seeing the patient, he stated that she was a member of the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites" and the possibility of her feeble-mindedness being due to non-hereditary causes was "exceptionally remote." Carrie's lawyer, im his prescient brief, noted the peril to society if the sterilization law were upheld […]

It was upheld—in the oft-quoted phrase of Justice Holmes, "three generations of imbeciles are enough."[…]

[E]ven after the revelations at Nuremberg, a few states continued eugenic sterilization. As of 1995, Mississippi's law had not been rescinded, allowing for compulsory sterilization of "the socially inadequate." As recently as 2003, reparations were made to victims of compulsory sterilization in North Carolina. Despite that, people convicted of criminal activity continue to be offered reduced sentences if they agree to sterilization. It would appear that the Germans lagged behind their American colleagues in implementing the eugenic endorsements of doctors and anthropologists. In 1924, Professor E. Lenz chided his German colleagues for falling so far behind America in exploiting genetic knowledge in the interest of racial hygiene. Hitler read the German textbook by E. Bauer, E. Fischer, and F. Lenz, The Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene, while he was imprisoned in Landsberg in 1923, and the racial elements were written into Mein Kampf. The German eugenic doctrine of Lebensunwertes Lebens (lives unworthy to be lived)—described in a book written by a jurist, Professor Binding, and a psychiatrist, Professor Hoche—was never implemented in America. However in Germany a program of racial cleansing under a ruthless political Nazi regime led from compulsory sterilization to murder (euphemistically termed euthanasia). It is easy to see why the Nazis based much of their master race ideology upon American foundations. Sterilization law was passed in Germany in 1933 (twenty-six years after Indiana did so), following careful study of California's law. In 1936, Laughlin (who had written for German journals) and other Americans received honorary degrees from the University of Heidelberg. Eugenics programs in Germany practiced the ideas that were proposed but not undertaken in the U.S. […]

In the 1966 New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Henry Beecher cited twenty-two unethical post-Nuremberg experiments in America, conducted in university, Veteran's Administration, military, and private hospitals. […] The most notorious American experiment had begun before the war and was not a part of Dr. Beecher's article. It concerned the failure to treat over four hundred black men for syphilis, "to observe the natural course of the disease"—as if centuries of observing the outcomes of syphilis had not clearly demonstrated this. The Tuskeegee study began in 1933. Despite the availability of penicillin, the subjects continued without therapy until 1972. No one protested the study despite several papers that described it in scientific journals. Saddest of all, it was done under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service. Not until the second Clinton administration were an apology and reparations offered, too late for many who died or suffered the physical and mental ravages of the disease.

I find no mention of these crucial facts within the Nazi Germany article, and one wouldn't want to imply uniqueness. Perhaps I should add them.

I guess what I am trying to say is: pathetic. No wonder Einstein referred to nationalism as an "infantile disease". LudicrousTripe (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You managed to pack a lot of fallacies into your moronic rant....especially straw men and false equivalencies. The German Holocaust was notable precisely because of its salient, horrific nature. If it was common for nations of the time to round up 11 million civilians, largely due to their ethnicity, and systemically exterminate them in camps (each acting completely on its own, btw), then it wouldn't merit as much focus as it receives in the article. By contrast slavery, which seems like an abhorrent practice to most people today, was common in the world at the time and throughout most of history. The American colonies were plugged into a greater network of European/African slave trading, the initiation of which predated their establishment. Only a tiny percentage of New World bound African slaves were shipped to the North American colonies. American colonists themselves were taken as slaves and engaged in slave trading with Indian allies, for whom the latter slavery was a longstanding, normal practice. Understanding the whole is important for understanding the part. Your Holocaust/slavery equation fails. A better analogy would be the misleading distortion caused by extensively discussing German bombing of enemy cities and killed civilians, but making no mention of Allied bombing or killed Germans. I'm not sure that you being upset for fear that the US may not look appropriately "bad" constitutes a legitimate reason for opposing information inclusion. Of course, while you focused on the "Nazi Germany" article, it's worth pointing out that the Germany page, the equivalent of the United States article, spends a grand total of two sentences(!) on the Holocaust. More topically dedicated venues, like the book you pointlessly quoted at length but forgot to cite, do discuss both Nazi and US atrocities, the broader eugenics movement, etc.. "it's not like everyone doesn't know that slavery was present elsewhere at the time (and at other times)". I don't believe that at all because I've encountered plenty who assume it was uniquely or at least largely an American phenomenon, but, regardless, we aren't supposed to assume that as editors. Presumably most people do know basic info like the initials "US", "USA", etc. stand for the United States of America, the capital city, etc., but we still include it as relevant knowledge. VictorD7 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well said. i.e. "Understanding the whole is important for understanding the part". Context indeed, something that many modern day revisionists would obviously like to sweep under the rug so they can make their singular presentation in a vacuum. Our long winded friend tips his/her hand in several other respects. e.g. The abusive and snobbish remark "tiresome, petty-minded nationalists" is sort of curious coming from some one who identifies only as a 'libertarian socialist' with one lone dark-red and black user box that displays an empty flag. A friendly image! And after that lengthy post this individual fails to point out any specific content in the article that is supposed to be less than truthful or even misleading. Just the usual generic and snooty overages with an obtuse and typical analogy to Nazi Germany, capped off with a reference to an Einstein quote who was no doubt a brilliant scientist, apparently not so brilliant in his assessment of humanity. Nationalism a "disease"? I didn't realize Einstein had such a healthy view of the world around him. If someone wants to put this highly opinionated and subjective rant under a hat they'll get no objection from me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Enough of your ineffectual, mealy-mouthed griping, hyper-nationalistic, jingoistic Yankee imperialists. I am with Juan Cole: your look-at-what-everyone-else-was-doing-too pleading is "absolutely painful to hear. It is playground ethics: 'he hit me first,' 'you just don't like me,' 'why punish me when other kids have done really bad things?'"

"Understanding the whole is important for understanding the part"

Hegel? Is that you?? Yes, for it is out with the deeply stupid assertion of silence implying uniqueness, and in with—well, let us recall the immortal words of Bertrand Russell regarding our German philosopher: "the worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives rise."

Let us seek solace, now, in the words of Tim Snyder:

While no one would claim that any framework eliminates politics, there is a clear difference between building a scholarly apparatus and taking on national myths. Refuting a myth is dancing with a skeleton: one finds it hard to disengage from the deceptively lithe embrace one the music has begun, and one soon realizes that one's own steps are what is keeping the old bones in motion. It is easy to be captured by the choreography of mythmaking and -breaking, and hard afterwards to regain one's own rhythm. The musty smell lingers for some time, too. […T]he great nineteenth-century national schemes of history that organize so much historical discussion in our own day […] are metahistorical, a long word that here means "not even wrong."

"Not even wrong". Furthermore, and "[t]he more effective national ideas"—for example, the spectacularly ridiculous patriots' notion of the Empire of Liberty—"involve getting the past wrong; to understand their power to bring about the change they conceal, we must get the past right." Alas, nationalists are incapable of getting the past right, which is but a mere part of why they are so preposterous. The stupidity of patriots is frighteningly concentrated. Nationalism: stupid, romantic, musty detritus that still intrudes from the 19th century. Begone. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So you've just got more pseudointellectual claptrap that fails to address any actual points made? You're not even assaulting the straw man anymore. You're making love to it. Piss off, moron. VictorD7 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Civil War in Settlements section

Is there any editor concensus on having the Civil War mentioned in the Settlements section? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Of course slavery was a prominent cause for the American Civil War. However, I oppose mentioning this in the Settlements section. The United States had yet to exist. Under colonial rule there was no central government, except for the King and Parliment and the Commonwealth of England. There really was no strong opposition to domestic slavery until the early 1800's. In addition the Civil War did not end slavery, the 13th Amendment did. However, even that states convicts are subject to involuntary servitude. I am going by editor concensus on this. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Slavery, as practiced by some settlers, started during the settlement era. The Civil War is only mentioned by name to note the end of slavery. It's the same as saying the horse and buggy era came to an end when the automobile came along. Even though the auto wasn't around during the horse and buggy era, it is okay to mention the auto in terms of noting the end of this era. If we got into details about the auto in a section about the horse and buggy era, that would be inappropriate. Also, the Civil War effectively ended slavery. The 13th Amendment, ratified only a few months before war's end, only made it official. Without the Civil War, the 13th Amendment would only have been a pipe dream written down on paper. For purposes of noting the end of slavery it is perfectly acceptable to mention the Civil War by name, without getting into official details like the 13th Amendment. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Response to Gwillhickers: The Civil War did not specifically end slavery. The result of the Civil War was the defeat of the Confederate South. Slavery was defeated by the 13th Amendment. In addition, the segment ignores Reconstruction, conservative white resistance, and the Jim Crow South, giving the impression that everything was happy after the Civil War ended in terms of race relations. Black Codes were imposed that virtually reenslaved the black race. The subject ignores or denies the violence of conservative whites that followed who took the form of the Klu Klux Klan. The subject also ignores that the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress implemented Reconstruction. The subject ingores the formation of the United States, the formation of abolitionists, the Underground railroad, and other prelude issues that led up to the Civil War. Also ignored is the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : "the segment ignores Reconstruction, conservative white resistance, and the Jim Crow South". We were discussing content in the Settlements section. What section are you referring to? Again, you're all over the map. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Proposed Compromise: Rather then mention the Civil War "effectively ended slavery", state that "slavery was the primary cause of the American Civil War". This would give appropriate context concerning the slavery issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other editor opinions on this matter? Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The section deosn't say "effectively ended", not that this makes any difference. Virtually everyone knows it was the Civil War that brought an end to slavery. We don't need to cut it any finer than that, ala the 13th Amendment, etc, for purposes of this section. Originally you objected to having the Civil War mentioned at all, now you're proposing an idea, a different idea no less, for which to mention it. There is no alteration of meaning or any misleading inference made by simply mentioning slavery's end when the Civil War ended, so I'm not quite understanding your insistence here, which is purely argumentative i.e.offers no vialble reason why it should not be mentioned. This has been explained well enough for you several times now. I would reccomend that you put your energy and valuable time into someting that really matters in terms of subject coverage. Trying to be patient. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the irony is that we are debating the Civil War in the settlements section. First your reference does not link anywhere and I even got a "malware" message when I clicked on the link. It is best only to mention that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. There is an extreme oversimplification of what occured after the American Civil War. I believe that his to go from the Settlements section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed the Civil War information from the Settlements section since divisions over slavery started in the 1780's, well beyond the settlements period. I added information to the Civil War and Industrialization section. Here is the book source: Rodney P. Carlisle (2008), Civil War and Reconstruction, pg. 1 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no "Civil War information", (yet another one of your deceptive over statements) just mention that slavery ended by that time. Context. This was explained to you. You also deleted the citation (Tadman) used for lighter workloads, etc. Please provide reasons for making such reckless deletions. What is the point of discussing anything with you when you ignore explanations and do what you want anyway? You even asked for other opinions and when you got no other reply you still did what you wanted anyway. Again, reference to other eras/events by name are often made in sections covering different eras/events for simple context, e.g. a time reference. No one was "discussing" the Civil war in the Settlements section and you've yet to provide an explaination for removing this time reference, which is why it's been restored. Please stop wasting the time and patience of other editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I did supply reasons for making the changes. You ignored reading them. The Tadman link was noexistant and I even got a "malware" detection. The Civil War was linked in the Settlements section. There is no need to mention the Civil War or allude to the Civil War because the American colonies or states did not divide over slavery until the 1780's. Right now I am feeling fiesty. There is no reason to mention the Civil War since the United States had yet to exist. Your mentioning the Civil War is POV. We need to keep the article neutral. Again the Tadman link is bogus. That alone means there is no alternative then to remove the information. Another source needs to be found. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I made several attempts to link to the Michael Tadman source. A faulty page appeared each time and there was no direct link. I had no choice but to remove the information, reference, and source. An alternative url link or source is needed. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

More pictures

FYI, the top request in old feedback for this article is more pictures. We already have a lot of pictures and a link to Commons which has tons, so I'm not sure there's much to be done about this. -- Beland (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, in some cases I wonder if pictures are not loading in people's browsers at all. -- Beland (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to start the discussion, I did a little ad hoc survey a while back for history articles with GA rating, and found word to pic ratios of 300:1-350:1.

Article toolbox says we have 12760 words ÷ 300 for the upper limit, we have 43 pictures as a standard, and we've got about that many pics and graphs.

I would like to see all right justified to meet the WP:ACCESS standard, as legally blind readers use machines which do not always accommodate other layouts. I think there is also a size guideline, some seem pretty big to me. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Outline for a rewrite of the Settlements section

Victor, appreciate the great effort you have made here, but I suspect the three versions you have brought to the talk page will be a bit overwhelming for editors to receive and deal with all at once. Perhaps it would be best to deal with matters on a per topic or paragraph basis. Or you could propose a basic outline for the section and then bring in corresponding topics in summary for which to build on. In the mean time, you are encouraged, at least by me, to single out the worst offending passages in the existing section and make appropriate edits, of course with discussion if any changes you make are significant and/or questionable or involve omissions of good faith edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, I appreciate allowing editors to view and state their opinions before making sweeping changes to the Settlements section. I believe the Settlements maybe one of the most important segments in the article as far as understanding American history. My view is that the long version is the best. If I were to critisize, I would state that the narration needs to be cleaned up and the time frame is bit hard to follow. Gwillhickers approach to tackling one segment at a time is best. The Second English Revolution is important because the colonies for approximately 11 years were part of the Commonwealth of England, a republic under Oliver Cromwell. One thing is missing is that the Crown was initially hands off in terms of setting up governments. This allowed the Dutch to take over New York. Cromwell changed that policy and ruled the colonies with an Iron fist. As the colonies became more lucrative, the Crown began to meddle more in the affairs of the colonists in an attempt to gain more money, i.e. taxatiion without representation. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A whole 11 years? The section covers almost two centuries, not counting the pre English stuff. Is that segment more important than a paragraph on economic development, a brief discussion of the founding of other colonies, mentions of landmark events like the creation of the House of Burgesses /Mayflower Compact, ect. that would shape and characterize America from that point forward? Besides, the current section's English Civil War segment comes after the Anglo-Dutch war reference, and the text makes no connection between the two. I agree with your last point, which is why I made it in all three versions, except that that behavior began as early as 1624, when the crown seized control of Virginia from the company after it appeared that it would become prosperous after all. This tendency reasserted itself decades later in the Navigation Acts, and of course with other mercantilist acts in the 18th Century. VictorD7 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The piecemeal approach doesn't seem to be working. The section has gotten worse. It follows the brief mention of Jamestown and Plymouth with an extended segment on King Philip's War, which was fought in the 1670s(!), which wasn't the first major Anglo-Indian war, and which is extremely singled out for some reason. In fact only three other wars are mentioned, the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the English Civil War (a large segment for some reason) and French and Indian War (only mentioned because of the seizure of Canada, apparently, since none of the American involvement is recounted), but they're in reverse chronological order, lol. After King Philip's War it goes back in time with a large paragraph about black slavery (though it didn't become that significant in the American colonies until around the 18th Century, and even then wasn't what it would become in the 19th Century), without having really yet said anything about who the colonists themselves were (aside from a single mention of Puritans) or what was going on with....you know...the settlements. That's followed by a line on persistent Dutch influence in the Hudson valley. Seriously, I haven't scoured the archives to trace the section's evolution, but a lot of this reads like part of a larger narrative that was unevenly deleted down at some point, leaving a few exposed, out of place looking surviving segments as evidence of what existed before. After that we finally get some information about colonists, that many were indentured servants, though there's no explanation of what that means, why they were coming, or what they did once in America. Then another line about black slavery. We're apparently into the 18th Century now. No...wait...we're back in time to the English Civil War in the 1650s. After that bizarre segment we're given two sentences about the colonial enslavement of Native Americans. That's followed by an actual decent paragraph giving a take a step back summary (of the appropriate time period) and commenting on the colonists themselves. Though it's marred by a frivolous line about all colonies having legalized the slave trade (it was legal in the first place; none of the European powers had banned it; it certainly wasn't banned among Amerindian tribes or the West African states that were enriched by it). The final paragraph is the Canada one that closes with the colonial population on the eve of the Revolution, and a reminder that almost 20% were black slaves (I would have thought it was more like 90% after reading that). That's it. Almost nothing about the colonists themselves, the mechanism of settlement, the economy, why the American colonies became so important to Britain, and only a little about the salient political/cultural developments near the end. I think the final sentence in all three of my versions makes a better transition to the next section. The section is currently garbage.

I thought about an outline but I'm not much more optimistic about filling in empty spaces on a skeletal structure by committee. I was tempted to just replace the text with one of the altered versions I came up with, and then work with editors to make changes from there, but decided to get feedback instead. I also wanted to show different possible levels of detail we could utilize. If people want to go the outline route, then go ahead. Develop some proposals. The important thing is to get out of the rut by shifting the section discussion away from the couple of topics it's been focused on and onto other stuff. This isn't rocket science. It doesn't have to be hard, overly formal, or needlessly time consuming. VictorD7 (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, I don't know why Gwillhickers insists on refering to the Civil War in the Settlements section and even linking to the 13th Amendment. The Indian slavery needs to be in the "Native American and European Contact" section. The overall theme of the Settlements section needs to be the Crown is hands off and the colonies were semi-autonomous. The lack of control of the British Crown allowed the Dutch to settle in New York. Cromwell is the first ruler to run the colonies with an iron fist sending in the British Navy and troops to keep the colonies under control. Then as the colonies become more properous and independant, the Crown wants more control and this sets off the American Revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : As I've mentioned more times than I care to count, simple mention of the Civil War with a 'link' to the 13th Amendment was mentioned just to add 'context' in terms of slavery's end. "You "don't know why...."?? Cm', quite frankly you have a memory problem and it has caused a lot of needless arguing over the same couple of items again and again. My patience with you is at an end. Much time end effort was spent, wasted, explaining why the C.W. was simply mentioned and yet you still come off with "I don't know why Gwillhickers insists ...",, as if all the discussion and effort I extended you never occurred. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While I obviously agree to some degree with your vague point about semi-autonomous settlement, I don't think Cromwell warrants a mention in the Settlement section any more than the US Civil War does, unless we take it to a higher level of detail than the long version I submitted above does. I'm not saying it's not important, but a lot of important stuff happened that we won't be mentioning, especially in terms of specific names. The general point can be made without excluding the rulers other than Cromwell who did similar stuff. At whatever level of detail we choose, it's important to maintain proportionality. That's one of the fatal flaws with the current section. VictorD7 (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Cromwell was not my addition and we still can note the end of slavery without getting into details. Again, since the beginning of slavery is mentioned, it seems appropriate that we mention it's end, for context. This can be done with a simple mention of the C.W. If you can come up with a better way to note the event without getting into details I would be interested. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I know it wasn't yours, which is why I addressed that to Cmguy. One could argue that the beginning of slavery is worth a mention since it falls in the appropriate time period, while the Civil War has its own section (well half a section) later, but none of my proposals above really say much about the beginning of slavery either. The most in depth is the long version, which just says it started in the early 1600s. The short version just has the By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions line and the 1770 pop. figure at the end. The middle version only has that plus a brief Golden Triangle explanation. All three versions successfully reduce the space spent on slavery (as widely called for) while expanding coverage of other topics. Adding info on the Civil War to the Settlements section may just give slavery even more premature emphasis than it already has. Gwillhickers, do you like the current section? Do you think it's alright? VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said the Civil War was just mentioned in referenced to slavery's end, which started during the early settlement era, there's no reason why we shouldn't mention it's end in the same paragraph for context there. But if there is some issue with that, then how do you suggest we mention slavery's end in the Settlements section? Or is the idea not to mention the end of slavery at all there? 'Do I like the current section'? Not very. It reads like a time line with very little context. There is no mention of colonial culture, religion, taxation, colonial industry, which I can understand. For some reason editors keep getting distracted with other issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is there any more need to discuss slavery's end in the Settlement section than to discuss eventual independence and the end of monarchial rule there? VictorD7 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does not need to mention the Second English Civil War nor the Third (Anglo-Dutch) Dutch War, however, Cromwell needs to be mentioned for ending the semi-autonomous state of the Crown concerning the American colonies. After Cromwell, the Crown becomes more aggressive and finally kicks out the Dutch from New York. Cromwell represents this transition in 1652 to a more active approach to the American colonies. In some respects Cromwell represents a modern head of state in establishing a republic. Did this influence the colonists to become more independent from the crown? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, the Anglo-Dutch wars are more relevant than the Cromwell mention. And why did you delete the black slave pop. figure at the end? I retained that in all three of my versions. As Gwillhickers asks, what "discussion" are you referring to below? Maybe you should take a break from making unilateral changes for a while, pending the ongoing discussion. Otherwise I might just go ahead and replace the whole section with one of my versions, and let people make changes from there. On the bright side, moving the King Philip's war section (which still has an oddly singular specificity for a Native American contact section that has its own problems and issues), bumps up the extended, premature African slave discussion to right after the Jamestown/Plymouth founding, highlighting the unacceptable paucity of coverage the section gives the settlers themselves. VictorD7 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: VictorD7, the Tagman source was faulty and did not link to any article. That is why I removed the information on the slave population. Why should the Settlements section have the slave population preceding the Civil War? I made a general clean up of the article rather then sweeping changes. Cromwell was the first ruler to take an active approach to the Colonies. The Third Anglo-Dutch War got New York in to the English colonies. The overall theme of the settlements needs to be that the Crown was hands off initially and in competition with the Dutch New York settlements. Cromwell changed the policy by sending in the British navy and troops to the colonies to keep the colonists loyal to the Commonwealth of England. The Indian information was moved to the Native American and European Contact section since Indians in the Indian section makes sense and the reader can focus on the topic. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I made a general clean up of the Native American and European Contact and Settlements sections per discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What discussion? Mostly all you did was ignore discussion. The Tadman 2000, article was used as a cite in the Slavery in the United States article, but as web sources go typically, the address is no longer valid, so I see you were quick to sweep any such context under the rug, as you've always done when perspective has been introduced to the subject of slavery in the US. Actually, this was good as it lead me to a variety of sources that indeed makes the point, including Tadman's book The Demographic Cost of Sugar ..., 2000. Also, the census chart on that same page was consistent with the claim made in the Settlements section, that slave populations in the US boomed to some 4 million by 1860. I am pressed for time today, but by this evening I shall have a better worded and better cited account for which to return to the settlement section. Meanwhile I would recommend that you do some homework of your own so you will have an idea of matters.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I may have gotten some sort of spyware when I linked up to the Tadman site. I have been cleaning up my computer this morning. I got a "Malware" identification message when i clicked on the link. There was no article when clicking the link provided only a faulty webpage. There was no page number provided in the reference either. VictorD7 and myself, cmguy777, have been discussing how to improve the article in the history section. I made improvements per discussion such as deleting information on the Second English Civil War and the Third Anglo-Dutch War. I grouped the Indian slavery information in the Native American and European Contact section. We also agreed that mentioning that the British crown intitially allowed the colonists to be semi-autonomous. This led to the Dutch being able to take over the New York colonies. The Crown became more active in controlling the colonies when the colonies became more successful. I advocated keeping Oliver Cromwell in the article since he was the first Puritan ruler to establish firm control over the Colonies by sending in the British Navy and troops in 1652. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm' see my above insert addressing your "I don't know why..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2013

Fix the currency and the ISO code in the infobox.

72.184.74.96 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do your request in this format: Please change X to Y, as <fill in the blank>/source. Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 10:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you even look at the article and see that the ISO code was broken? Your remark, while factually true (for edit requests we do want before and after) was not really helpful in this case. Do we expect all editors to know how arcane infobox coding works, and supply the code fix themselves? I see no problem with the currency, but I did 'fix' the ISO code by removing the footnote link. Anyone know how to actually fix it? --Golbez (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make a talk section for this once. No response. Nobody cares. I tried to fix it, but no matter what I do, I can't get it to work.Kude90 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2013

     The "w" in "Civil war" should be capital.

Wikicrazy678 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC) As far as I can tell, Civil War is the proper name, so it should be capitalized. That's fixed now. After checking the manual of style, I believe that that's the right way to have it. Kude90 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Double/triple refs necessary?

Do we really need double or even triple refs for things like "the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire?" The refs are a little offputting. On some more controversial statements, I can see why this would be necessary. But, CTRL F, and then paste this " ][ " into the bar. There are many, many uncontroversial statements which have multiple refs that seem unneeded. I propose that we start weeding out unnecessary citations, and we start WP:BUNDLING citations. Why do we need 5 citations that the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the cold war? Who knows. But, we can hide those 5, and make it easier to read.Kude90 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Double refs are common throughout Wikipedia. Triple+ refs are sometimes used for controversial statements as a way of showing some sort of consensus among authors. Sometimes additional refs are used as a way of countering those who go around and cherry pick a singular source to support a typically out of context claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Section rewrite

Victor, if you want to go ahead and replace the current section/mess with your middle version above you will at least have my support. -- No one else has objected to your drafts and it contains much of what is in the current section, so go ahead. Just make sure you can provide the cites. We can tweak it chronologically per my outline below and make any other needed edits from there. It's a much better base from which to work on than the current dilapidated mess the section has devolved into. I will re-insert info' regarding the arrival of slaves, their life expectancy in North America vs the Caribbean and Brazil, their resultant population boom, etc. which will be cited extensively. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My schedule has gotten hectic so it might be a couple of days, but I'll examine the sourcing situation and develop the edit. VictorD7 (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have returned some of the info that was deleted a couple of days ago and have added other info, including content that virtually everyone in the Virginia colony was indentured to the Virginia Company, along with info about religious and political division over slavery, various acts, for and against, etc. Sources and citations have been added throughout. Since the settlements played a pivotal role in the development of the country this section by rights should be one of the largest, with a fair portion covering indentured servants, slaves and associated content. At this point, adding/merging various passages and topics from your draft would also be a big help. From what I've seen of it, finding sources shouldn't be difficult. I'll see if I can help you come up with some other sources for it also. The section still needs coverage of the reasons 'why' settlers came to the new world, which I see you've summarized in your long version and there needs to be something said about the various industry the settlers themselves were involved with as you once pointed out here, among other things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the information on Rhode Island is misleading and inaccurate. The Rhode Island law that "outlawed" slavery stated that slavery for Africans would last for 10 years. Technically that is not outlawing slavery only limiting slavery to 10 years. This needs to be changed in the article. Evidently this law was never enforced as there was a high demand for cheap labor.. In addition, the Rhode Island colonists were part of the Golden Triangle slave trade making the rum for slaves. About 1000 Rhode Island ships transported slaves to the New World. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, as far as making a general sweep of the article in the Settlements segment I request that an edited version with references to be viewed by editors be made in the talk page to discuss before any changes are made in the article. Editors then can settle for a final version and give input. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Making a "general sweep" was my suggestion at first. As I've suggested to Victor, at this point , he should introduce various passages from his drafts and merge or combine them with the section, cited of course. Am looking into the Rhode Island matter. I have withdrawn a fair number of library books and I believe I have conveyed their content correctly, but I will search and check again on details, the old fashion way. From what sources are you making your claim. You forgot to say before making the change. Btw, referring to a fundamental change made in a statement as a "narration tweak" is misleading. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, we don't want the article to underestimate the power of slavery or the effects of slavery in the article. Here is my source: John Carter Brown Library Slavery and the Slave Trade in Rhode Island.

Reference to Rhode Island was only made, along with other colonies, to demonstrate the different views on slavery. We don't need to get into lengthy details about one particular colony to do that. Also, I have not 'underestimated' the effect of slavery and clearly mentioned that it led to a civil WAR, something you originally objected to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In my edit, yes I put "Narration tweak"; however, I also stated "Rhode Island limit slavery for Africans to 10 years." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is what the passage you cited says, exactly: "In 1652, Rhode Island passed a law abolishing African slavery, similar to those governing indentured European servants, where “black mankinde” could not be indentured more than ten years." I have changed the text to reflect this. Your edit was very misleading. Please don't start chipping and poking at sourced content in this manner all over again unless you can represent the sources accurately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, "Abolishing property", what does that mean, the Rhode Islanders are communists? I don't understand your edit since there was is no mention of the 10 year limit on slavery. My source clearly stated, "Rhode Island played a leading role in the transatlantic slave trade. Not only did Rhode Islanders have slaves—they had more per capita than any other New England state—but they also entered with gusto into the trade. By the close of the eighteenth century, Rhode Islanders had mounted at least a thousand voyages from Africa to the Americas." Please put this in the article, Gwillhickers. Yes. Slavery was suppose to end after a ten year period for blacks. That was the Rhode Island law, in other words, slavery was "outlawed" for blacks after ten years of being slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Cm' please don't insert details out of chronolgical order: This statement: "whose colonists owned more slaves per captia then any other New England colony.." is not time referenced and obviously not true in 1652 when slavery was first abolished by Williams, yet you stuck it right in before that point. Again, Rhode Island was mentioned along with other examples to show the division in feelings towrads slaves, so we don't need to be filling up that paragraph with more content about the one colony. This also was explained to you only a couple of hours ago. First you mis-quoted your own source, now this. Obviously you're just sniping and making your usual obtuse statements, like this one: "The Rhode Islanders were active in the Atlantic slave trade That should read 'some Rhode islanders' -- and they only used them for labor. Claiming Rhode Islanders, in general, were '"active" in the slave trade' is not at all an accurate statement, on two counts. The section is not the place to load up (distorted) content on one particular colony. Once again, please stop your sniping and your recklees and spiteful editing and collect your thoughts before making edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional : Cm' I just checked on the source you dragged in. Your claim that Rhode Island had the most slaves was in refernce to New England STATES -- long after the settelemts era. This is the exact passage:
"Rhode Island played a leading role in the transatlantic slave trade. Not only did Rhode Islanders have slaves—they had more per capita than any other New England state. That statement was not referring to "colonists", as you claimed. This will make twice you have grossly misrepresented what a source has said. Also, don't you have access to any books, a library, the many e'books available for partial viewing and viewing in their entirity? Why must you drag in any website you stumble across, esp ones with no author's names, no dates, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional : Where did you see "abolishing property"? Cm', what's going on over at your end anyway? I'm sorry, but your involvement here seems a little peculiar altogether. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Peculiar? Gwillhickers you were the one who was adamant about bringing in the 1860 slave population. You opened the door. And now in your double standard you don't want to add any information concerning Rhode Island and the slave trade after the settlement period. I am sure I saw a statement that the Rhode Island colonists abolished "property", i.e. slaves. However this could have been misinterpreted to mean all property. I don't believe Wikipedia needs to start spreading myths concerning Northern slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : This will make at least the third time I am explaining this. Rhode Island was mentioned, per outlawing slavery, along with other colonies, and acts for and against slavery, to show the division over slavery. That is all. Got it this time? It's not a ticket for you to turn the paragraph into something devoted to 'Slavery in Rhode Island'. Yes, peculiar, as you carry on as if no one has ever said a word to you, have made several gross errors and misrepresentations from the very sources you bring in, all the while you some how manage to see things that are simply not there i.e."abolishing property". And here you are again, doing the same thing, expanding coverage on Rhode Island all over again when it was twice explained that the purpose of that paragraph was to demonstrate the division over slavery. If you want to carry on about 'Rhode Island slavery' please go somewhere else and do it. Mention of slave population increase to 4 million by 1860 was to qualify the claim that the slave population boomed in north America. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert:Gwillhickers, the abolitionist movement did not begin until around the 1780's. I am sure there were detractors from slavery in the settlements period, but I would say that was the minority. The churches began to split into the North and South, pro slavery churches and anti slavery churches. Even at the Constitutional Convention in 1789, only one founder specifically spoke out against slavery, Gouverneur Morris. I believed the article was making Rhode Island look like a sanctuary for slaves. That is why I added informaton on the rum for slaves, ships for slaves, shipping of slaves to the West Indies, making sugar that is used to make rum. That is how the Rhode Island colonists made money. Per capita the Rhode Island colonists had the most slaves in New England. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys...what's happening here? Gwillhickers, last I was here (which was just a day ago), we had an agreement to go ahead and replace the current messed up section with my Middle Version (which preserved much of the old text but restored topical proportionality and chronological sanity) as a solid, much improved base from which further changes could be discussed on the talk page. But since then both you and Cmguy have made a slew of unilateral edits striking out in various different directions...almost as if you two are in a race or contest of some sort....sniping at each other here and occasionally undoing each other's article edits. Now you don't want a comprehensive edit but would still like to incorporate parts of my proposals above. You can't write a quality section in this haphazard way. The section has become a monstrous trainwreck.

Gwillhickers, I thought you agreed with the editors who earlier said that the section had too much of a skewed focus on slavery then. If so, why have you dramatically expanded slavery coverage to the point where that massive slavery paragraph alone accounts for 47% of the section by word count? Freaking half. On top of that it's the third paragraph, before anything is really said about the settlers themselves (except for bizarre and potentially misleading commentary on their "servitude" to the company), and is the only really long paragraph in the section. Slavery should not be the focus of the Settlement section. There were no slaves among the original settlers, and it didn't develop into a major institution until much later in the colonial period. Even then it didn't become salient enough to warrant anything approaching that kind of detailed focus in a brief survey article of this type until the 19th Century, and probably not even then (though it merits more coverage later in the article than it does in the Settlement section). I know you're seeking to balance it with expanded info on other topics, but the Settlement section is already long, and restoring any sane topical proportion at this level of detail would blow it up to comically large size (way bigger than my long version). Did you just suddenly decide on a whim that the section should be a lot larger than the other sections? Isn't that the kind of thing we should discuss here first? A line or two about slavery late in the settlement section is fine. Remember, though Cmguy unilaterally deleted the long present line, only a small minority of the population were slaves by 1770, the end of the Settlement section. You also never answered my question about why slavery's eventual end merits discussion in the Settlement section any more than eventual independence would.

Cmguy, no one's said that things like Cromwell and fisheries weren't important, but throughout this process you've tended to fixate on niche topics seemingly at random, and unilaterally shove them into the article with an imputed special emphasis and detail level that's left the section hopelessly warped without substantial deletions, streamlining, additions, and rewording. From the standpoint of a brief survey section of this size....who cares if New England fisheries hauled in "six million pounds of fish in 1675"? What does that even mean? Was that a lot back then? What share of the world total was it? How many were caught in 1660, or 1720? Why single out 1675? Why focus on fish instead of other industries? These are the kinds of questions you should be asking before ramming a random fact you come across into the article with overly specific wording. Same with Cromwell. Why spend so much time explicitly dwelling on Cromwell when there's no mention of Charles II, who reigned longer and was king during the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars that secured what later became the Middle Colonies for England, no mention of James II, who as military commander and Duke of York was whom New York was named after, and no mention of Queen Anne, The Glorious Revolution, Act of Union, the three Georges, etc.? It's like the slavery paragraph Gwillhickers expanded; why devote text space to Roger Williams but not mention vital colonial leaders like John Smith, John Rolfe, Thomas Dale, or William Bradford? James I scarcely gets a mention, and he only merits that because he got the ball rolling. My short version doesn't even mention him by name. We should be summarizing the actions of the monarchy/rulers over the century and a half plus the section covers, not cherry-picking random people and events to highlight.

I was planning on quickly choosing some sources so I could make the previously agreed to edit, but now it looks like there's little point. Before meaningful action is taken we're going to have to sort out the process by which we're going to try and salvage this mess. Remember, people, keep your eye on the big picture. VictorD7 (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Victor you offered some drafts, and at one point I, alone, said go ahead and use one, as a base for us to build on. A couple of days passed and no one said anything, so I went ahead and reintroduced info another editor was quick to sweep under the rug simply because a web link was no longer valid, not bothering to find other sources (there are many -- including Tadman). Having added the info' I then invited you to instead add passages from your drafts and merge them with the section, which I'm hoping you're still going to do. After this is done the passage on slavery wont take up such a large percentage of the article. At least I hope it won't. If you can condense the several sourced passages that demonstrate the religious and political with the same clarity I would be interested in see a draft on that.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You said to make the edit on the 19th and I responded on the 20th. Your new inclusions were so important that they couldn't wait a couple of days, overall section quality be damned? Why are you and Cmguy in such a rush? What's with this extended flurry of unilateral edits? Your monster slavery paragraph doesn't fit into any of my proposed versions. I'd need to type up an ultra-long version. After Cmguy's latest edits that slavery paragraph is up to 49% of the section by word count, with the frivolous later "legalized" segment pushing slavery commentary to 50%, and much of the rest of the section taken up by excess indentured commentary or Cmguy's stuff on Cromwell, 1675 fishing poundage, and other random items. It's gotten worse since I started typing my last response! By contrast slavery takes up 14% of the words in my Middle version, 8% in my Short version, and 20% in the Long version (but that includes Native American slavery). The current Settlement subsection is already the longest by far in the History section. Its slavery paragraph alone is longer in word count than the entire Contemporary and World War/Depression sections, and is almost as long as the Cold War/Civil Rights section. To reduce slavery to 14% without deleting anything would require expanding the section to over three and a half times its current size! That would be almost 3,000 words, or around a third larger than the rest of the History section combined!!! Is that really what you want? Kude and other editors, including you at one point, have said there's way too much emphasis on slavery in the Settlement section. You didn't answer my questions about if or why you changed your mind, or about why we need an extended discussion of slavery's future in the Settlement section. It's unclear what you're referring to regarding condensing in your last sentence. VictorD7 (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Insert : When I first objected to the size of the slavery section it was mostly because the topic was one sided and typically written with obtuse, sweeping and misleading statements typically made out of context, so I introduced that context and demonstrated the division over slavery. This required several good well sourced sentences. Again, if slavery is to be mentioned at all in the section this needs to be made clear. You are still free to introduce passages and topics from your draft and we're still waiting for you to do that. I'm hoping that when you've finally done this the paragraph on slavery, the division over it, will be in proportion to the overall section. I have again just trimmed and condensed a few more items just before writing this reply. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If the section was to place great emphasis on slavery then I'd agree with adding your context, but it doesn't need to, and indeed most editors here have declared that it shouldn't. A brief, general non POV line or two in passing is sufficient. Your latest edits (the Settlement section is apparently in a constant state of flux) only marginally improve things. The section is only slightly shorter than it was and slavery still accounts for 43% of the text by word count, almost all of which is in that bloated paragraph. Far from providing context, such massive niche coverage chiefly accomplishes the opposite of what I suspect you intend, and makes everything about slavery. If some crackpot accused Tom Hanks of murder, it would be at least somewhat counterproductive to fill half of his article with denials and fact based arguments why he couldn't possibly have committed the murder, sucking up oxygen and article space from more pertinent topics. From what I've seen the massive slavery paragraph has no support and can't remain in entirety unless there's a consensus for a dramatic, broader expansion of the entire History section. I might support that btw, but it would require discussion since in the year I've been here the general sentiment has been that the article was already too long. It's grown over that time. I'm currently working on developing a comprehensive Settlement section edit with sources, and should have it ready to go in a day or two. Of course it will by no means be the last word, this being Wikipedia, but it will move the section in the direction most editors have indicated they want it to go. VictorD7 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• See new section below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The new section seems a little too detailed. For a section on "settlements," we've given too much weight to slavery. I think it should be chopped down. For instance, why is the sale of rum for slaves relevant for me if I'm researching on early towns in the 13 colonies?Kude90 (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Williams was briefly mentioned to demonstrate the division over slavery. If some of the others you mention here were also divided we should mention them by name with brief example also and no more than was done with Williams. Lets remember also that the Settlements section covers the very foundation of American existence, so it should be one of the largest sections on the U.S. page as there were many different settlements that existed in many different capacities. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Settlements section(2)

Kude, what do you think about my three proposed alternatives higher on this Talk Page compared to the current overall section? VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think, as you posted above, "keep your eye on the big picture." We should remove all, or at least most, mention of slavery from this section. We need to remember what "settlement" means. We should be sticking strictly to information on the colonies, the towns/cities in those colonies, and the most basic information on those colonies/cities. I definitely prefer the short version. Currently, the Slavery section sticks out like a sore thumb in the settlements section. It feels like it was just thrown in. It goes from the colonization of New England, to slavery, to the colonization of New York. The flow must be fixed, preferably by the removal of that section. It can be put somewhere else, or just deleted entirely. But settlements is not where it belongs. Kude90 (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Kude, I agree, the bit about rum is not relative to the points the section was making about slavery overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Victor, as I said, you've done a good job with the drafts, but if we're going to mention slavery, then it has to be in context and show the major division over this issue that has existed since the settlement era right on into the civil war, which again, is only mentioned to demonstrate and give context to that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise I have just trimmed and condensed some of the wording covering the division over slavery, including mention of Roger Williams. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert Gwillhickers mentioned Rhode Island outlawed slavery. Slavery was only "outlawed" after no more then ten years of labor for African Americans. In other words, any colonist could according to the law own a slave for no more then 10 years. Rhode Island had the highest per capita of slaves in New England. I am willing to wait for VictorD7's edit with references to be put in the talk page. That way other editors can discuss any issues or make suggestions to improve the article. I put in the fisheries to let the reader know that the New England did not completely rely on slavery. I put in Cromwell's opinion of the colonies to let the reader know that there was a disconnect between England and the Colonies as early as 1652. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

R.I. outlawed slavery and even put limits on indentured servitude. Period. Later, out right slavery made its way back into R.I., the details of which I am not entirely familiar, but AGAIN, mention of R.I.s outlawing of slavery was to demonstrated the division over slavery that has existed since the early settlement era. And AGAIN, years later after the settlement era, R.I. had the highest per capita in relation to the STATES, not the settlements, which if you haven't noticed by now is the title of the section. This was clearly explained to you and you're still talking. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, indentured servitude is slavery. There was a 10 year limit in Rhode Island concerning the labor of African slaves. I was going by the source that stated the RI colonists had the most per capita slaves in New England. Now you differentiate between states and settlements when the article states the 1860 census of slaves in the United States. You can't have things both ways by putting in the 1860 census and then state that any other areas in the United States can't be mentioned in the settlements segement. In the meantime I suggest we wait for VictorD7's edits for further input. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

People who were indentured servants entered into it voluntarily and worked on an agreement basis, just as the first 20 Africans did when they arrived in Jamestown in 1619. If you don't know the difference between that and slavery then I submit you have no business writing about slavery. And kindly not mix words. I mentioned 1860, which by the way I have struck from the section, in reference to slave population growth. You used the word "colonists" i.e. "Per capita the Rhode Island colonists..." when the source was clearly referring to the statehood era, which was another one of your distortions -- and now here you are trying to weasel word your way out of it saying it was okay to say that because I referred to 1860, as if you think we're just all so stupid. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Apologize for erroneous statement. 1860 was not among the details I trimmed, however it has been omitted now out of consideration and respect for editors who have respect for the page's stability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the Rhode Island law was specific for Africans. From what I have read whites were indentured servants while Africans were slaves. The Rhode Island law in essense made black slaves into indentured servants. The slavery article states that indentured service is a form of slavery. The only difference, I suppose, was there was a time limit on the service. The source stated Rhode Islanders had the highest per capita of slaves then any New England state. You are correct. I inferred that during the colonial period the Rhode Islanders had more slaves per capita then other New England colonies. I would need a source that had slave stastitics on colonial Rhode Island slavery. With that stated, you did introduce the statehood period when you introduced the 1860 census. Rhode Islanders did have more per capita slaves then any New England state. You struck the 1860 census from the section. That is appropriate. Thanks. We need to keep the statehood period seperate from the settlement period. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the article continues to mention the the 1860 census. If that is the case then that opens the door to mentioning Rhode Islanders had more slaves per capita then any New England state. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The paragraph is about the division over slavery. If we had mentioned that slaves in the settlement era were the ancestors to most modern day African Americans, would this "open the door" to start dumping in details, sentences, about modern day America? 1860 was made in reference to 'overall' populations and is not even specific to any one colony, much less a 'state'. It simply qualifies the point that life expectancy of slaves in north America settlements was such that it allowed for a booming population growth, in contrast to those slaves that were sent to the Caribbean and Brazil. Your details are about one colony and now you've jumped track and have make an isolated comment about the 'state' of Rhode Island which does not qualify any other point in the settlements section, unlike the 1860 reference, and has nothing to do with the division over slavery. Your reference to Rhode Island statehood serves no purpose in the paragraph covering the division over slavery.
Last -- Other editors objected to the size of the paragraph on slavery and so I trimmed a number of details and removed several sentences and topics, but you still come back and load it up with details about rum and more details about the State of Rhode island. Please stop with your hasty irrational edits obviously made in anger and frustration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers, the 1860 census in my opinion opens the door to mentioning states in the settlements section. The Rhode Islanders were active in the slave trade and you deleted this from the article. That is POV. In my opinion you are attempting to downplay or deny that that the Rhode Island shippers were heavily active in the slave trade. You trimmed the part about the slave trade, the system the perpetuated slavery in the settlements. I was giving an example of how the "Golden Triangle" worked and this was edited from the segment. Would you at least acknowledge or allow in the article the the people of Rhode Island were heavily invovled in the African slave trade. I am waiting for VictorD7's edits and hopefully any issues in this segment can be resolved. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't even rational. Again, that paragraph is about the division over slavery. The Rhode Island STATE comment you jammed into the middle of it has nothing to do with that subject. And again, here you are referring to "Rhode Islanders" in your typical obtuse out of context manner, which doesn't even pertain to the early settlement era. You didn't say some merchants and shippers in Rhode Island. No matter, it still has nothing to do with the subject on division over slavery. As evidenced in your sweeping language here also you are pushing a POV, as you have always been known to do regarding slavery. Suggest you take your "opinion" and run it by someone who doesn't know any better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: I see that the 1860 census has been removed from the Settlements section. That is acceptable. The Rhode Islanders were heavily active in the slave trade and I believe this needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the pages committed to slavery in America and be sure to make accurate and clear statements, in context, and not misrepresent the sources as you have done numerous times here and in the past. I would recommend other editors to watch your activity. It has proven, by your own hand, to be less than honest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The Rhode Islanders were part of the slave trade and somehow that equates to me being dishonest. Why can't you allow Rhode Islanders were heavily active in the slave trade be part of the Settlements section? I would hope other editors watch my activity and yours also. I am not ashamed of any of my edits nor American history. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Victor, see my latest insert addressed to you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Outline

Here is a suggested outline for which to model the existing section around:

I. Introduction: i.e.Following Columbus' discovery...

a. Reasons for flight to the new world.

1. Freedoms

2. Enterprise, charters

3. Indentured servants (they made up approximately half of the early settlement population)...

b. General summary covering early settlement hardships, contact with Indians, etc

II. Notable settlements, noting wars, involvements with Indians good/bad and any slavery involved.

a. ... (no more than a few sentences for each settlement / group w/ appropriate links)

b. ...

c ... etc

III. Colonial life leading into the Independence and expansion section

a. Colonial customs, industry, etc

b. laws, taxes

c. rebellion to English rule

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft w/ coverage on slavery

Victor, re your middle version. As I've said, you've done a good job with all the drafts, well written as they are. However they don't say a thing about the deep rooted division that has always existed over slavery and that most settlers were very conscientious over the issue. If we can get this important perspective into the 'middle version' that would be great. The 'life expectancy/treatment in north America' and 'division over slavery' topics should be covered definitively, not with just some off the cuff mention of it. Imo, these topics should be covered with a few sentences and appropriately placed somewhere in the middle version. In that event they would be well proportioned, yet not understated. In the mean time you need to start affixing citations to your middle draft if you intend on using it. A plan?
Add: Below I have incorporated a few sentences, in bold, into the draft, middle version, to this effect, already cited. I believe the perspective is now well represented and not out of proportion with the rest of the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Middle version with addtions in bold

After Columbus' discovery of the new world in 1492 other explorers followed. The first Spanish explorers landed in "La Florida" in 1513. Spain set up settlements in California, Florida, and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the United States. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. Many early European colonies failed due to starvation, disease, harsh weather, Indian attacks, or warfare with European rivals. The fate of the “lost” English colony of Roanoke in the 1580s is an enduring mystery.

James I on April 10, 1606 chartered The Virginia Company with the purpose of establishing English settlements on the eastern coast of North America. The Virginia Colony was planted in 1607 with Jamestown and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620. Some 100,000 Puritans later settled New England, especially the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Both colonies suffered initial hardships and great loss of life, but eventually stabilized and became the first successful English settlements in America. Both also saw efficiency greatly improve when personal land grants replaced the early communal operations. The continent’s first elected legislative assembly, Virginia’s House of Burgesses created in 1619, and the Mayflower Pact, signed by the Pilgrims before disembarking, established precedents for the pattern of representative self-government and constitutionalism that would develop throughout the American colonies.

Other New England colonies were established. Much of the territory between them and Virginia was controlled by the Dutch until England seized it in the late 17th Century following the Anglo-Dutch Wars, leading to the creation of the Middle Colonies. Trade with and Christian evangelism to local Indians were established in the colonies’ early days, though relations would alternate from friendly to tense, and were characterized by periodic bouts of warfare, often with some tribes allying themselves with the English against common foes. Incidents like the massacre of 1622, the Pequot War, and King Philip’s War caused great destruction and threatened the existence of entire colonies, but resulted in reprisals that ultimately saw the power of enemy tribes reduced or broken, facilitating the expansion of English settlements.

Most settlers in every colony were small farmers, but other industries developed. Tobacco was popular in Europe and became a major early cash crop. Furs, fishing, lumber, rum, construction, wheat, ranching, and eventually shipbuilding contributed to economic growth. By the late colonial period Americans were producing one seventh of the world’s iron supply. Cities eventually dotted the coast to support local economies and serve as trade hubs. English colonists were supplemented by waves of Scotch-Irish and other groups. As coastal land grew more expensive people pushed west into the hills and backwoods, seeking to carve an existence out of virgin wilderness.

Settlers were a diverse mix of adventurers, profit seekers, people escaping religious persecution, and those who simply saw an opportunity for a better life. Many came as indentured servants, either convicts or people who otherwise couldn’t afford passage voluntarily signing contracts, and were set free after completing their specified term of service. Two-thirds of all Virginia settlers between 1630 and 1680 arrived indentured. The first African slaves were brought to the Americas by Spanish conquistadors in the 1500s shortly after Columbus' voyages. Most slaves were shipped to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was about seven years. Life expectancy was much higher in North America because of less disease and better food and treatment, so the numbers of slaves grew rapidly into the millions by excesses of births over deaths, Colonial society was largely divided over the religious and moral implications of slavery and many colonies passed acts for and against the practice. By the turn of the 18th century, African slaves were becoming the primary source of bonded labor in many regions. This was especially true in the south, where the land was better suited for large scale cash crop cultivation than the rocky ground and cool climate of New England, though New Englanders, especially rum producers, participated in the lucrative "Golden Triangle" African slave trade, involving planters in European colonies in the Caribbean, shippers, and the African tribal chiefs who provided them with slaves.[53][54]

With the 1729 division of the Carolinas and the 1732 colonization of Georgia, the thirteen British colonies that would become the United States of America were established.[59] All had local governments with elections open to most free men, with a growing devotion to the ancient rights of Englishmen and a sense of self-government stimulating support for republicanism. With extremely high birth rates, low death rates, and steady settlement, the colonial population grew rapidly. Relatively small Indian populations were eclipsed. The Christian revivalist movement of the 1730s and 1740s known as the Great Awakening fueled interest in both religion and religious liberty.

In the French and Indian War, British forces seized Canada from the French, but the francophone population remained politically isolated from the southern colonies. Excluding the Native Americans, who were being conquered and displaced, those thirteen colonies had a population of 2.6 million in 1770, about one-third that of Britain. Nearly one-fifth of those living in what would become the United States were black slaves, though only a minority of whites owned slaves.[61] The colonies’ distance from Britain had allowed the development of self-government, but their success motivated monarchs to periodically seek to reassert Royal authority.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with the above edit. However, I believe VictorD7 needs to add references or possibly change the narration. One thing missing is the Crowns relationship with the colonies. At first the Crown was hands off and this led to the Dutch taking over New York. Then the Crown become more controlling when the colonies were becoming lucrative and this led the American Revolution. The New England fisheries were highly successful. I would mention Cromwell, because the colonies were under a republic, not a monarchy, under the Commonwealth of England. Also needs mentioned is how the Crown created a colony through charters. Cmguy777 (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy, isn't your point about the Crown becoming more controlling covered by the final sentence? And it does mention the Virginia Company charter, though it doesn't get into that level of detail after that. Perhaps at some point we can add a tight, concise segment summarizing the charter process. VictorD7 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Yes. Adding about the Crown charter process is good. I would add the implementation of taxes on the colonists is an example of this control including the forced harboring of British soldiers in private homes. When did that get started? Cromwell? I don't know. The Crown wanted a piece of the American pie. What is missing in the current article is that the "hands off" approach of British colonies led to New York being overtaken by the Dutch. There needs to be something in the article that relates to the British and Dutch at odds with each other over the colonies. Once the Dutch were defeated then the Crown starts to take more control of the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think it has too much on slavery, but it's down to 23% by word count (as is), and I can live with that in the spirit of compromise. I've about got the sources lined up for the new stuff potentially requiring it and will implement the edit soon. I'll also make a couple of minor tweaks to the above version, like streamlining the old Puritan sentence so it doesn't disrupt the two colonies narrative, and changing "100,000" to "tens of thousands". I'm also changing the population figure at the end since the existing source seems to have misread the Census document, mistakenly citing "white and negro" as just "white", and adding the white and black figures for an inflated total. Since only around 90% of blacks were slaves (per other sources), however, the existing "Nearly one-fifth" language is still correct, and though it was recently deleted I'll restore it for now since it was there for a long time. If people object we could always just change it to "around one fifth" and/or drop "slaves". [VictorD7?]

The American colonies were excluded from the restriction of quartering of soldiers in the 1689 Mutiny Act. Cromwell may could have quartered soldiers (as early as 1652) since the Act was created after Cromwell. Here is the source: Alan Rogers (1974), Empire and Liberty: American Resistance to British Authority, 1755-1763, p. 76 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1689 act applied to the American colonies as well, it is just that the colonial governors chose to break the law. Governments sometimes do. Billeting soldiers in private homes would have been illegal even without the 1689 act. TFD (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another good source: Alvin Rabushka (2008) Chapter 7 Taxation In Colonial America, 1620-1688 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented the edit. I went ahead and just left the racial breakdown at the end out, though the "black" population is easily visible on the source page specified if someone wants to add it. Regarding potential future additions, I'd suggest focusing on Britain's intent to exploit the colonies through mercantilist policies. Could fit nicely around the end and would provide more of an explanatory build up to the Independence section. VictorD7 (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good edit VictorD7. The last sentence is good. More could be said how Crown charters worked. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)