This is the user sandbox of TheVirginiaHistorian. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.
Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!
I wonder if editors could comment on how we describe the overall results.
To me, colonial America was controlled by the British government, but had a great degree of internal self-government. While not a democracy, the colonial governments relied on local elites for support. They lost this however after the British parliament imposed "intolerable" legislation and sent colonial officials to impose imperial legislation. Many colonists, from all ranks of society, remained loyal to Britain and some 80,000 "loyalists" left the colonies after independence.
The distinguished historian Gordon S. Wood saw colonial America as a stratified society that would change into an egalitarian society as a result of the revolution.
Gwillhickers sees colonial America as a semi-feudal state with lords and ladies and personally controlled by the King of Great Britain. A class of colonial officials from England formed the upper class, but left following the ARW.
I don't know how accepted Wood's view is, but I see no support for Gwillhickers' view in reliable sources.
For the overall results section,[2] we need to distinguish the degree of support various views have. It reflects Gwillhickers' view and uses Wood as a source. I think that Wood's view is misinterpreted and is in any case a minority view.
(a) I am reluctant to spend narrative space in extended discussion of historiography on any aspect of the article topic, except in a very few summary sentences in a final end-of-article "Legacy and commemoration" section.
(b) The wholesale import of a political section from another Wikipedia article at American Revolution into the military article is (i) mirroring another article, a practice that is deprecated in Wikipedia policy -----, and (ii) off topic. The article top hat reads, This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution.
(c) The imported POV (I'm not sure that Gwillhickers should embrace it in a wiki-fencing match here) in the once named "overall results" section, mis-characterized American colonial society as "feudal" when that term of historiography has only a limited application to the colonial Tidewater Atlantic seaboard of the Chesapeake Bay, south (and the British Caribbean).
I propose, the following language, supported by RS footnotes, below. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Political legacy
The American Revolution established the United States and set an example to overthrow government by monarchy and imperial colonialism. The new republic spanned a large territory, justified to the world by Enlightenment ideals with widespread political participation. That participation was further expanded by land grants made to Continental and militia veterans. The French, Haitian, Latin American Revolutions were inspired in part by the American Revolution, as were others into the modern era.
In their home states, returning veterans sought to expand the voting franchise to include all those who had served in the American Revolutionary War, and to embrace all those who enrolled in their county militias from ages 21 to 60. During the elections for delegates to state conventions to ratify the US Constitution in 1788, that goal was attained in Virginia for that one election only. Most states did not expand the franchise to militia members regardless of property holdings until after the War of 1812 and later at the rise of Jacksonian democracy.
Returning veteran settlement included a variety of backgrounds. Enlisted men, several hundreds of whites and a few dozen free blacks, received land grants from Congress or their home states to settle on family farms on the western frontier, and thereby met the land requirement to vote. Germans who had fought for the British returned with their families to settle on the frontier, achieving citizenship within one year for their adopted states, before US citizenship. "Soft" Tories, the two-thirds of Loyalist militias who did not migrate to British colonies in Canada and the Caribbean, either made a home among their former neighbors, or migrated west to the western frontier.[c]
Social legacy
The Enlightenment reasoning to abolish slavery was widespread among Revolutionary war veterans. They had seen black troops perform well under fire both in state militias and in Continental Line regiments.[d] At the close of the war, Revolutionary officers North and South, supported freedom and land grants to all surviving black veterans, regardless of their previous condition of servitude, but they were outvoted in their state legislatures. Large numbers of enlisted veterans south and west of the Tidewater joined Methodist and Baptist religious sects that were racially integrated, admitting both free black and enslaved membership.
Revolutionary veterans made up majorities in the state legislatures that took actions to free slaves. By 1804, all the northern states had soon passed laws outlawing slavery. George Washington, personally manumitted his slaves and did so through his will without an Act of Assembly. Veteran majorities in both House and Senate passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves went into effect in 1808. John Marshall helped found the American Colonization Society, a manumission society to establish an African nation of self-governing freed slaves.
Washington's Continental officer corps, including Naval officers and French officers with Congressional commissions, founded a brotherhood of the Society of the Cincinnati to care for their fellow officer's widows, orphans, and one another in old age.[e] In the early 1800s, state chapters with strong republican principles such as Virginia, self-dissolved the hereditary organization as the last widow of the Revolution's serving officers died. Later these chapters were reconstituted to memorialize their ancestors' service to the republic, and generally promote American patriotism.
Memory legacy
- a balanced discussion of mainstream historiography
^Morris signed two of the documents, one as a delegate from New York, and one as a delegate from Pennsylvania.
^Morris signed two of the documents, one as a delegate from New York, and one as a delegate from Pennsylvania.
^including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803.
^The black Rhode Island regiment on Washington's left flank at Monmouth famously not only turned back a British bayonet charge for the first time by Americans, but then counter-charged with a bayonet attack of their own. As many as twenty-percent of the Northern Continental Line regiments were free blacks.
^Despite fears of Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry of Virginia militia service in the Revolutionary War, George Washington did not orchestrate Cincinnati membership as a cabal to impose a national government on the United States. While he did encourage his former officers such as John Marshall to run for delegate in the Virginia Ratification Convention, Society members who were elected from their home counties split 50-50 over the final vote to ratify.
Very well done – perhaps too well. We've gone from an existing section of 1513 characters / 227 words, to a proposed section of 4266 characters / 644 words - a threefold increase. I would omit the details about Patrick Henry's and Washington's relationship with the Society and other details quoted below:
... including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803.
Despite fears of Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry of Virginia militia service in the Revolutionary War, George Washington did not orchestrate Cincinnati membership as a cabal to impose a national government on the United States. While he did encourage his former officers such as John Marshall to run for delegate in the Virginia Ratification Convention, Society members who were elected from their home counties split 50-50 over the final vote to ratify.
...including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803. PS, how do I get rid of all this underlining in my reply? I tried using the </u> but it's not working. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I think I got rid of all of them; just a friendly note to TheVirginiaHistorian to remember to close their <u> tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It covers exclusively the legacy within the United States. It does not cover the Rise of the "Second" British Empire (1783–1815) and how the Revolution changed the fate of Australia. Our article on the British Empire covers the changes:
"Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic. Forced to find an alternative location after the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in 1783, the British government turned to Australia. The coast of Australia had been discovered for Europeans by the Dutch explorer Willem Janszoon in 1606 and was named New Holland by the Dutch East India Company, but there was no attempt to colonise it. In 1770 James Cook charted the eastern coast of Australia while on a scientific voyage to the South Pacific Ocean, claimed the continent for Britain, and named it New South Wales. In 1778, Joseph Banks, Cook's botanist on the voyage, presented evidence to the government on the suitability of Botany Bay for the establishment of a penal settlement, and in 1787 the first shipment of convicts set sail, arriving in 1788. Britain continued to transport convicts to New South Wales until 1840, to Tasmania until 1853 and to Western Australia until 1868." Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Dimadick has made a remarkably clear expression of one aspect of the 'worldwide ARW', as we have discussed at some length on this page. Its sweep is comparable to our assistant professor at the University of Alabama, a Dr. Lockwood, who writes in his book, "the imperial American Revolution spread worldwide" (Lockwood 2019). Widely acknowledged as a masterful storyteller, Lockwood shows examples of the economic ruin among Andes Indios and Australian aboriginals that occurred in his view as a direct result of the untoward effects rippling out from the worldwide economic disruption by the War of American Independence. While most serious scholars gave the effort little notice, one scholarly journal that did review the book observed that Lockwood had connected dots where there were no connections.
In short, the scope of an article primarily devoted to the military aspects of the American Revolutionary War that established a struggling republic unable to subdue the disparate westerly Indian tribes of its own interior for over fifty years, did not establish of the Second British Empire, never mind did it have a reach to effect the outcomes of British colonization in Australia into the Victorian Era.
To place our editor query in some historical context, we should ask ourselves, Which RS cites correspondence in George Washington's published papers, either as General of the American armies, or as President of the United States, addressing Queen Victoria on this topic, considering Australia as a British penal colony? --- Now, I will concede that it is of some note that a dozen or so Irishmen banished by Queen Victoria for risings in Ireland, later achieved the rank of Brigadier General during the American Civil War on the Union side for liberty, the republic and democracy. But I do not want that included in the 'Legacy' section of the ARW, whatever the intriguing connection may be.
Let's put a chronological limit on the 'Legacy' horizon at Thomas Jefferson's Inauguration for his first term as President: the "Revolutionary Era", the "Constitutional Era", and the "Federalist Era" of American history, April 1775 - March 1801? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
This Norman K. Risjord needs attention from an expert in Virginia. The specific problem is: Notability is challenged as sourced to colleagues at U. of Wisconsin and W&M Omohundro Institute for early American studies. See the talk page for details.WikiProject Virginia may be able to help recruit an expert.(June 2021)
Rignault, Daniel P.; DeBakey, Michael E. (2004). The History of theFrench Military Medical Corps(PDF). Paris: Ministère de la défense, Service de santé des armées. NLM 101659674. Archived from the original on 2004. By 1783, when fighting stopped, a total of 2,112 Frenchmen had lost their lives for the independence of the United States of America. Footnote #17. Dawson W. Les 2112 Franqais morts aux Etats-Unis de 1777 a 1783 en combattant pour I'independance americaine [The 2112 French soldiers who died in the United States from 1777 to 1783 in combat for American independence]. Extracted from Journal de la Societe des Americanistes. Nouvells Serie, t XXVIII, 1936, pp 1-154. Paris, France: Au Siege de la Societe; 1936.{{cite book}}: Check date values in: |archive-date= (help); Unknown parameter |duplicate-quote= ignored (help)
American Revolutionary War for independence and republic Concord to Yorktown
American Revolutionary War for independence and empire Concord to Gibraltar et al
War of American Independence for independence and republic Concord to Yorktown
War of American Independence for independence and empire Concord to Gibraltar et al
British insurrection by Congress in North America
War on Britain by Congress = war on Britain by others
British insurrection by Congress in North America
War on Britain by Congress = war on Britain by others
US History Military History History Project N.Am. Indigenous British Empire
Military History
Military History History Project
None
5
2.5
1
0
Lord North A Tory for war to keep American colonies
Lord Rockingham A Whig for peace, trade, colonial independence
The chart organizes a summary of the discussion.
Talk:ARW – apply RS Mays in article narrative TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
A. Robinvp11
B. ARW text
C. TheVirginiaHistorian
- Robin accusation here - Robin [ here] Robin here struck through by post - #1 - #2 - #3 - #4 - prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic
modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow
continuity - used at this WP article and sister articles for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic
modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow
Request for Volunteer Admin: reconcile three project ratings
American Revolutionary War is rated variously across three related projects: (1) B-class, Top-importance at WikiProject American Revolutionary War; (2) Start-class at WikiProject Military History, demoted from C-class anonymously after an upgrade request from C-class. (3) C-class, Low-importance by Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team/ v0.5.
- The ARW page had an average daily pageview of 5,761 for the year-to-date 10/09/2019 last year, increased to 7,020 this year-to-date, with spikes July 4th at 31,000 and 66,000 respectively. The PAGE VIEW status shows the Start-class from a Project without an importance rating for the article, NOT the B-class from seven projects rating it Top-, High- and Mid-importance. -
Although each of the two principal editors over the past eight months, TheVirginiaHistorian and Gwillhickers, are qualified to rate the article B-status, we seek ‘another set of eyes’ to confirm our progress and suggest avenues of further improvement before applying for a ‘Good Article’ review among the nine WikiProjects following the article.
B1. Suitably referenced and cited. All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; All 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Redundant footnotes at each cite have been removed, over 45 items. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”. REMOVED vandal footnotes referencing nonsense, Apple-apps, et al, & WP:blocked Lulu-published works, identified self-published websites for future Talk-page removal. B3. Defined structure with a lead section. The lead section is reduced to five paragraphs of summary material from the article. The body is reorganized into six topically focused sections, with half the previous TOC sections. B4. Free from grammatical errors.
B2. Reasonably covers the topic. Article top hat: "This article is about military actions primarily." Narrative trimmed over 15% to “readable prose size” by using copyedits and three substantial moves of text-footnote-references to wp:Talks at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War. To accommodate contributors, much detail is maintained in article “Notes” with a HUGE Kb count in an effort to stabilize the article, avoid edit wars, and slow the additions of Talk sections. * also see ARTICLE ISSUES paragraph below *.
- (2) PROMINENT ADHERENTS for the American Revolution as a civil-war-rebellion among British subjects in North America, with peace made exclusively between them at the Anglo-American 1783 Peace of Paris. These include thirteen (13) distinguished scholars recognized by the History Pulitzer Commission: Bernard Bailyn 1968, Daniel Boorstin 1974, John J. Ellis 2000, Robert Middlekauff 1983, Forrest McDonald 1986, Richard White* 1992, Gordon S. Wood 1993, Lance Banning 1996, Jack Rakove 1997, Joseph J. Ellis 2001, Daniel Richter* 2002, David Hackett Fischer 2005, and lastly Larrie D. Ferreiro* 2007, who is sometimes misinterpreted by wp:editors. :: * - finalists. -
B5. NEW Supporting infobox and images. Our collaboration at wp:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop published a NEW COLLAGE at Infobox, three images related to the article Top-hat “about military actions primarily”. NEW PORTRAITS: two of the three British CiCs in America; War Chief-Colonels with regular British & US commissions; Mississippi R. conquerors with independent commands: Spanish General Galvez and Virginia Colonel Clark. NEW MAPS: North American Indian tribes & languages; British and Spanish claims, French cessions immediately prior; King’s Proclamation Line and parallel Indian Treaties; NEW SECTION American Logistics & landing scene.
Norman Rijord, U. Wisconsin-Madison faculty Fulbright lectureships & visiting lecturer posts
- NEW BALANCE. pro-British political image; state-house and 1st Continental Congress scenes; American victory in South scene; British fleet Hudson scene; French-gifted USN ship; Dutch credit in caption at HMS Serapis scene; French fleet at Newport RI; British at Charleston; Galvez with Spanish at Pensacola; (first-last) USS Alliance image; pair portraits for Vergennes of ancient regime & Lafayette of Enlightenment French; Ms. Hart captures 6 British infantry; pair portraits of British Tory-Am-war & Whig-Am-peace Prime Ministers; George III in Speech from the Throne robes for American independence, peace and trade.
- NEW SUB-SECTIONS. British off India; British off Saintes, Caribbean; British defense of Gibraltar scene. AFTERMATH, Territory section: paired portraits of of Jay for evacuating British forts & US Gen. Wilkinson for a Spanish agent; scene of Revolutionary graves with mass grave at Saratoga. -
(1) Nature of the American War: At Military History Project, reviewer deprecated article for Infobox not restricting participants to “Belligerents” of nation-states declaring war, as at War of the Austrian Succession. Reviewer an others at that Project Talk would not entertain parallel between ARW and Spanish Civil War “combatants”. In the ARW, besides belligerents and co-belligerent nation-states with declarations of war, page editors argued to include additional combatants: American Indian tribes on both sides, American-side state militias, British-side “Hessians”.
- (2) Scope of the American War, wp:editors have advanced a "Global American Revolutionary War" that by their POV historiography, takes place after October 1781 Yorktown, and is prosecuted without Congress knowledge, consent, or participation of its commissioned officers, but more than for Congress co-belligerent 30 months of overlap with the ARW. It is a Global-ARW extended in not merely by timeline overlap, but supposedly by a documented "spread" --- after no American replacements for regiments ending their enlistment, furloughing all regiments home without pay, selling off or gifting US Navy ships for past-due Congressional debt, and Anglo-American Preliminary Peace. "End of the ARW" all hinges on Absolute Euro monarchs making peace with Britain, formally at the Versailles Palace outside Paris; them alone, without Congress or Parliament.
- BUT TO THE CONTRARY, war was prosecuted against Britain by declared war from France and Spain under the Bourbon Family Pact and their Aranjuez Convention, Articles 5 & 7 for imperial expansion at British expense. These war aims were pursued at odds with the treaty terms of the Franco-American 1778 Treaty of Alliance, Art. 8 that provided for ending war against Britain at "tacit" British acknowledgement of American independence. Mahon 1890 calls the second war against Britain by Euro great powers as the "Bourbon War of 1778", but the term does not seem to be currently fashionable. -
French and Indian War 1754-1763 pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by Native American allies.
Seven Years' War 1756–1763 a global conflict, "a struggle for global primacy between Britain and France," which also had a major impact on the Spanish Empire
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies in Congress against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation.
War of the American Revolution[1] Bourbon War of 1778[2] 1778–1783 In 1778, the American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution [against Britain], expanding into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents. Most of the fighting outside of America was naval combat, among [Britain and France, Britain and Spain, Britain and the Dutch],[3] the last British-European war with the Bourbons as their enemies.[4]
- This "Global ARW" can be charitably put down to misunderstanding the oft-quoted Michael Clodfelter 2017, pp. 124-135, who deprecates the “popular” meaning of "Revolutionary War", one limited to the British-subject colonial rebellion or civil war in America, a tag "also more provincial" (p.124). --- Instead Clodfelter titles his article, "War of the American Revolution: 1775-83" to embrace all wars waged upon Britain during that period. In the Clodfelter view, these comprise all formal British belligerents of that time span, American Congress, French and Spanish Bourbons, the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of Mysore, India. See the casualty statistics for “that Clodfelter war" and the wp:editor "Global American Revolutionary war" on pages 134-135. -
RECONCILE THREE PROJECT RATINGS. American Revolutionary War is rated B-class, Top-importance at WikiProject American Revolutionary War; but Start-class at WikiProject Military History, demoted from C-class anonymously after a request for upgrade from C-class to B-class. Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team/ v0.5 rated the article C-class, Low-importance. The ARW page had an average daily pageview of 5,761 for the year-to-date 10/09/2019 last year, increased to 7,020 this year-to-date, with spikes July 4 at 31,000 and 66,000 respectively. The PAGE VIEW status shows the Start-class from a Project without an importance rating, NOT the B-class from seven projects rating it Top-, High- and Mid-importance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Although each of the two principal editors over the past eight months, TheVirginiaHistorian and Gwillhickers are qualified to rate the article B-status, we seek ‘another set of eyes’ to confirm our progress and suggest avenues of further improvement before applying for a ‘Good Article’ review among the nine WikiProjects following the article.
B1. Suitably referenced and cited. All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; NEW 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Redundant footnotes at each cite have been removed, over 45 items. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”. REMOVED vandal footnotes referencing nonsense, Apple-apps, et al, & WP:blocked Lulu-published works, identified self-published websites for future Talk-page removal.
B2. Reasonably covers the topic. Article top hat: “This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution.” Narrative trimmed over 15% to “readable prose size” by using copyedits and three substantial moves of text-footnote-references to wp:Talks at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War. To accommodate contributors, much detail is maintained in article “Notes” with a HUGE Kb count in an effort to stabilize the article, avoid edit wars, and slow the additions of Talk sections. * also see ARTICLE ISSUES paragraph below *.
- (2) PROMINENT ADHERENTS for the American Revolution as a civil-war-rebellion among British subjects in North America, with peace made exclusively between them at the Anglo-American 1783 Peace of Paris. These include thirteen (13) distinguished scholars recognized by the History Pulitzer Commission: Bernard Bailyn 1968, Daniel Boorstin 1974, John J. Ellis 2000, Robert Middlekauff 1983, Forrest McDonald 1986, Richard White* 1992, Gordon S. Wood 1993, Lance Banning 1996, Jack Rakove 1997, Joseph J. Ellis 2001, Daniel Richter* 2002, David Hackett Fischer 2005, and lastly Larrie D. Ferreiro* 2007, who is sometimes misinterpreted by wp:editors. :: * - finalists.
B3. Defined structure with a lead section. The lead section is reduced to five paragraphs of summary material from the article. The body is reorganized into six topically focused sections, with half the previous TOC sections.
B4. Free from grammatical errors.
B5. NEW Supporting infobox and images. Our collaboration at wp:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop published a NEW COLLAGE at Infobox, three images related to the article Top-hat “about military actions primarily”, replacing the previous featuring a British surrender parade at Yorktown. NEW IMAGES for commanders: two of the three British CiCs in America; War Chief-Colonels with regular British & US commissions; Mississippi R. conquerors with independent commands: Spanish General Galvez and Virginia Colonel Clark; NEW MAPS for Background and political developments: North American Indian tribes & languages; British and Spanish claims, French cessions immediately prior; British strategy: King’s Proclamation and Indian Treaties;
- NEW BALANCE. Background and political developments pro-British image; state-house and 1st Continental Congress scenes; Early engagements: American victory in South scene; British New York counter-offensive: British fleet scene; Foreign intervention: French-gifted USN ship; credit to Dutch in the caption at capture of HMS Serapis scene; Stalemate in the North: French fleet scene at Newport RI; War in the South: British at Charleston scene; Mississippi River theater: Galvez with Spanish at Pensacola scene; American strategy: Continental Navy section: (bookend) USS Alliance scene; France section: images for Vergennes of ancient regime & Lafayette of Enlightenment French; NEW SECTION American Logistics & landing scene; Women: Nancy Morgan Hart captures 6 British infantry; Global war and diplomacy: British Tory-Am-war & Whig-Am-peace Prime Ministers; George III in Speech from the Throne robes for American independence, peace and trade;
- NEW SECTIONS. In Global war and diplomacy: BRITISH WARS ‘OVERSEAS’ sections: NEW British America and Empire: British off India scene; NEW Peace of Paris section: British off Saintes scene; British defense of Gibraltar scene. Aftermath, NEW Territory section: images of Jay for treaty evacuating British forts & US Gen. Wilkinson for a Spanish agent. Casualties and losses section: scene of Revolutionary graves, mass grave at Saratoga. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
UNRESOLVED ARTICLE ISSUES: (1) Nature of the American War: At Military History Project, reviewer deprecated article for Infobox not restricting participants to “Belligerents” of nation-states declaring war, as at War of the Austrian Succession. Reviewer an others at that Project Talk would not entertain parallel between ARW and Spanish Civil War “combatants”. In the ARW, besides belligerents and co-belligerent nation-states with declarations of war, page editors argued to include additional combatants: American Indian tribes on both sides, American-side state militias, British-side “Hessians”.
- (2) Scope of the American War Over four (4+) months Talk page and article mainspace had conflict and disruption over the scope of the article. WP:editor POV advanced a "Global American Revolutionary War" that by their historiography, takes place after October 1781 Yorktown, carried out without Congress knowledge, consent, or participation of its commissioned officers.
- TO THE CONTRARY, the “Bourbon War of 1778” (as termed by Mahon 1890) was prosecuted against Britain by declared war from France and Spain under the Bourbon Family Pact and their Aranjuez Convention, Articles 5 & 7 (online English-translation) for Bourbon imperial expansion at British expense. Explicit war aims in the Convention included a Spanish Gibraltar, Mobile, and Menorca, and a French Newfoundland with expanded French possessions in the Caribbean, including Jamaica "if convenient" --- war aims were pursued AT ODDS WITH TREATY TERMS of the Franco-American 1778 Treaty of Alliance, Art. 8 of Preliminary Peace signed November 1782 – Caribbean, Mediterranean, Gibraltar, North Atlantic and Indian Ocean engagements in the separate “Bourbon War of 1778” against Britain continue into 1783.
- This can be fairly attributed to a misunderstanding of the oft-quoted Michael Clodfelter 2017, pp. 124-135, who deprecates the “popular” meaning of "Revolutionary War", one limited to the British-subject colonial rebellion or civil war in America, “a tag more popular and also more provincial” (p.124). --- Instead Clodfelter titles his article, "War of the American Revolution: 1775-83" (p.124) to embrace all wars waged upon Britain during that period. In the Clodfelter view, these comprise all formal British belligerents of that time span, American Congress, French and Spanish Bourbons, the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of Mysore, India. See the casualty statistics for “that Clodfelter war" and the wp:editor "Global American Revolutionary war" on pages 134-135.
Robinvp11 removed image of the King choosing PMs before and after the political effects of Yorktownhere. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
This is wp:original research without sourcing or discussion at Talk. Robin rationale: replace picture (again, because this makes it seem as if George III was far more active than he actually was).
- The replacement was a blown-up image of only one (1) of the two (2) parties in Parliament that George III chose from for his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War.
- It is a violation of wp:BALANCE to omit or otherwise censor the constructive role George III had in the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War. He was the principal in the history event i.e. he was “actually” an active agent, rather than a passive figurehead of some description unknown to history. In his 5 December 1782 Speech from the Throne to a public joint session of Parliament, George III declared for American independence, peace and trade. No, he did not finally retire as a princeling of the Holy Roman Empire in Brunswick, despite rumors in London parlors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The Speech from the Throne is written by the prime minister, in this case, Lord Shelburne.(See Edmund Burke, Vol. 2, p. 13 [3].) Parliament then debates and votes on the speech. In this case, Burke attacked the speech and the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended it. TFD (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and Ted Sorensen once wrote, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.". But it does not necessarily follow that President John F. Kennedy was a nullity in the history of Anglo-American relations for using it in his Inaugural Address.
- Although there is a doctrine to dismiss "great men" influencing history, surely you do not presume to assert generally that George III and John F. Kennedy should be treated as nullities in historical narratives, or to specifically deny here that George III had a substantial role in ending the ARW? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The speech from the throne is entirely different. That Elizabeth II or her representative reads a speech every year to the parliaments of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 11 other sovereign states as well as 10 Canadian provinces, 6 Australian states, 15 overseas territories, two associated states and in the past dozens of other independent states and their provinces is a formality. She doesn't personally decide the government policies of all those territories. The reason that the prime ministers of each state write the speech is not that they are particularly qualified in speechwriting, but that they use the speech from the throne to outline what they intend to do in the current session of parliament. Presumably Kennedy agreed to the policies and opinions that Sorenson wrote in his speeches. TFD (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Bon, good. Thank you for improving my understanding of the "Speech from the Throne" in the modern "Commonwealth" era of British Empire. That British "commonwealth" of independent nations is akin to what the First Continental Congress imagined in its Olive Branch Petition, to my understanding.
- I see that you and I are agreed in this: Incoming PM Lord Rockingham was of importance in ending the ARW, significant historically and relevant to the ARW article. Lord Rockingham influenced the King's new policy for American independence. Perhaps you can support my restoring the now Robin-reverted gallery portrait of incoming PM 'Whig' Lord Rockingham paired with the outgoing PM 'Tory' Lord North, I will do shortly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. My point was that we cannot know a sovereign's views from the speech from the throne because the speech reflects the PM's views, although the speaker may add to it. George III exercised more influence than modern monarchs and may well have added to the speech or changed it. TFD (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
#1 of 3. Robinvp11 imposed POV that George III was not significant in ending the ARW here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
In an unsourced editor's wp:own proclamation without sourcing or discussion at Talk, Robin's POV: ”George III did not conduct government or strategy”. This violates wp:reliable sourcing. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in George III: A Personal History. King George III had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere. - Hibbert 2000, p. 160. – This source may be replaced with yet another using a reference that I have not yet inspected. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a comment on this: the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power - indeed with respect to America (as elsewhere) even George regarded himself more as the "executive agent for the maintenance of Parliamentary authority" (Ditchfield, George III: An Essay in Monarchy', p.110) in the spirit of the 1688 political settlement. He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited - I realise American historiography may be different here.Svejk74 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Does Ditchfield not acknowledge a Parliamentary party of "the King's Men" in George III pay from 1770 to 1785? The Edward Gibbon article infers his Commons seat was a sinecure of the King. I understood from a scan of the Cambridge Modern History v.6 (1925, Oxford University Press) for the late 1700s, that "Honest Billy" Pitt proposed some reforms, enhancing his reputation, such as abolishing Rotten boroughs in Commons (achieved in 1832) and restricting the Crown's ability to appoint Knighthoods at will to make a majority in the House of Lords (as political circumstances might require for the pleasure of "His Most Britannic Majesty").
Were there no British constitutional reforms touching on Crown and Parliament 1688-1953, William and Mary to Queen Elizabeth II? I concede that I may have misunderstood the term of art, "in the spirit of 1688" in British historiography, which does seem a bit of a sweeping generalization from the perspective of American historiography. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, British scholar John Steven Watson, The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960), writes a recap of George III's direct Parliamentary influence, at Britannica, George III. It notes variously, (1) By 1770, George III was "still as obstinate as ever and still felt an intense duty to guide the country" […] he "used executive power for winning elections […]". (2) "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." (3) At the time people believed that corruption alone supported an administration that was equally incapable of waging war or ending it. This supposed increase in corruption was laid directly at the king’s door, for North wearily repeated his wish to resign, thus appearing to be a mere puppet of George III. (4) At backing William Pitt the Younger in the general election March 1784, the country, moved by reform, "as well as by treasury influence, overwhelmingly endorsed the king’s action.” George III subsequently withdrew from direct intervention in Parliament, allowing Pitt’s administration over His Majesty's objections. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, I think George's own opinions and the popular perception of his role and influence needs to be tempered with an understanding of the limits of that influence. Stephen Conway in Dickinson (ed) Britain and the American Revolution gives a balanced view: "In popular mythology, George III is inextricably linked with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed. He was consulted on the conduct of the war and asked to approve plans and proposals; he gave his opinions freely and at times was certainly influential; but he was not the key decision-maker. No single person filled that position". George certainly played a role, but it shouldn't be overemphasised at the expense of, for example, the cabinet generally.Svejk74 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11 deleted Tory - Whig image balance representing the two parties supplying George III with PMs here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Robin deletes the two gallery portraits of successive Prime Ministers to George III, Lord North, and Lord Rockingham, leaving only a blown-up image of Lord North alone to lead the article.
- Robin persists in foisting an unrelenting POV bias on the article, without sourcing or discussion at Talk. That Lord North portrait is now placed it at the top of the section, renaming the section with the purpose of describing the Fall of the North Ministry to an unwarranted and undiscussed Exultation of the North Ministry. And as noted before, the edit-post removed King George III, the sovereign who appointed both Lord North and Lord Rockingham as his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War. Again, an unsourced and undiscussed revert to advance the misapprehension that George III had no significant role in ending the American Revolution. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
#2 of 3. Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III, posted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Source Hibbert wrote, "George III still had hoped for victory in the South." (Hibbert 2008, p. 333)
Robin misrepresented the source: North still hoped for victory in the South, [...] - without a source, without discussion at Talk. Robin persists in a POV about the end of the ARW, that it is somehow disconnected from and unrelated to the ruling Monarch of Britain, George III.
- George III was known to have influenced Parliament by corrupting both members in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons who were in his pay. The repeated edits dismissing George III's role in American independence, peace, and trade with Britain is unwarranted disruption of the page.
- There is no sourcing to support Robin's assertion, coloring, or bias to be introduced into the article. There is no discussion on his part to find a consensus here to overturn mainstream historiography on the topic that supports an effective rule by pre-dementia George III as king. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11 removed first step to Euro peace: international armistice ===
Source authors Green and Pole enumerated two initiatives by the British Parliament in Paris: (a) "Parliament began its negotiations in Paris" [with Americans separately from Bourbon French and Spanish], and (b) "a British-US-French-Spanish armistice was negotiated there, subsequently honored in North America among all sides, thus ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence." (Greene and Pole 2008 (2000), p. 325)
- Robin misrepresented the two-step process as sourced: "Peace discussions were held in Paris, leading to the Treaty of Paris, ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence."
First and foremost: This article is a military history of British subjects in their (a) insurrection, (b) rebellion, (c) constitutional "Revolution", or (d) "War of Independence", depending on various mainstream historiographic interpretations. It cannot reasonably be expanded into a diplomatic history of great European powers. when there is already a stand-alone Wikipedia article on Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War.
- Regarding the end of the ARW as military actions, explained to all as the scope here in the article top hat: (1) First the shooting war was stopped by truces negotiated by local British and American commanders in Yorktown and New York in 1781; (2) British offensive action in North America against Congress ended in the "American war" by Act of Parliament in April 1782;
- (3) An Act of Parliament initiated peace with Congress without the Bourbon kings, leading to an Anglo-American Preliminary Peace that met all the unanimous Congressional war aims in November 1782: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi with its navigation into the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing with curing rights. Congress ratified that agreement on 15 April 1783 (Library of Congress "Memory"). Euro armistice worldwide was in early 1783, followed by Euro worldwide peace in late 1783.
- The end of the ARW as a military enterprise came with the end of the shooting war in North America. It was not defined by the formal "conclusive" Anglo-American peace delayed "at the pleasure of his Most Britannic Majesty". -- (An editors here observed that "shooting war" was a term unknown to him [in Euro diplomatic history?], falsely asserting the term is TVH "made up" only for the purpose of discussion here.)
- That bit of European diplomatic history of various "conclusive treaties" in Versailles awaited the French April 1782 failure in the Caribbean and the Spanish October 1782 failure at Gibraltar, both engagements related to the Britain's Bourbon War (Am: Mahan 1890, Brit: Syrett 1998). They were apart from the British colonial insurrection for independence in North America, they occurred without any document evidence of participant connection to Congress or American independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11 POV removed 'American War' opposition in Parliament, Tory and Whig===
Robin, without sourcing or discussion at Talk, deleted the following account of Parliamentary opposition to continuing the 'American war', both Tory (Edward Gibbon) and Whig (William Pitt the Younger).
- The mood of the British nation had changed since the 1770s. Member of Parliament Edward Gibbon had believed the King's cause in America to be just, and the British and German soldiers there fought bravely. But after Yorktown, he concluded, "It is better to be humbled than ruined." There was no point in spending more money on Britain's most expensive war, with no hope of success. Whig William Pitt argued that war on American colonists had brought nothing but ineffective victories or severe defeats. He condemned effort to retain the Americans as a "most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unjust and diabolical war." Lord North resigned. George III never forgave him. (Hibbert 2000, p.161, 164).
- Colonial Americans did not "exceptionally" single-handedly overthrow the greatest naval power on earth and seize independence from a despotic "Mother Country". There were Opposition Whigs in Parliament at every step of the American taxation crisis and throughout the Revolutionary War. The Patriots were grounded in Whig history, philosophy, and politics. And they were supported by British Whigs publicly in Parliament throughout the American Revolution. The British lost its second army in America at (Yorktown October 1781). The catastrophe had resulted from the Tory administration of a hard war policy that Lord North had staked his political fortunes on, so that failure allowed for the ascendency of the Whigs in Parliament (William Pitt the Younger in Commons). The "Country Gentlemen" in Commons defected from the Tories to the Whigs to oppose the "American war". These included Tories such as Mr. "it is better to be humbled than ruined" Edward Gibbon, in a seat that had been bought and paid for him through the patronage of Lord North. Parliament ended further prosecution of the "American war" in April 1782.
- British patriotism reasserted itself. The Bourbon invasion of England by their (Armada September 1779) had failed a little over a year before only from the happy circumstances from bad weather combined with widespread shipboard illness and death among the invading fleet. With no further prosecution of war by Britain in America, the ranks of regular British regiments and county home-defense militias were filled, both officer and enlisted.
- The deleted passage not only bears directly on the end of the American Revolutionary War, but it is also relevant to the pivot by King, Parliament and the Briton populace, to answer the direct threat of the Bourbon War on the British homeland, Caribbean, and India, apart from any subsidiary assistance that France or Spain had been forwarding to the efforts of the rebel - independence Congress among those British subjects beforehand. The passage should be restored - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
#3 of 3. Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ferling source: "George III abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone. (Ferling 2007, p. 294) Robin misrepresentation: "Northabandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone." (Ferling 2007, p. 294)
- For the third time in this series, Robinvp11 inserts a POV of unsourced and undiscussed posts diminishing the role of the ruling monarch of Britain, before the onset of his later dementia, and while George III was still actively corrupting Commons seats to confer on his favorites, and adding seats in the House of Lords to guarantee his "King's Party" majorities in Parliament's votes. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Robinvp11 removed reference to the Second Hundred Years' War here, with a rationale explaining, "You'll very rarely find any British historian who refers to the Second Hundred Years War and isn't needed anyway". Previous text: "Beginning in 1778–9 as a part of what European historians know as the Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War, France and Spain again declared war on Britain."--- Robin's misdirection: "Beginning in 1778–1779, France and Spain again declared war on Britain." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(1)The ARW is an article on American military history. Unlike the ARW for British colonial independence in a republic the Anglo-French wars of the Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815 concerned the two major European great powers vying for a favorable Balance of power on the Continent, and extending their imperial reach by colonial conquest and trade agreements (Larrie Ferreiro, Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the men of France and Spain who saved it, "British scholar Robert Seeley's name for the eight Anglo-French wars 'stuck'").
- Without reference to the British historiographic category of a Second Hundred Years' War, there is no reason to include any reference, not even tangentially, to any diplomatic or military history that is not directly related to the American Revolutionary War as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica. The on-topic material for this article must then be restricted to subject matter relating events in an insurrection of British subjects against their British government for national independence in North America for the purpose of establishing a republican government.
(2)The Wikipedia military history project must adhere to a consistent editorial policy across its articles. None of the Wikipedia articles on four North American wars are written so as to comprehend the related European great power imperial wars that overlap them for some period of time. The ARW of 1775 cannot be made to do so as a one-off, stand-alone exception.
(3)One Wikipedia project should not single-handedly and inconsistently dictate that the article for the ARW of 1775 fought in North America and the North Atlantic for national independence in a republican government, should absorb sourced narrative accounts for the Anglo-French-Bourbon War of 1778 (naval history scholars Am:Mahan 1890, Brit:Styrett 1998) that was fought worldwide over the European balance of power and their respective imperial colonies. Editors there should not throw in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in the North Atlantic and Caribbean, and the Second Anglo-Mysore War in India and the Indian Ocean as add-ons.
- That is especially so, since all the great power Anglo-French wars 1689-1815 are a part of the British historian Second Hundred Years' War, which as a stand-alone artic'e itself needs expanding at Wikipedia to become "comprehensive", were editors there be so inclined. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
To begin with, the Americans had no major international allies, as most nation-states watched and waited to see developments unfold in British North America. Why not just say "To begin with, most outside powers waited to see how the war developed." Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Over time, the Continental Army acquitted itself well in the face of British regulars and their German auxiliaries known to all European great powers. What does this mean? - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps better: "Over time, the Continental Army could meet and overcome both British regulars and their professional German auxiliaries in combat." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this is the pointOver time, despite limited battlefield success, the Continental Army showed it could not be destroyed by British or German regulars.
The context extends further than that. The Continental Army did not only clash, withdraw, and survive. That is not the whole story.
- It also defeated British regulars on the battlefield, counter attacked in pursuit, and captured two entire British armies, one in the woods, and one with elaborately engineered trench approaches and its light infantry storming Redoubt No. 10 at Yorktown.
- This martial development at arms in the Continental Army is addressed in American historiography, but it was considered noteworthy at the time by military advisors to Royal Courts of all the European great powers, including Frederick the Great personally. -- It is also true that the British and German soldiers were better man-for-man as professional soldiers. Thus all American victories required some tactical advantage that could be attained by surprise, or being dug in, or Indian allies on the field after the Indian allies of the British deserted, or via artillery integrated into their regiments in the Prussian manner - after General von Steuben and Valley Forge, etc. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't meant as a critique of professional ability but the idea of an "army in being" eg no one doubts the US army could outfight the NVA, but they couldn't wipe them out - central principle of asymmetric warfare. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Robinvp11:What is your source that untrained, unorganized and unequipped local county militias whipped the British because they were a "army in being"? Except for the Saratoga-fight-in-the-woods, all major battles of the American Revolutionary War were fought by infantry line formations on terrain like that of the battles fought in Europe by the great powers. No serious RS is proponent of the view that Americans overthrew of British regulars and German professionals as untrained farm boys of 16 taking pot shots at red coats and then disappearing into the woods. --- Although I have read such a summary account online in home-schooler "textbooks-for-Patriots". What is the Robinvp11 source?
- What is the Robinvp11 source that US forces in Vietnam were felled by French colonial peasant men in black pajamas? Not only were the North Vietnamese regular fighting men comparable to the best in the world (and almost all Communist South Vietnamese ethnic officers had been killed off in suicide attacks during the Tet Offensive). But a few months after US withdrawal, China determined to take the newly united Vietnam's northern borderland for its own, just at the time that Vietnamese divisions were committed to occupying Laos and Cambodia. China sent massive human wave assaults against Vietnamese dug in positions, which were duly vaporized by professional Vietnamese artillery using sophisticated "rolling barrages" in the mountainous terrain. After a week or so of self-destructive military catastrophe, the Chinese released a statement that they had demonstrated their "point" against Vietnamese "aggressions". I never did get it all sorted out at the time. But I do know that the largest world trade partners of Communist Vietnam has been the United States for several decades now. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian:What is your source that untrained, unorganized and unequipped local county militias whipped the British because they were a "army in being" What is the Robinvp11 source that US forces in Vietnam were felled by French colonial peasant men in black pajamasI suppose its useless for me to point out that I never said either of these things.
I made a simple and fairly uncontroversial statement about asymmetric warfare, which didn't even really need a response, let alone four paragraphs of increasingly irrelevant waffle (I lived in Asia for 15 years, I don't need lectures on its history). My mistake, I always forget how sensitive Americans of a certain age are about Vietnam. Have you ever come across the idea of 'is it worth arguing this point?' This madness is reflected all through the Talkpage ie pointless wittering about abstract points of detail whose only purpose is to demonstrate to the author their own infallibility. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Let’s take a look-see. First, points of abstract categories are not historical detail. Second, let's address a misconception that may be abroad about how international scholars of military history use the term "asymmetrical warfare". Misuse of a term of art in one's professed field of expertise is "controversial" on the face of it, regardless of its intended effect at Talk. (TVH on the other hand, holds that he has an acquaintance with Virginia history.)
- TVH suggests here:, "the Continental Army could meet and overcome both British regulars and their professional German auxiliaries in combat." --- Robin replies, “the point is,: ““despite limited battlefield success [SIC], the Continental Army showed it could not be destroyed“.
- TVH here: "The Continental Army did not only clash, withdraw, and survive. That is not the whole story. It also defeated British regulars on the battlefield, counter attacked in pursuit, and captured two entire British armies, one in the woods, and one with elaborately engineered trench approaches and its light infantry storming Redoubt No. 10 at Yorktown." --- Robin answers here, there is no need to relate Continental Army [or “US Army”] professional ability, but [only] the idea of an "army in being" central principle of asymmetric warfare [SIC]. --- TVH here: What is your ARW source from an RS that suggests an “asymmetric warfare” in the fighting under discussion including those at Trenton, Monmouth, Saratoga, and Yorktown.
- For editor FYI, “asymmetric warfare” is conducted between significantly unequal militaries, such as a professional army against resistance movements of unlawful combatants. “The term is also frequently used to describe what is also called "irregular warfare" --- In contrast to asymmetrical warfare, the ARW was symmetrical: i.e. the Continental Army and the British Army in North America had "comparable military power and resources [at the point of contact] and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution." --- QUERY: There is no RS cited in the article assessing the Continental Army as "irregular lawbreakers". So, the TVH ask of Robinvp11 is provide an alternative RS to support the Robinvp11 (to date) unsourced POV purporting to ascribe his “asymmetric warfare” characterization to Mays (2016). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Battles such as the Battle of Bennington, the Battles of Saratoga, and even defeats such as the Battle of Germantown, proved decisive in gaining the attention and support of powerful European nations... This doesn't seem consistent with accounts earlier in the article of how and why France came into the war; - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
How is it not? Bennington, Saratoga, and Germantown all demonstrated the developing effectiveness of American arms carried out by soldiers of one-year enlistments, admired publically by Frederick the Great at his court, and by military advisors in other great power courts.
- The French would not aid the Americans until (1) the French would not have to carry the fight alone, the American cause was not a loosing cause, (2) the French had a chance to humiliate the British in North America, but that chance would come to an end if King-Lords-Commons would reconcile with Congress --- the loss of a British army at Saratoga did in fact prompt peace-making sentiment in the country and in Parliament to reconcile with the rebel Congress ... (3) the French might yet regain 'western Quebec' North America as shown in the maps provided the Shelburne administration during negotiations in 1782 (Shelburne's papers). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly - elsewhere, the article says American victory at Saratoga brought France into the war because it was worried the Patriots would win too quickly and they'd lose an opportunity to win an ally. This point isn't doesn't make that clear - nor is it clear why Frederick's admiration mattered. - Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
See the reply above beginning, "This martial development at arms in the Continental Army".
And, Both elements referenced are true, but in sequence. First, the Americans had to demonstrate that they were not rag-tag, not ambush and withdraw to survive to another day, leaving port cities and the countryside to control of British troops and Loyalist militias. Becoming good fighters with staying power on the battlefield, win or lose, was good, but capturing a British army at Saratoga changed the political equilibrium in Britain and in Parliament
- Second, with the possibility of an early Westminster-Congress reconciliation imminent, the French Court decided to 'pull-the-trigger' to make a treaty with the rebel Congress because Vergennes took his sense of urgency in the moment to persuade Louis XVI to do so. When Vergennes succeeded, he outmaneuvered his rival in the French Court who was more concerned about French Treasury finances and taxation than short-sighted revenge on Britain. His name escapes me, but there was one such Frenchman at Court in 1788.- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
RewordVictories at Bennington and Saratoga, or even defeats such as Germantown, showed the Continental Army could hold its own against British or German regulars. As well as formal support from France, it brought limited backing from nations like Prussia.Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
...such as Pacte de Famille Link is wrong; this is a treaty between the two nations and it should say "France and Spain" - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Where is this? can you give an eleven-word snippet? The French and Spanish agree to taking Gibraltar from Britain to cede to Spain at the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), which several British diplomatic sources say is an extension of the Third Pacte de Famille.
- France and Spain then undertook a war against Britain that is not connected with American independence with a republic in North America. The new war elsewhere with new aims is (a) without the knowledge of Congress, (b) Congress is not signatory to those war aims, (c) nor is there any participation of Congressionally commissioned officers in the "Bourbon war", as the naval historians, both American Mahan and British Syrett, style it. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
This has now been covered in section above.Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Where is this? can you give an eleven-word snippet? The British Royal Navy sweeps the Dutch merchants and its Navy from the North Atlantic, ending the Dutch trade with the Americans first to the former New Amsterdam, then from New Haven, Connecticut and Sint Eustatius, Caribbean. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately, I'm not sure why this is a separate section. I think it should be folded into the one above - less confusing. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
No, reader confusion comes from conflating the two: (a) Britain's "American war" with the rebel Congress in North America (Britannica), is other than and separate from (b) Britain's "Bourbon war" with European great powers, primarily at sea and touching four continents (naval historians Am. Mahan 1890, Brit. Syrett 1998).
- There are differing elements of historiography between them, relating to time, duration, place, causa belli, war aims, and treaty provisions that are well documented as ways to distinguish Britain's American war versus Britain's Bourbon war. That both were conducted against Britain over the period April 1789 to August 1781 is not sufficient to join them artificially without any document evidence of a connection to the rebel Congress or its commissioned officers. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@Svejk74:Welcome to our ARW tag-team event as Robinvp11 declares his withdrawal for a couple months. … I offer the following collegially as a general guide to the ARW Talk of 2020, beginning in March–April or so.
- Fair warning, I will read the links that you provide here. Almost the entirety of my contributions over the last ten months to this page have been taken from sources referred to me by those disputing the editor page consensus here, the American Revolution was an insurrection by Congress against Britain for national independence and republican government in a political revolution.
- At this Talk since March 2020, only one scholar has failed to distinguish among the wars against Britain 1779-1784. All others sourced and linked differentiate between a) the British “American war” insurrection, b) Bourbon war for empire elsewhere, and c) British war to suppress Dutch trade. That one exception is our “not-RS” University of Alabama assistant professor Lockwood (2019). The only scholarly journal review I could find for it damned the work by faint praise as authored by “a vivid storyteller “ just as the publisher promises, but one who “tried to connect the dots where there are no connections.” :- Hence the repeated refrain here on my part, “What is the document evidence?” supplied in the RS account used for editor inference and extrapolation here at ARW. FYI, I am not degreed, titled, nor ancestored into authority on the ARW, as other wp:editors have claimed on this page. I only have what I learn in scholarly history journals found on JSTOR and the RS that I find mostly from referrals from pro and con editors here at Wikipedia, one of my hobbies in retirement.
- Alternatively, when editors merely assert a generalized chronological coincidence for events 1789-1784 with the only commonality being “arms were taken up against Britain”, that chronological point has been repeatedly stipulated here by all parties contributing at Talk. But to be clear, events are not found to be within the scope of the American Revolutionary War if they are merely contemporary military engagements with Britain by parties unrelated to engagements known to Congress in its American Revolution and regarding diplomatic issues by others unrelated to its Anglo-American Treaty of Paris (1783).
- Re: scope in a war article. It is consistent policy here at Wikipedia, that an article about a conflict that spreads worldwide does not take the name and scope of all coincident conflict that occurred worldwide involving one or more of the belligerents or their respective allies. Thus a) the French and Indian War does not absorb the narrative and scope of the Seven Years’ War, and b) the Second Sino-Japanese War (1936-1946) does not absorb the narrative and scope of World War II, though they are connected chronologically and by Anglo-American and German allies respectively during the overlapping years of conflict. Likewise c) the American Revolutionary War is not to absorb the narrative and scope of the Bourbon War (per Am. Mahan 1890 and Brit. Syrett 1998), engagements found at Wikipedia in the Anglo-French War (1778) and the Anglo-Spanish War (1779). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
George III micromanaging war
Yes, if there are any statements that are deemed to be over-emphasizing the King's role, we need to see them outlined, here in Talk. Otherwise we'll forever be absorbed in another lengthy source debate, which would be uncalled for since the article only mentions the King briefly, esp in relation to Parliament. The debate is somewhat out of proportion to the amount of coverage our article lends to these entities.
Below are the five statements in the narrative, with citations, that cover King George in terms of the war effort and its aftermath. If there are any issues here they need to be addressed specifically.
Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in an attempt to prevent war. King George III rejected the offer as insincere." <Ferling, 2007, pp. 38, 113> Fixed
"Tories stiffened their resistance to compromise, and George III himself began micromanaging the war effort." <Ferling 2003, pp. 123–124> <O'Shaughnessy, 2013, p. 186> Fixed
"In London, news of the victorious Long Island campaign was well received with festivities held in the capital. Public support reached a peak,<McCullough 2005, p. 195> and King George III awarded the Order of the Bath to Howe." <Ketchum 2014, pp. 191, 269>
"Meanwhile, George III had given up on subduing America while Britain had a European war to fight." <Ferling 2007, p. 294>
"Despite these developments, George III was determined to never recognize American independence and to indefinitely wage war on the American colonies indefinitely until they pleaded to return as his subjects." <Trevelyan 1912a, pp. 4–5>
If any of these statements are inaccurate or completely in error, we need to see the sources that supports that idea in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
INSERT:@Gwillhickers: I set up this section for your expressed, specific copyedit concerns.
It is meant to match that of Tenryuu, Robinvp11, and my self in a parallel structure, implying a comparable "domain" for your editorial direction and control --- since this Talk seems to slip off the rails so easily in so many sections, in so many directions, initiated by so many editors of different views and alternative purposes here.
And, regarding the four copyedits itemized by you here at Talk, Were you the editor who struck out and labelled two items that you raised as Fixed? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
discussion 30 Nov - 1 Dec
The first mention of George III is in the lead: "King George III promised American independence and Anglo–American talks began. The preliminary articles of peace signed in November, and in December 1782, George III spoke from the British throne for US independence, trade, and peace between the two countries." I would replace George III with the British government. The King was forced to appoint a pro-peace ministry and accept their "advice." (Although it is called advice, the sovereign is obligated to follow it.) TFD (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It was King George who made the promise, but I think we can assume he had the backing of the Parliament. It was the King who was addressed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and like the President of the U.S. would, he spoke on behalf of his country. It would seem King George was more than just an empty suit with a crown on his head and had an appreciable amount of influence with the Parliament. For purposes of the lede, it seems mention of the King is most appropriate. I've no issues, however, with clarifying any other statements in the body of the text, where warranted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
In the UK and other Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia and their provinces and states, the Queen or her representative reads a speech from the throne every year written by the PM, explaining the government's agenda, and she or her representatives approve all legislation, issue all executive orders and declare war. Every government promise is made in the name of the Queen. Do you think that the queen personally develops government policies in all those places? Is it just a coincidence that when government changes hands, so does the policy that Her Majesty follows? TFD (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The source for the sentence beginning "Even after fighting began" merely says that the king refused to read the petition. Adams wrote, "My hopes are that Ministry will be afraid of negotiation as well as we and therefore refuse it." Notice he was referring to the British government rather than the king. They would decide what response if any would be made. TFD (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
TFD again, the second post is a reasonable on your part, but it is not a summary statement of the King's overall military role in the ARW 1775-1783. It is only his tactical comment on a narrow political maneuver in John Adams' prayerful assessment of one of the several other-than-George III "levers" of government.
That much is of course conceded. But that ancillary consideration is not the overall assessment of the King's power to direct a British military effort to retain the rebelling colonies, as sourced. If the King did not respond and reconcile --- as was done at the First Rockingham Administration withdrawing the Stamp Act --- then the casus belli is removed for widespread Atlantic seaboard colonial rebellion, constitutional revolution, and national independence in a republic -- John Adams's personal goal, as a "great figure of history".
A Ministry frozen in place into George III's stubborn policy of denial could possibly result in the conditions for a spread of military confrontation against Royal Governors outside of New England. (For another take on a related political process, reference Lenin and the Reds trying to gain support outside center-metropolis cities. Were the Czar to have had actually learned and spoken in the Russian language to the surrounding population ... better for the Revolution that the monarch be stubbornly in control, without a clue from his Ministers.)
Unfortunately, the first post above is another allusion to the 21st century British constitution of Queen Elizabeth II. As such it is not applicable to the ARW period of British-American colonial relations, an anachronism, and bad history. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, the Stamp Act was repealed by Parliament in a vote of 276-168. The legislation was originated by Rockingham not by the king. It received royal assent as did every other law passed by parliament during George's 60 year reign. The king had no power to withhold royal assent without the "advice" of cabinet. Cabinet had the power to provide royal assent if the king was unable or unwilling to do so in person, which actually did happen during his illnesses. It's quite a stretch to compare the British constitution with pre-revolutionary Russia. TFD (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the language used refers to the king. Laws are passed by the King-in-Parliament, executive orders are passed by the King-in-Council, judgments were made by the King on the advice of the Board of Trade, the king is the Commander-in-Chief. That is because historically the king had absolute power which later devolved to constitutional institutions such as parliament, the cabinet, and the supreme court following the revolution of 1688. While Adams did not recognize the authority of any of these institutions in America, he was aware that was how British government worked. TFD (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
That may well as may be, passing a law in Britain during the reign of George III was not by monarch fiat. That much can be stipulated. However, the sausage-making of parliamentary legislation is not related to the article's sourced characterization of George III significant role in military affairs during the ARW.
LOL, my long-time friend. The comparison is meant to be this, and only in this limited way, as an ancillary, illustrative aside: Adams is to Monarch (clueless un-reforming ruler is good for Revolution) -- is as -- Lenin is to Tsar (clueless un-reforming ruler is good for Revolution). Hope you are in good health. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
While we don't have to know or explain the English constitution, we need to be precise when we attribute actions of its governments. We shouldn't say for example that George III enacted and repealed the Stamp Act when it was the imperial parliament. Or that he rejected the Olive Branch Petition if it was the cabinet. We wouldn't say today for example that Elizabeth II closed the Canadian border to the U.S., or took the UK out of the EU, or sent troops to Iraq. While George III exercised far more political influence than Elizabeth II, the view that he was an absolute monarch is a myth. TFD (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"indefinitely wage war on the American colonies indefinitely" The sentence repeats "indefinetely" twice, when only one instance is needed. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, the first post above is another allusion to the 21st century British constitution of Queen Elizabeth II. As such it is not applicable to the ARW period of British-American colonial relations" The main article on George III mentions his role in a "constitutional struggle" in 1783, and the king directly causing the fall of the Fox–North coalition.:
"Immediately after the House of Commons passed it [the India Bill], George authorised Lord Temple to inform the House of Lords that he would regard any peer who voted for the bill as his enemy. The bill was rejected by the Lords; three days later, the Portland ministry was dismissed, and William Pitt the Younger was appointed Prime Minister, with Temple as his Secretary of State. On 17 December 1783, Parliament voted in favour of a motion condemning the influence of the monarch in parliamentary voting as a "high crime" and Temple was forced to resign. Temple's departure destabilised the government, and three months later the government lost its majority and Parliament was dissolved; the subsequent election gave Pitt a firm mandate." Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Close, but no cigar. (1) This is another anachronistic, bad history allusion to British constitutional history after the ARW, and (2) it bears on post-war India Bill legislation procedure, not on the George III military role in the ARW as monarch.
(3) As noted before, after the personal humiliation losing the American colonies, George III withdrew from his former extensive interference in Parliament while influencing the course of his "American war". As you note, not all at once but first from the House of Commons, then from the House of Lords. His miscalculation leading up the the 17 December 1783 motion in the House of Lords meant that he was used to, and confident in, his right to dictate outcomes in the House of Lords, even after the revolt of the "country gentlemen" in the House of Commons.
Note: this event takes place over a year after the Paris signing of the Anglo-American Prelimary Peace in November 1782, granting the US independence, British withdrawal, territory west to the Mississippi with free navigation to the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing with beach curing rights. Congress ratified it unanimously on 15 April 1783, and it resolved a Proclamation "End of hostilities" between the US and Britain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in an attempt to prevent war. King George III rejected the offer as insincere." <Ferling, 2006, pp. 38, 113>
(1) Page numbers provided for Ferling do not tie in; (2) British intelligence intercepted a letter from Adams deriding the offer, which they took as indication of lack of sincerity; (3) the government had already prepared the Proclamation of Rebellion and did not present the petition to George. I have updated this accordingly.
Re the 18th century British constitution; just because George read speeches does not mean he wrote them (this continues today when the Queen addresses Parliament and talks of 'my government.') He often wrote letters to North supporting a policy - that does not mean he made it. Yes, he had more power than in modern day Britain, and a greater willingness to exert it - but he did not make policy. In the end, he did what his government wanted. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, no one said George wrote the speech, but then, that begs the question -- who did? Your estimation here suggests that the king had no say, or authority, whatsoever. If that was the case what was his purpose? Did he not have the power to withhold bills? According to Paine: "But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; ..." It would seem this would afford him some leverage and say so regarding laws, acts and so forth. It seems it would be best to refer to the King and Parliament jointly when mentioning the various acts and laws put forth by Britain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned above and provided a source, the PM wrote the King's speech. There is a dispute over whether the king may withhold bills at the request of cabinet (this was last done in 1708), while others claim no such discretion exists. There is no claim that the British sovereign can withhold royal assent, although this actually happened five times during the reign of William III. The cabinet has the ability to provide royal assent if the king is unable or unwilling to do so. Anyway, you should use more recent sources than Common Sense, which is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
So the sources are conflicting. The question still remains -- what was the King's purpose during the ARW? Common sense is a primary source, and can be referred to as such. If that work is not a RS, than neither are the Washington papers, the Jefferson Papers, Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs, etc, all of which are routinely referred to by scholars. However, if an item in a primary source is contested, secondary sources should be consulted, which I have no problem with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
None of them are reliable sources for our purposes. Historians use their papers, and other documents and try to determine what happened. Wikipedia editors use the findings of historians as sources. I believe that George III had his favorite ministers. But they were only able to carry out their policies with the support of the House of Commons. And sometimes the Commons switched their support to the opposition and they formed the government. But to the Founding Fathers, none of this mattered because the colonies were not represented in parliament. TFD (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
In The Men who Lost America (Yale University Press 2013), Chapter 1 "'The Tyrant' George III", Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy explains the actual powers of George III and how they were deliberately misrepresented in revolutionary rhetoric. He discusses Paine in section III. Paine's genius was to transfer American anger from an abstract Parliament to a living person, even if that meant misrepresenting George's actual powers. But then, the first casualty of war is the truth. I don't understand anyway why the writings of the Founding Fathers should be put on a par with the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible. TFD (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You mentioned how "O'Shaughnessy explains the actual powers of George III", but fell short of relating those powers to us here in Talk. Was Paine wrong when he said that the King had the "power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills"? Did O'Shaughnessy say outright that this was a false assertion? It would seem your impression that the writings of the founding fathers has been "put on a par with the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible", a straw man accusation, is really your own. Do you harbor the same opinion in regards to the various British writings? All that has been discussed is whether the King had any power. You still seem to think the King was only a figurehead puppet and that he was above any criticism in terms of any ARW involvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
O'Shaughnessy writes,
"In Jefferson's mind, George III always would be the villain, the antagonist in America's primordial narrative, its myth of origin. For Jefferson, this was not propaganda but objective truth.
"In reality, George III had less power than virtually any other monarch in Europe. During the seventeenth century, Britain had two revolutions of its own in which the supporters of Parliament successfully deposed Charles I and James II. After the execution of Charles I in 1649, Britain was a republic for eleven years, and following the fall of James II in 1688, Parliament negotiated a revolutionary settlement in what became known as the Glorious Revolution. It included a Bill of Rights (1689), which became the foundation of the British Constitution and ensured that the crown would henceforth govern through Parliament. The monarchy retained the power to appoint the government, but its choice was limited in practice to prime ministers who had support in Parliament. Although the system of elections was corrupt and the crown had considerable influence through patronage, the survival of the government was always dependent upon the support of independent members of the elected House of Commons. The British consequently regarded their political system as a bastion of freedom and liberty, in contrast to the absolute monarchies of Europe.
O'Shaughnessy further says that John Adams regretted going along with this misinformation. Also, "The colonial opposition embraced conspiracy theories claiming the king had destroyed the traditional balance of government by gaining total control over Parliament to establish a tyranny in Britain and America."
It was not the author's intention to provide a point by point rebuttal of all the misinformation in the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense. But he does show they are not reliable sources for British constitutional law. Bear in mind that the author is Vice President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello in Virginia, the Saunders Director of the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, and Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His book was published by the Yale University Press and won the 2014 George Washington Book Prize for best book on the founding era of the United States. That makes his book an expert source and reliable for the facts.
As I pointed out, the cabinet had the power to give royal assent to bills if the king failed in his obligation and in fact did so during George's illnesses. Eventually they assigned his ceremonial roles to his son, who became Prince Regent. There is a distinction between the person who wears the crown and the corporation sole which is the symbol of authority. The Horseshoe Falls in Niagara is crown property for example, but that doesn't mean that if Queen Elizabeth is running short on cash she can sell it to a bottled water company. Or do you think she can?
It's understandable that criticisms of the Crown would be called "propaganda". Did Adams himself refer to the various criticisms as "misinformation"? This is not at all consistent with the idea that Adams helped Jefferson in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and was its strongest supporter in Congress. We know that various items in the original draft of the Declaration ' were deemed too inciteful, esp in regards to Britain bringing slaves to the colonies, and were criticized on that note. No one around here made the claim that the king had assumed all power, so responding as if someone did only gives the appearance that you are addressing such arguments. Also, you still haven't presented anything that would prove that Paine's claim, that the King could withhold bills, as false. Neither have you singled out any item in the Declaration of Independence as "misinformation" . Referring to the Declaration ' as "misinformation" sounds like propaganda. Thus far you've given us a lot of promotional claims about O'Shaughnessy's book, but nothing concrete. I believe TVH has outlined matters and addressed your points of contention more than adequately, below, so these will have to considered along side these somewhat generic claims, per O'Shaughnessy's book. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
If you like, I can post to RSN whether Paine's pamphlet is a reliable source for British constitutional law. If you're interested in the king's powers, I refer you to "Giving Royal Assent to Bills" in The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy, p. 25. The term propaganda in its modern sense was not used in the 1700s and I was using O'Shaugnessy's description.
Anyway, what's your argument? That George III was a tyrannt because he could veto legislation although he didn't?
@TheVirginiaHistorian, Eastfarthingan, XavierGreen, and Lord Cornwallis: — There seems to be some disagreement as to the actual role of King George III before and during the American Revolutionary War. On the one hand it is claimed that he was little more than a figure head, with no joint authority shared with the Parliament and only made speeches, appearances and so forth - on the other, that he had the authority to hold back various bills put forth by the Parliament, and this sort of thing. Currently there are several statements in this article that mention the king, outlined above. Any light that could be shed on the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The Britannica sourced role George III played in directing British military affairs in the ARW at George III: (1) By 1770, George III used his executive power to win elections. (2) The king prolonged the war, possibly by two years. - to be continued. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that was my understanding, that the King had a significant measure of executive authority. For example, it is the prerogative of the monarch to summon or discontinue a session in Parliament. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Just a cautionary note on editor contributions and sourcing, and a newfangled social media term of art, “firehose of falsehood” incorporating George Orwell’s Doublespeak. One disrupter on the article page and at Talk left citations in place in the article in three places misrepresenting two sources, substituting ”Lord North” for the sourced “George III” - a classic switch described in the novel.
- A second account here made reference to Britain and the American Revolution, with a contributing editor Stephen Conway, who is himself a legitimate RS. Conway's meaning is manipulated for POV. There is indeed a Conway snippet: "Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed". --- But nowhere has the ARW article ever made an overreaching exaggeration and "assumed" George III as a (straw man alert ->) absolute monarch akin to Frederick the Great on the basis of (straw man alert ->) a misinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence by wp:OR in a primary document.
- Article characterizations of George III were carefully research and faithfully represented in the article in neutral encyclopedic language. George III did substantially effect major British military policy decisions during the ARW, as sourced in at least three British and American RS. But the commentary filling Talk with a wall of double-speak hinges on manipulating (a) an RS characterization of the 18th century ancient regime state in Britain, compared to (b) reactionary or authoritarian states of the post-Napoleonic or post-WWI Europe without a legislative check on autocratic authority.
- The RS properly characterizes the British ancient regime as relatively “weak”, but the misleading posts turn the quote around for a POV to wrongly assign the “weak” characterization NOT to the RS 18th century “state” as compared to post-Napoleonic or post-WWI Europe, but to their own POV:"weak George III" who was indeed (True part of half-truth alert ->) the 18th century monarch ruling constitutionally as King-Lords-Commons during the British “American war”.
Additionally in acts of anachronism-bad-history, opposing posts allude to modern British constitutional monarchy or George III after the Anglo-American “End of Hostilities” was enacted unanimously in Congress 15 April 1783, ratifying the November 1782 Preliminary Peace (Library of Congress, American Memory). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your in depth analysis and points of contention. It seems we have more than adequate sources to deal with the existing article statements relating to the King, if indeed they misrepresent his role. As I've pinged several other editors, we should wait for their input, and then deal with those statements, if they actually need tending to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps
1. Should (a) out-of-circulation currency and (b) stamps issued for mass circulation as currency, be admitted as notable and their non-free images used in visually topical articles such as Federal Reserve note, United States five-dollar bill and Puerto Rico on stamps when accompanied with the applicable image templates?
Support would be a step toward permitting the continued informal exemption allowed for national currency and extend it to allow for USPS stamps.
2. Should NFCC#8 be amended to read, "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Publisher descriptions of currency and stamps issued for mass circulation as currency is sufficient for contextual significance when used along with applicable image templates.”?
Support would provide a formal consistent exception for national currency and stamps issued for mass circulation as currency such as USPS stamps.
Proponents noted that 11 of the top 25 articles with the most use of non-free images are currency articles. We already have two stamp articles on that same top 25 list. The USPS as a governmental agency may not be competent to copyright its stamps at all. Non-free use of USPS images should be allowed in visually topical articles when they are accompanied with the Template:Stamp rationale whenever a free use alternative to the stamp image does not exist of the USPS stamp itself. As it explains at WP:NFCI#3, currency and stamp images may be used for identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. WP:NFC#UUI#9 justifies use of the stamp image if placed inline next to the commentary, because the stamp itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article. Just using prose does not replace the visual information found in the image. The Foundation allows exceptions to its non-free use policy at Foundation licensing policy. The informal exemption for currency is arbitrarily administered in the case of currency, and results in wholesale deletion of USPS images without discussion on stamp related pages. In the case of Puerto Rico on stamps, it results in removal of over half the US stamps issued about Puerto Rican personalities, places, events in American culture.
Opponents held that stamps are not the same as currency, currency can be informally permitted as non-free use images without formal exception because there are fewer notes. Out of circulation notes and coins may or may not be exempted in the future depending on administration of the NFCC by interested editors -- they are allowed without policy, they may be removed without policy. Contextual significance for stamps is found only by scholarly commentary of the art pictured on the stamps, not the stamps themselves, but currency is exempted. While mass circulated currency is informally exempted without policy justification, only images of stamps with printing errors achieve notoriety sufficient for inclusion at WP. These may be exempted, as well as stamps with out-of-copyright art pictured, and the USPS fine art series with USPS fine arts series descriptions of the stamp art. One or two USPS images can always be used in each stamp related article to suggest their existence since 1978. If exemptions are allowed for currency and stamps issued as currency, it will open the floodgates allowing every non-free use image everywhere throughout WP, violating the Foundation admonition to use few of them. 10:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
1. Notability is established for coins, notes and stamps for those issued for mass circulation as currency by their wide use as exchange in the national economy. Topics of interest may be explored in articles as explained at WP:NOTCASE, "topics based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more articles”. An example is Puerto Rico on stamps, the relationship between X — US. stamps from 1898 — 2016 present to Y — Puerto Rico history, culture and personalities. No one proposes making WP "a stamp album" gallery of USPS issues by year based on the mere existence of a stamp in American culture.
2. Contextual significance is established by the publisher description of either currency or a commemoration stamp issued for mass circulation as currency. The informal editor requirement for fine arts commentary of the stamp or currency artwork is nowhere to be found at NFCC or NFCI. The Foundation allows exceptions to its non-free use policy at Foundation licensing policy. Non-free use of USPS images should be allowed in visually topical articles on out-of-circulation currency such as Federal reserve notes or stamps such as Puerto Rico on stamps when they are accompanied with the appropriate template such as Template:Stamp rationale.
3. As it explains at WP:NFCI#3, the most common cases where non-free images may be used: 3. "For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it." It is not a replaceable image, because "a free use alternative won’t exist.” and a non-stamp image of a person commemorated is not the stamp discussed. WP:NFC#UUI#9 justifies use of the stamp image if placed inline next to the commentary, because the stamp itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article. Just using prose does not replace the visual information found in the image of the stamp itself, No elaborate fine arts commentary is required of the stamp's art. As explained at WP:DECORATIVE, the issue is not whether the text alone can explain the concept at all, but whether is can explain it as well, without the image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Three editors have objected to the article narratives relating to George III. They do not seek to add alterative mainstream RS views to the article following Wikipedia Foundation guidelines, they suppress any variation of their POV by fiat without discussion or sourcing authority to do so. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I've ignored this thread for various reasons but the statement above is simply incorrect. You expressed frustration a few weeks back about lack of collaboration or collegiality; Wikipedia is full of editors making similar complaints and the reason is always the same. If you want collaboration, adopting a less obviously hostile approach would probably help.
I take strong exception to the statement "they suppress any variation of their POV by fiat without discussion or sourcing authority to do so".
The Talkpage for this article is full of similar discussions and while I'm happy to be disagreed with, being told I'm ignorant annoys me. So rather than engaging in a futile thread on interpretation, I did some work by looking at examples where this interpretation mattered. The first one was in the section on the Olive Branch Petition ie "King George refused to even receive it, claiming it was the product of an illegal body.[5]
As discussed in the edit, I removed it because the Source provided does not support the claim. Its not even the right page number or anywhere near it; that is an ongoing problem - so far, most of the references I've checked are wrong.
I then went to the trouble of digging out a correct reference - which made clear the hostility of George's language was a factor in making things worse.
If you're going to have a discussion on use of RS (which I'm sure we all support), then (a) start by making sure yours are correct and (b) do people the courtesy of reading the edits, then criticise. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(1) Narrative citing the gold standard Encyclopedia Britannica article on George III is suppressed, without discussion about disqualifying Britannica as an RS at Talk (likewise Britannica regarding the scope of the ARW). The George III biographic article is written by British scholar John Steven Watson, author of The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960). He wrote at Britannica, George III, (a) By 1770 George III, who "meant to guide the country […] used executive power for winning elections […]". (b) "The king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination."(c) George III’s Tory administration was seen as "equally incapable of waging war or ending it, [and that] was laid directly at the king’s door" by the British public at the time.
(2) Another George III biography extinguished at some citations, but not yet discredited at Talk as an RS is Hibbert 2000 p.160. The supporting linked quote is "King George III had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere."
I would ask why you are relying on an encyclopedia article written 60 years ago when we have an award winning book written five years ago by one of America's leading historians on the era. See Age matters. Also as I said above, there is tendency of some editors to confuse the person of the king with parliament or the cabinet because that is how laws and executive orders were phrased. When we say for example that Horseshoe Falls is crown property, it doesn't mean that Elizabeth II can sell it if she is running short on cash. TFD (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
INSERT - factual error alert: The article at Britannica’s George III was revised and updated 2006, and again in 2008. The Four Deuces year 2008 = 1960 is off-wp:balance, not to say POV dismissive of the gold-standard for scholarly reference of mainstream historiography in the English language. See discussion below at TVH bullet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The first revision was copy editing: King, Duke and Prince were changed to king, duke and prince, manoeuvre was changed to maneuver, etc.[4] The second revisiion added that George III founded the Royal Academy of Arts.[5]TFD (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Style copyedit only means that at the article review, nothing of substance needed to be changed to meet mainstream historiography as of 2008, since uploading the article to Britannica online. That is despite a) new interpretations published by RS but not yet generally accepted, and b) fringe contributions to the literature. All good, not an adverse criticism that might be otherwise implied by an unsubstantiated and unreferenced reference to Age matters, posted for no apparent reason, but resulting in disruption and misdirection at Talk discussion. In this case, noting that the editor assertion, "The Four Deuces year 2008 = 1960 is off-wp:balance", is the kindest, gentlest collegial characterization of the post that can be made, while still making a reply in wp:good faith. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not a credible argument that there has been no progress in historical studies of the ARW for over 60 years. TFD (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, progress and addition, but not suppression and extinction. Of course we adopt the idea of “progress” variously from Enlightenment-Whig-liberal-Marxist interpretations of history, all now modified by an insistence on "contingency" for events at the time under study, and so uncoupling any modern claim to "inevitable teleological history". There is certainly be progress as "unfolding development" in human affairs, including "the enterprise of Historical Studies of the ARW for 60 years. But 1) an interpretation is not misleading just because it has not yet been replaced (aged but reviewed for updates as needed), and 2) this thread addresses TWO sourced deletions, both interpretations depicting George III as an agent in British war policy 1778-1782, the Britannica Wallace article reviewed for accuracy and completeness in 2006, George III “prolonged” war. The other RS Hibbert published in 2000, George III “determined”. Also below RS Conway 2002, George III “blocked” Cabinet proposals.
- Wallace, Hibbert, and Conway all have mainstream interpretations of George III as an agent in determining British war policy 1778-1782. We must not exclude additional RS, but RS in the article cannot be allowed to be POV suppressed without preponderance of the RS to call it wp:fringe. An undiscussed redaction on the authority of a lone disrupting editor without RS is insufficient. Britannica is the mainstream expression of the preponderance of ARW literature – caveat: NOT by editor Robinvp11 wp:cherry pick snippets here, line 1,108 (answered here with source, link, and quotes), but the mainstream history is found by reading through a PARAGRAPH at a time. That and RS from 2000 and 2002 as sourced, linked, and directly quoted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Older sources, and very old sources, are routinely used throughout Wikipedia, esp in history articles. Currently there are more than 40 sources older than 60 years in our Bibliography, some more than 100 years old. The Age matters guideline is largely ignored in historical articles, and rightly so, as older sources often provide us with a way to check the accuracy of the newer sources, which are often the product of acute peer pressure in various modern day academic circles. New discoveries can often change scientific accounts. Rarely, if at all, a modern day historical discovery significantly changes a given historical account. At this late date nearly all the significant facts have long been well established, so let's not carry on as if someone is preventing you from reinventing the wheel. Other than to remark on the age of the source, was there a specific item that was inaccurate or completely in error? If not, then all we really have is an assertion with the inference something is in error. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Why would favor a sixty year old tertiary source written for a broad audience over modern secondary academic sources written by leading experts? The only reason I can think of is that it reflects what you believe and you are unable or unwilling to change your views based on new evidence. Some events from the past such as the ARW, the War of 1812 and the U.S. Civil War become mythologized and collective memory is often wrong. But in these articles we should have the courage to explain what happened rather than what we were told growing up. TFD (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Still no grounds to question Britannica as the pre-eminent English language scholarly reference. No RS authority in the 21st century characterizes Britannica as "mythology". The Jimbo criteria at wp:due weight both support that George III had a role in the British King-Lords-Commons administration of their "American war": (a) "RS scholarly [English-language] reference [for mainstream history]", Britannica at "George III", (b) "prominent adherents" as sourced, linked, and directly quoted at ARW Talk, and by inline citations throughout the article.
- No source is presented by skeptical editors since the Britannica May 2020 scholarly update here. The last reference presented at ARW Talk by skeptical editor sourcing was from 1962. Courage indeed, the first step to get out of a hole is to stop digging.
- The article has not had any "overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only properly sourced representations of George III role in British military affairs by King-Lords-Commons in America 1775-1783, ended 15 April 1783 when Congress unanimously ratified the British King-Lords-Commons preliminary peace of November 1782, and proclaimed the "End of Hostilities" in the mutually ended Anglo-American war. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
TVH — Yes, given the several brief statements about King George it certainly is something of a stretch to say there is any "overemphasis" occurring in the article there. As stated the Britannica article is written by John Steven Watson, and I think we can assume much of it is based on his 1960 work The Reign of George III, 1760-1815. It can be borrowed and viewed at archive.org -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
TFD — "modern secondary academic sources written by leading experts?"?? We're discussing O'Shaughnessy v the Britannica source, so let's not carry on as if all of modern day academia supports your view, that the King had next to no authority. Watson is not a scholar? Also, you seem to be making the assumption that modern sources automatically trump the older sources, apparently with the assumption that they offer some amazing new revelations that have changed the historical account, yet typically you fall short of offering anything concrete. No examples. This argument by inference is going nowhere. As I've indicated at least twice, the article statements about the King need to be addressed directly, and any contentions should be backed up with at least two noted reliable sources. I say 'with at least two', because the statements are being challenged, thus far, with not too much success. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
No one said the king had no authority, just that your view of Great Britain as an absolute monarchy is a myth you might have learned as a child but has no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The only "myth" around here is your misplaced assertion that anyone has held that G.B. was an "absolute monarchy". Please read the discussion more carefully and stop misrepresenting my position, over and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
For editors who would diminish, dismiss and exclude British Whig interpretations of history, and more particularly within the genre, American historiography, the counter claim at this Talk has been to a) the scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica's "American Revolution" as updated in 2018, b) prominent adherents to that view in the histories found among 15 of 16 ARW Pulitzer prize winners for scholarly history, and c) both British Whig and Tory historians on the subject of the American Revolutionary War, inclusive. Although there are RS that are not quite wp:fringe to be accounted for in article Notes, the preponderance of reliable sources support the view that the ARW was an insurrection in North America by Congress to establish the US.
- At Study.com, the top two ranking encyclopedias are found here: #1Encyclopedia Britannica Online. - "The online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica is a trusted source used by more than 4,755 universities worldwide, including Yale, Harvard and Oxford."#2Encyclopedia.com - "Encyclopedia.com is a free online encyclopedia that allows you to search more than 57,000 articles from the Columbia Encyclopedia. Each article contains links to images, as well as magazine and newspaper pieces. Encyclopedia.com also includes other reference works, such as the Oxford Dictionaries and the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia." Both references support an American ARW.
- It is of interest here as to what monographs were assigned to individual editors for "reading" by their "tutors", but even personal research for a doctorate in Britain is not necessarily determinative of editorial choice in an encyclopedia for the general international reader. Other considerations are wp:balance - include British Whig history and its American interpretation as well as Tory - and wp:due weight - do not exclude British Whig history and its American interpretations. Those general admonitions would apply to treatment of George III as a actor-participant in the ARW, with "agency" in its historical narrative. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Whig history: "A tendency among British liberal historians in the nineteenth century to overread the success of the British Empire of their day deep into the study of the past...." (The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: S-Z, p. 1844)[6]TFD (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: You have misread and misapplied another RS source again. The ARW consensus editorial policy here is to avoid 'presentism' and 'anachronism' by imposing the present view of things on the past. So, 1)to understand British contemporaries 1778-1781 in the Atlantic-Caribbean community, we cannot dismiss everything of Whig history, because its interpretations were applied in the thinking, correspondence, and public expression of British Whigs in Parliament and Congressional Patriots in North America during the ARW period.
2)To understand Greenwood, we must read two entries, first "Whig History" and then the italicized term there, "liberal" requires a look at the "Liberalism" entry. The "Whig History" reads, Whig history ..."over-read" the First Empire as liberal. That does not mean we purge all "Whig history" reference as wp:fringe because Greenwood assesses its substance as overly optimistic and teleological. --- The "liberal" of Greenwood’s "Whig history" entry is italicized to lead the reader to another entry, a convention applied throughout the work.
- Greenwood defines "Liberalism", "A broad and (wp:due weight) historically enormously successful political philosophy championing, since c. 1750". It holds, "the natural freedom of individuals with respect to each other and the state; constitutional …civil liberties, … speech and the press and personal freedoms of association and belief;" --- "the right to own and dispose of property under full protection of an enforceable law of contracts; disestablishment of religion… basic human rights, increasingly broadly defined; and …also [in economic policy], most notably free trade."
->"… By the end of the 21st century liberalism retained its nineteenth-century meaning in Europe, but in the United States it had become a surrogate term for what is in substance, and elsewhere identified as, social democracy." --- The Four Deuces, I hope a speedy scan over an array of browser search snippets did NOT mislead into the FALSE impression that social democracy world wide in politics, philosophy, and history is somehow to be deprecated here at ARW as wp:fringe"by the end of the 21st century", and now as you post in 2020. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I am quite aware of what the term liberalism means, and in fact have contributed to that article. I just don't know why you are using the term Whig history. TFD (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to catch up a bit. The ARW article consensus presented George III as an agent in British war policy-making 1778-1782 and in other things and in other periods before his 1813 dementia besides. The editorial choice here was a)convey the historical actors as they saw themselves and others in a contingent narrative, and b)source the article with RS from British historians and 15 American scholarly RS that you mistook as published in the popular press above here at Talk. American historiography on the whole is derivative of Whig history, interpreting an event (such as ARW) as "progress" in human affairs when it tends towards more human rights, and representative government with more personal liberty and political freedoms.
New editors presumed to suppress previously substantiated interpretations of George III, dismissing contemporary Patriots in Congress, Whigs in Parliament, and George III himself, variously: That was George III opinion of himself, and what Parliament Whigs and Patriot Whigs said, but modern British RS in the present say that's not what British monarchs did [example a.] after 1792, or [example b.] after 1952. That is anachronism, bad history. Reference to Whig history is required in a knowledgeable discussion of the ARW, as your Greenwood source says, "Liberalism" [and its progenitor 'Whig History' as you found, and collegially showed me] is "a broad and historically enormously successful political philosophy championing, since c. 1750...", then follows Greenwood's list of the governing principles which are adopted by the Patriot Congress at the AWR. That is of interest in the discussion here: religious and political freedoms, free trade, and so forth, Whig history interpretations of what may be classified as significant developments in the political affairs of a nation. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Opposing editor posts variously (a) misstate sources used to support the article narrative, (b) anachronistically dismiss RS information by contradicting it with true things from a future time period of British constitutional history, or (c) impeach 21th century RS as "19th century Whig historians".
Robinvp11 here on 1 Dec: ”Yes, he had more power than in modern day Britain, and a greater willingness to exert it - but he did not make policy. In the end, he did what his government wanted." Svejk74 here on 27 November: "the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power […] He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited."
- Svejk74 represents Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier (1888-1960) in his 1962 Crossroads of Power with its critique of 19th century Whig historians to answer the post using a 21st century RS source updated in May 2019 here, "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." Svejk responds here, "Namier, writing in the early 20th century, demonstrated that most of the assumptions about party divisions made by 19th century historians were wrong […]"
- The Four Deuces here on 1 Dec: ”There is no [RS] claim that the British sovereign can withhold royal assent […] The cabinet has [in 1775-1783] the ability to provide royal assent if the king is unable or unwilling to do so […].” But then after a challenge in discussion, TFD admitted that the British Cabinet overrode George III only after the onset of his dementia, here on 3 December, ”the cabinet had the power to give royal assent to bills if the king failed in his obligation and in fact did so during George's illnesses.” The Regency Bill allowing immediate transfer of George III’s reign to his son was 1788, and he was incapacitated as an administrator of government by 1801, sourced here. Again, 1788 or 1801 does not relate to George III’s role in the ARW. To do so would be anachronistic, bad history.
TVH, certainly there are times when public officials fail or refuse to perform the tasks they are required by law and under their oaths of office to carry out. For example, Kim Davis, who was the elected county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses, which was required by law. We would not say she had the power to withhold assent to marriages. There were consequences for her and ultimately someone else issued the licenses. Also, in the event a king issues an illegal order, it is null and void as are illegal orders in the U.S.
I provided the example of the regency, not because it happened during the ARW, but it is one example of how parliament can assert its authority over a king who is not performing his duties. More severe measures that have been used by parliament or a cabinet with its confidence include forced abdication, replacement with another monarch and decapitation.
TFD (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Comparing a 21st century county clerk to the King is not exactly the best analogy. No one has asserted that the King had absolute power, so there is no need to remind us that the Parliament could assert authority over the King in the event he didn't perform his duties. You still haven't nailed down the idea that the King could, within his power, withhold bills, as part of the checks and balances system. The idea that Parliament had absolute power goes against the idea of checks and balances. As for "forced abdication, replacement with another monarch and decapitation.", these are last resort actions that occur when a complete takeover of the crown occurs, as happened during the French Revolution. If it came down to where they were about to remove the king's head, it would be sort of silly to think he had the power to say 'no' at that point, so again, you're not really addressing the idea that the king, within the system of government, indeed had a significant measure of authority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The King had the same power to withhold royal assent that a 21st century clerk has to refuse to perform to duties of her office. People aren't robots and there is no physical mechanism to force them to actually sign something. But when officials refuse to perform their duties then it is assigned to someone else and the official faces consequences.
Anyway, the British constitution is not based on checks and balances but on the supremacy of Parliament which was decided by the 1688 revolution. However it retains the language of absolute monarchy. That's why although language used says that the Queen owns Buckingham Palace, she cannot sell it for pocket change. You are aware of that, aren't you?
Incidentally, in France and Russia, the king or emperor had been deposed and a republic proclaimed before they were executed. In England, Charles I remained king until his death. Also he never provided royal assent to create the court that tried him.
George had influence in the British King-Lords-Commons-Cabinet administration of their "American war". The un-impeached sources in Britannica, Dickenson (ed.) and Conway all agree that George III influenced or stymied policy during the British administration of their "American war" 1775-1783. Britannica at "King George III" noted the King, George III extended the American war by two years, as cited, linked and quoted here at Talk.
- Conway 2002, p.15 notes that George III blocked North's cabinet proposals to recruit for the American war by awarding commissions to landlords an merchants who would raise and equip regiments at their own expense. But George III insisted on adding troops to existing regiments to protect existing patronage holders. “Despite the encouraging example of the Seventy-first Highlanders, George refused to countenance any further applications to raise new corps until the end of 1777.” -- That was a George III delay of nearly three (3) years before the British King-Lords-Commons-Cabinet began to follow the successful Scottish recruiting and funding example modeled on the American state militias --- according to a British scholar --- published in 2002.
- For the American military history article ARW, Anachronistic, bad history examples of British constitutional history AFTER the end to Anglo-American hostilities, mutually agreed to by Congress and King-Lords-Parliament-Cabinet, should not be given any currency in editorial decisions about what comes out the article narrative when it is reliably sourced. Alternative historiographic interpretations can be represented, but one editor'(s') POV must NOT be allowed to expunge all other RS representation in the article. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, you need to provide rs that the king could withhold assent. Obviously, since the king was not a robot, he could decide not to sign something, but then someone else would do it for him, as happened in the case of the U.S. county clerk. Not sure why it matters, since we aren't adding it to the article. It's just that you need to be careful to distinguish between actions taken by George personally and those taken as the figurehead for the government or parliament. Note the king was also the figurehead for all judicial appeals: decisions were orders in council made by the king on the advice of the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations. That doesn't mean the king literally sat in judgment. TFD (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Once again, comparing a modern day county clerk to the role of King George during the ARW, 250 years ago, is superfluous. The original contention was over the idea that the King's role was being "overemphasized", and so it's incumbent on those who have made that contention to provide at least one RS that supports that claim in no uncertain terms. This has yet to occur. In any case, none of the existing article statements involve that issue, so once again, we need to focus on those. Thus far we have been dragged into other issues involving new sources v old sources, etc. Can we please get this endless discussion wrapped up? If you have a specific issue with one of the actual statements, please quote the statement in question, explain your contention, and provide the RS that supports it. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The situation is exactly the same. An official who swears an oath fails to fulfill their responsibilities. That doesn't mean that they have a right to do so or that there is no legal remedy. TFD (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Conway's point in one of the sourced citations above, was that in one case during the American war, George III determined government war policy in this small-bore, but crucial way: recruitment to fight the American war would first serve the George III interest in patronage -- so the King cut off sea-first Cabinet members, and then successfully shelved land-first Cabinet members intent on winning the American war quickly for the first three years.
The chapter take-away related to not only (a)George III 1775 isolated Bennington and Sandwich for crossing the King's inclination, by their promoting a sea-first American war strategy, but also (b)George III 1775-end-of-1778 held off the North-Germain proposal for their land-first American war policy to raise new regiments officered by new ambitious men.
The King's and his policy carried the administration for the first three years of the ARW shooting-war with the Americans. It underwrote full pay for existing patronage place-holders who had been indifferent to contractor peace-time corruption. Without a full complement of men in their regiments, the second-son-officers from House-of-Lords families would have been placed on half-pay, which would have had reflected badly on George III and so compromised his influence in Parliament. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Two Conway citations may suffice to tip the balance in this discussion, as all concerned agree that University College London Professor Stephen Conway. Conway is in the mainstream of international historiography as expressed in the updated George III biography article at online Britannica:
(1)In The War of American Independence 1775-1783 (Conway 1995) we see why George III vetoed Lord North’s proposal for recruitment, delaying its implementation for three years. North advanced the successful campaign to recruit the Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment to put down the 1775 American rebellion. The Cabinet proposed making new officers from among ambitious landlords and merchants who sought a commission by raising and equipping regiments at their personal expense. British peace-time army of annuity collecting place-serving officers led to inefficiencies and corruption. If their regiments were not brought to full strength, they would be put on half-pay. George III personally imposed the fill-in policy from 1775 to 1778, when he then relented to follow the three-year old Cabinet recommendation, and so modeling the successful American example for their state militias.
(2) In A Short History of the American Revolutionary War (Conway 2013, p.64-65) - Conway alludes to the previous George III prime minister, Whig Lord Rockingham (Rockingham’s first administration) and the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, a reconciling gesture by King-Lords-Commons in response to colonial protest and prayerful petitions from American colonial legislatures. But in November 1775, the King in Parliament passed the American Prohibitionary Act for the Royal Navy to inspect merchants at sea.
- Before that time, American Patriots agreed their quarrel was with Cabinet and Parliament, not the King personally with the motto, "Resist a wicked ministry – leaving Majesty sacred." The hope was that George III would dismiss North and his government to return to a Whig prime minister more aligned to their free trade policy.
- But in August 1775, the King declared Americans in rebellion, in October George III announced his support of North’s use of foreign soldiers to subdue the Americans. He further effectively removed his protection of colonist English rights by supporting American-only punitive measures. Now John Adams could declaim, "King, Lords and Commons have united in sundering this country from that, I think forever […] [making] us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties."
– George III eventually fulfilled the American hopes from the summer of 1775 in the First Continental Congress in April 1783 by appointing the Whig champion of American independence, Lord Rockingham for a second PM administration -- though George III did have to promise American independence before Rockingham would kiss his hands at the PM appointment.
It would seem that the sources substantiate the idea that the King and Parliament both possessed a measure of authority in a checks and balance system of government. Indeed the colonists often addressed the King when they levied their grievances, and it would seem most readers half familiar with the ARW knew he was not the 'Lone Ranger' with in the British system of government. This debate was initiated over the statements involving the King, outlined above, so in the interest of getting through this discussion these statements, all well sourced by noted historians, need to be addressed directly, and any changes needed be made accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have access to Conway's book. I can't find a Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment from 1775. Do you have further information, such as where they were located, who their colonel was or what type of regiment they were?
King-in-Parliament is just another term for parliament, just as King-in-Council is another term for cabinet. We should avoid terminology that can be confusing. The same with things such as the king announced his support of North's use of foreign soldiers or he declared Americans in rebellion.
O'Shaughnessy's book, which is more authoritative, gives a different reason for Adams decision to transfer hostility from parliament to George III personally.
Of course information from RS O'Shaughnessy must be included in this article, I believe he is already cited in three-or-four paragraphs. Yes, of course. But that does not mean a critical editor(s) can extinguish other RS in an article by fiat without discussion at Talk. No, wrong.
The link given for Conway 1995 works, but there is a return and a time limit for viewing pages, even if you buy the book. Even I have not yet used up my "trips to the well" yet to the "Look Inside"feature for Conway 2013.
It is well to keep in mind that the British Parliamentary system is other than the US Constitutional system. But no one here is confused on that point. Where is this fear coming from? Can you provide a Reflink. It cannot be obfuscation and disruption and smothering walls of words effectively shutting out additional editor participation here. NO - do not suppress RS Conway used in common by two other (opposing) editors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
While we all agree the king had influence, we must not assume it was exercised unless reliable sources clearly say that, and bear in mind that 20 to 60 year old sources have been superseded by recent scholarship. As for anachronisms, we should assume that constitutional conventions were the same as today unless we have reason to believe otherwise. It certainly was closer to today that to the Game of Thrones enchanted kingdom one might imagine it to be. Supremacy of parliament, constitutional monarchy and the Bill of Rights had all been firmly established. All colonists wanted was to enjoy the same rights that people did in Great Britain. It wasn't the French or Russian revolutions. TFD (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
On what basis are you asserting that the "old sources have been superseded by recent scholarship."? By their date of publication alone? By new evidence which has rewritten the account on King in relation to the Parliament? Once again, assumptions are being offered instead of actual examples. Are there any new historical discoveries, lost documents, logs, diaries, that have changed the historical scene in this area? While the King didn't have absolute executive power over the Parliament it was he who appointment PMs, made appointments to the House of Lords, and it was he who held control over the treasury, the 'crown jewels', and as such, could indeed wield much influence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
"George III took a keen interest in the military struggle and stubbornly refused to accept that America was lost, even after the disastrous defeat at Yorktown in 1781. Bowing to Parliament's refusal to continue the war, the King reluctantly parted with North. The King tried to maintain some freedom of maneuver by playing upon the rivalry between Shelburne and Rockingham, the leading opposition politicians who now formed a ministry. When Rockingham died unexpectedly in July 1782, George III appointed Shelburn as his successor. But Shelburn was unable to secure sufficient support in the Commons and was forced to resign following a concerted attack by the followers of Charles Fox and Lord North. The King viewed North's actions as a personal betrayal, and, in the context of the unprecedented and recent humiliation of the war, remained implacably hostile to the Fox-North coalition. He withheld confidence from his new ministers, refused requests for peerages, and created difficulties over financial provisions for the Prince of Wales." < Cannon, J. (ed) 2015, The Oxford Companion to British History -- article written by Ayling, S., George the Third / Brooke, J. King George III > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: :Sorry about the terminology. Did you search on 'Seventy-first Highlanders', or 'Scots' or just '75th'? Conway did not spend much ink on small unit histories. I took no notice of any appendices at the back of the book. The focus of the sourced chapter was that George III successfully bent the Cabinet to his will over the issue of regimental recruitment for the first three years of shooting war in the British "American war" 1775-end-of-1778. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
The source says the king intervened in recruitment and provides an example. I wanted to see whether that actually happened. Unfortunately I can't do that because I cannot identify the example he gave. Do you think it was the 71st Regiment of Foot, Fraser's Highlanders? TFD (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
For contributions to further Virginia history on Wikipedia at Thomas Jefferson, a Virginia Constitution Ratification stamp, picturing the Capitol Building of colonial Williamsburg. First the representative colonial House of Burgesses, then the state House of Delegates met in the east wing (right) from 1699 to 1780. Virginia's Ratification Convention met here in 1788. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Congressional District election results: light colors show recent gains (red Republican, blue Democratic)
The "Political divisions” section should be copy edited to read as follows (maintaining existing links), removing excessive detail concerning state history belonging to another section and the territories belonging in the subsidiary article:
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, two insular commonwealths, the District of Columbia, three insular territories and various uninhabited island possessions.[1] The states compose the vast bulk of the U.S. land mass. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. The United States also possesses five major overseas territories: Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands in the Caribbean; and American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific.[4] States and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress. The smallest states and the District of Columbia have three electors each.[7]
Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.[8]
The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native Nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.[9]
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, DC, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions.[1] The states and territories are the principal administrative districts in the country. These are divided into subdivisions of counties and independent cities. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C.[4] The 50 states and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress.[7]
Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.[8]
The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native American nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.[9]
US population density 2000 states, counties and independent cities
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, DC, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions.[1] The states and territories are the principal administrative districts in the country. These are divided into subdivisions of counties and independent cities. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C.[4] The states and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress, DC has three.[7]
Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.[8]
The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native American nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.[9]
In the Confederate States of America there is an extensive section on “Causes of secession”. That material might be combined with the extensive material on this current page for a new article “Causes of secession in the American Civil War” The section in this article might reduce the subsections to paragraphs, nineteen to six, with the narrative intact aligned with existing references, and reordered as follows.
Slavery. From the anti-slavery perspective, the issue was primarily about whether the system of slavery was an anachronistic evil that was incompatible with Republicanism in the United States. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment — to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction.[15] The slave-holding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their Constitutional rights.[16] Slavery was illegal in the North. It was fading in the border states and in Southern cities, but was expanding in the highly profitable cotton districts of the South and Southwest.
Considering the relative weight given to causes of the Civil War by contemporary actors, historians such as Chandra Manning argue that both Union and Confederate fighting soldiers believed that slavery caused the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to emancipate the slaves. Confederates fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it.[43]
Sectionalism. Sectionalism refers to the different economies, social structure, customs and political values of the North and South.[48][49] It increased steadily between 1800 and 1860 as the North, which phased slavery out of existence, industrialized, urbanized and built prosperous farms, while the deep South concentrated on plantation agriculture based on slave labor, together with subsistence farming for the poor whites. In the 1840s and 50s, the issue of accepting slavery (in the guise of rejecting slave-owning bishops and missionaries) split the nation's largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches) into separate Northern and Southern denominations.[57]
Protectionism. Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.[59]
The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 1816. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth, and Republicans called for an increase in tariffs in the 1860 election. The increases were finally enacted in 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress.[60][61]
States rights. The South argued that each state had the right to secede–leave the Union–at any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a perpetual union.[46]
Consensus arising from a mediation and ratified by an RfC
From Sunray's screen shot with some modifications. The RfC should be to more than the one one community of Politics, government and law, it should include editors from Geography community and the United States community. I'm not sure how to include Keithbob's proposal to limit mediator participant comments or replies.
A mediation has been held to consider the question: "What should the definition be for the United States?" The mediation was the culmination of a long-running (since, at least, March 2013) issue of whether the United States should be defined as the 50 states and the District of Columbia, or as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, five territories and various possessions. This issue affects the info box in a footnote. It was agreed from the outset that the statement in the lede sentence of the article would have a footnote to explain the inclusion of U.S. territories, the consensus was to use the geographical sense of the United States for a general readership in an international context. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes below and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States.
Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland
Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US
Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law
Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”
1 omits insular terr & poss
1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)
Done (5)
Done (3)
5 USG sources omit possessions
3 omit possessions
1 omits insular terr & poss
1 omits DC & terr & poss
Mediation sources deliberation
The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law, proclamation and international reports.
The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction [26], US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee [27]
Then for the RfC itself:
RfC: Do you agree with the following a) lead sentence and accompanying note for the United States article and b) for a note for the info box area. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes above and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States.
RfC box: An editor has requested comments from others for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government and law. Geography. United States.
Note: U.S. Census Bureau reports in its “State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates” of August, 2010, “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. It does not include minor outlying islands.
Please indicate whether you support oppose the above a) lede and note and b) info box area footnote. Comments and questions are welcome in the section below.
Support mediation editor.
Support mediation editor.
Support mediation editor.
Support mediation editor.
Support mediation editor.
Support mediation editor.
Support mediation editor.
Support mediation editor.
Oppose mediation editor.
Initial Statements of 200 words
Comments and questions
---Comment on RfC wording. The RfC should be to more than the one one community of Politics, government and law, it should include editors from Geography community and the United States community. I'm not sure how to include Keithbob's proposal to limit mediator participant comments or replies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census [28]) should be included in the US country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense for the general reader in an international context (politically, not in a narrow internal judicial meaning for the Commerce Clause). The US government includes them all by definition [29] and as “contiguous zone” [30], “geographical sense” [31]
and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.) [32], and three scholars use “encompasses” [33], “composed of” [34] and “a part of” [35] the US.
II. DC and the five major territories are found in wide ranging applications by USG sources [36][37], [38][39][40], and by scholars as “included” [41], officially a part of” [42] and in the “US federal system” [43]. Since the Insular Cases Congress has enacted law making insular territories “officially” [44] “included” [45] “within” [46] the US federal system. Federal District Court, unchallenged for seven years, held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p. 26 [47]), see constitutional scholar confirmation (2009 p. 1175 [48]).
III. Narrow citations of legal minutia regarding application of the Commerce Clause for internal tariffs and IRS taxes are irrelevant to a discussion of the geographical extent. Conforming this page to reliable sources does not require updating all others, other articles can be updated as editors find omissions.
TFD “Support” for the proposed mediation on 7 June 2015 [49] once seemed to me a sign of agreement that the US federal republic is geographically and politically (not judicially for the Commerce Clause) composed of 50 states, a federal district, 5 territories and various possessions. It seems I misunderstood. I apologize for my misunderstanding, and await the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census [50]) should be included in the "United States" country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense which is useful to the general reader in an international context. Five US government sources include them all by definition [51] and as “contiguous zone” [52], “geographical sense” [53]
and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.) [54], and three scholars use “encompasses” [55], “composed of” [56] and “a part of” [57] the US.
Additionally, the District of Columbia and five major territories are included in five USG sources by definition [58][59], enumeration [60][61], and referenced equal to a “state” for purposes of law [62], and by three scholars as “included” [63], officially a part of” [64] and in the “US federal system” [65]. Only unsourced editor assertion suggests US territories are “external” to the US today.
II. While the Insular Cases a century ago once withheld from then “alien races” — citizenship, civilian courts, self-governance and representation in Congress — as guards against “danger to the republic” --, Congress (also supreme law of the land (Article VI [66])), has since enacted a sequence of law which makes the insular territories “officially” [67] “included” [68] “within” [69] the US federal system as a constitutional matter.
The insular territories remain foreign in a domestic sense, domestic in a foreign sense, for an internal tariffs on commodities such as sugar. An internal tariff is irrelevant here. Federal District Court, unchallenged now for seven years, held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p. 26 [70]), and this is subsequently noted in the scholarship of constitutional law by Lawson and Sloan (p. 1175 [71]). No counter-sources reference current law, although editor OR has misapplied case law from one hundred years ago.
I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census [72]) should be included in the "United States" country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense which is useful to the general reader in an international context. Five US government sources include them all by definition [73] and as “contiguous zone” [74], “geographical sense” [75]
and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.) [76], and three scholars use “encompasses” [77], “composed of” [78] and “a part of” [79] the US. Only editor OR imagines these are "external" to the US in the modern era. Conforming this page to reliable sources does not require updating all others, although the Federal District map now appears at United States district court showing territories following their earlier omission, and other articles can be updated to reflect sources including US territories as editors find others.
II. DC and the five major territories are also included: five additional USG sources by definition [80][81], enumeration [82][83], and equal to a “state” for purposes of law [84], and by three scholars as “included” [85], officially a part of” [86] and in the “US federal system” [87]. While the Insular Cases once withheld citizenship and self-governance, Congress has since enacted a sequence of law making the insular territories “officially” [88] “included” [89] “within” [90] the US federal system as a constitutional matter. Federal District Court, unchallenged for seven years, held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p. 26 [91]), see Lawson and Sloan (p. 1175 [92]). Now merely an internal tariff, Insular Cases are misapplied case law in this instance.
Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll
n/a
n/a
n/a
Done fundamental provisions
various
n/a
Sources
See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. viewed April 6, 2016. Six scholars in law journals, university press monographs and Congressional Quarterly attest to the 21st century US geographic sense, national jurisdiction and constitutional framework including territories: G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [93]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [94]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [95]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232,
[96]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [97]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [98]).
Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland
Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US
Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law
Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”
1 omits insular terr & poss
1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)
Done (5)
Done (3)
5 USG sources omit possessions
3 omit possessions
1 omits insular terr & poss
1 omits DC & terr & poss
Mediation deliberation
The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed in international forums, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law.
The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A).
Sources describing the constitutional status of Insular Case “alien races” a century ago were not found applicable to modern territories today with “native-born” Americans obtaining their citizenship, self-governance, civilian courts and territorial Members of Congress by today's law.
Mediation sources summary
Scope
USG sources
Scholars
USG sources
Scholars
Almanac
Encyclopedia
US federal republic geographic extent
Pres. Proclamation [119], Pres. Exec Order [120], GAO (1997) [121], State Dept. Common Core [122], Homeland Act [123]
Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland
Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US
Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law
Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”
1 omits insular terr & poss
1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)
Done (5)
Done (3)
5 USG sources omit possessions
3 omit possessions
1 omits insular terr & poss
1 omits DC & terr & poss
Mediation sources deliberation
The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law.
The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction [137], US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee [138]
how we shall resolve contradictions in the sources, the answer should lie in reliance on scholarship rather than editor original research into primary sources. See wp:psts under wp:No original research.
Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event.Policy: -- "DO NOT analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Example. U.S. government reports territories as “unincorporated” related to the Commerce Clause and others, therefore conclude territories are "not a part of" the United States in any sense, WITHOUT any supporting secondary sources.
A secondary source provides an author's … interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts taken from primary sources.Policy: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Example. Although U.S. government reports territories as judicially “unincorporated” for tax purposes, and "a part of" it for homeland security, citizenship travel and other administrative purposes, SIX scholars in reliable sources conclude that the federal United States includes the five major territories or more.
We have no scholars to say, “U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. territory.” Excluders use unsourced data bases and online almanacs omitting territories to assert an opinion, or cite territories are “unincorporated” for taxes, “foreign in a domestic sense” for internal tariffs from the Insular Cases, then interpret that to mean territories are not a part of the 21st century U.S. in any sense.
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.”
WP:OPINION. "The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." We have six scholars who describe the federal U.S. as including five major territories or more.
WP:WEIGHT. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Those few excluding territories also exclude DC from the federal U.S. although both kinds of non-state sub-units have delegate Members of Congress.
Jimbo Wales Statement of principles 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [note listing territories and possessions].
The current U.S.G. view of itself as reported to the U.N. Human Rights Committee is, "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." Item 22 [139], December 30, 2011, viewed April 6, 2015. Therefore, the lead sentence in this article should follow this U.S. “Common Core Document” example including 50 states, a federal district, territories and possessions as constitutionally “within the political framework” of the U.S. (item 27 [140]).
This is backed up by six scholars in law journals, university press monographs and Congressional Quarterly, G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [141]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [142]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [143]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232,
[144]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [145]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [146]).
Is there any objection to using this U.S.G. source to copyedit the lead sentence?
The assertion that the Insular Cases doctrine, a judicial “unincorporation” of newly acquired territories a century ago, still means what it did in 1901, is an anachronism eclipsed by subsequent series of Congressional acts. Once Insular cases denied islander citizenship, their elective self governance and a delegate Member of Congress to the islanders because they were “aliens” and a “danger” to the republic in 1901.
But Congress has since superseded the Court in all of these elements in the post WWII modern era, and it extended the privileges and immunities clause to the last of the five major territories in 1988. The implication that the meaning of “unincorporated” for the territories is unchanged over a century is anachronistic for the 21st century.
In fact in a domestic sense, “unincorporation” today only means that internal taxes and tariffs may be discriminatory in the territories, and they can have elements of Napoleonic law without jury trials in civil cases that is their legacy from Denmark, Germany and Spain. Currently, the five major territories are constitutionally a part of the political framework of the U.S. as sourced (Item 22, 27 [147]).
“Internal” self determination for a group within a nation-State in the modern era requires citizenship/nationals, elective self governance and representation in the national councils within the State traditions. Judicial U.S. policy withholding 1) citizenship/nationality, 2) elective self governance and 3) representation in the national councils is ended variously in Puerto Rico by 1952, U.S. Virgin Islands by 1973, Guam by 1973, District of Columbia by 1975, American Samoa by 1981 and the Northern Mariana Islands by 2009 (Wikipedia sources). The State Department reports, 27. "A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The governmental frameworks in these areas are largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of their residents." [148]
District of Columbia 1801 citizenship, 1975 elected mayor, 1971 delegate Member of Congress
American Samoa -- 1904 nationals, 1978 elected governor, 1981 delegate Member of Congress
Guam ---------------- 1950 citizenship, 1972 elected governor, 1973 delegate Member of Congress
Northern Marianas 1986 citizenship, 1978 elected governor, 2009 delegate Member of Congress
Puerto Rico 1952 mutual citizenship, 1948 elected governor, 1901 delegate Member of Congress
U.S. Virgin Islands 1927 citizenship, 1970 elected governor, 1973 delegate Member of Congress
Internal tax rates do not bear on participation in the federal republic. The United States is a federal republic which represents its people in Congress in a scheme of representation by place. 1. If U.S. people are represented in Congress, then their places are a part of the United States. 2. DC and the five major territories have delegate Members of Congress representing U.S. people. 3. Therefore, DC and the five major territories are a part of the U.S. federal republic. -
A conclusion supported by six scholars. What was once judicially withheld is now superseded by unchallenged legislation.
Six scholar publications in law journals, university press monographs, and Congressional Quarterly all attest to the five major territories are a part of the United States in the modern, post WWII era.
G. Alan Tarr (2005) The U.S. "now encompasses” DC and island territories. (p. 382 [149]). Ellis Katz (2006), "The American federation is composed of … a federal district … five major territories, ... and ... tribes. (p.296 [150]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), the five major territories are “a part of the United States” (p. 1 [151]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “At present, the US includes” five major territories and DC. (p. 231-232,
[152]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), territories "are officially a part of U.S. territory,” (p. 649 [153]). Earl H. Fry (2009), the “U.S. federal system” includes the five major territories (p. 297 [154]).
There is no reason to bar Seqqis edits just because he is not a part of a three-month mediation. Jimbo Wales Statement of principles 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.” — However, I respect Golbez desire to stay aloof from this discussion.
The issue is political, it's not about arcane judicial terms of art. Congress (a political branch) has gutted the judicial “unincorporation-1901” for the five major territories in the post-WWII modern era. The Insular Cases once held that “alien” islander populations of 1901 were “dangerous” to the American republic. But what was once judicially withheld is now mutually superseded by Congressional action and islander plebiscites, including citizenship, elective self-governance and delegate Members of Congress. Wikipedia country articles should not be governed by anachronisms.
While territories remain “unincorporated-2013”, --- in a “domestic sense” for a remnant of internal tariffs and domestic taxes ---, the State Department also reports that the U.S. constitutional "political framework” now includes DC and five major territories. Simple ad hominem attack by TFD does not answer the sources provided. The article is improved for the general international reader with a lead sentence which reflects the United States of the post-WWII modern era, and that includes territories as sourced.
1. If A is true, then B is true. --- If A: territories are incorporated, then B: territories are a part of the U.S.
2. A is false, ~ A. --- ~ A: Territories are unincorporated for taxes and tariffs.
3. Therefore, B is false. --- Therefore, ~ B: territories are not a part of the U.S.
- A non sequitur denying the antecedent so it is a logical fallacy, unsupported by secondary scholarly sources, which report territories are "a part of the United States".
We should subject the lead sentence to the logical thinking found in a syllogism.
1. If A is true, then B is true. --- If A: territories are within the political framework of the U.S. government, then B: territories are a part of the U.S.
2. A is true. --- A: The five major territories are within the political framework of the U.S. government (State Dept. [155]),
they have permanent residents with permanent allegiance to the U.S. (GAO rept. [156])
the president is their head-of-state, all have delegate Members of Congress, they are under the regular protection of federal district courts.
3. Therefore, B is true. --- The five major territories are a part of the U.S.
- A syllogism supported by secondary sources. Scholar Jon M. Van Dyke at University of Hawaii, in a peer reviewed journal [157], “The evolving legal relationships between the United States and its affiliated U.S.-flag islands" in the Hawaii Law Review, Fall 1992 includes the five major territories as “a part of the United States”. The United States is a federal republic which includes 50 states, a federal district and five major territories.
1. If A is true, then B is true. example: If I jump from a tall building, I will die.
Lead logic: If A: territories are incorporated, then B: territories are a part of the U.S.
2. A is false, example: ~ A. I will not jump from a tall building.
Lead logic: ~ A. Territories are unincorporated for taxes and tariffs.
3. Therefore, B is false. example: Therefore, ~B. I will not die.
Lead logic: Therefore, ~ B: territories are not a part of the U.S.
- Non sequitur reasoning is fallacious, and here the conclusion is also unsupported by secondary sources.
Rather, we should have a syllogism beginning,
1. If A then B. If a non-state is within the political framework of the U.S. like its federal district, then it is a part of the United States.
2. A is true. DC and the five major territories are alike "within the political framework" of the U.S. government (State Dept. doc. item 27 [158]),
they have permanent residents with permanent allegiance to the U.S. as citizens/nationals (GAO rept. [159])
the president is their head-of-state, all have delegate Members of Congress, they are under the regular protection of federal district courts.
3. Therefore, B is true. --- The five major territories are a part of the United States.
- A syllogism supported by secondary sources above Tarr (2005), Katz (2006), Van Dyke (1992), Sparrow (2005), Haider-Markel (2008), Fry (2009). No counter secondary sources are offered. The United States is a federal republic which includes 50 states as well as a federal district and five major territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Definition. The United States is a federal republic, a nation-state with a scheme of representation for its citizens and nationals.
1. If Congress represents the U.S. citizens/nationals in a place by name, the named place is a part of the United States federal republic.
2. Five territories are represented by name with delegate Members of Congress: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa.
3. Therefore, five major territories are a part of the U.S. federal republic.
[160] Golbez removing Seqqis including territories (scroll down to lower frame) 2015
[161] Golbez removing TheVirginiaHistorian including territories. 2013
[162] Golbez removing RightCowLeftCoast including territories 2013 ”correcting per my revelation on the Talk page”
[163] Collect including territories v. TFD removal. 2013
[164] TFD removing TheVirginiaHistorian including territories. 2013
[165] Dispute resolution in March 2013 came down to familiar names and phrasing. --- 2.18 Two US lead options with most endorsements
Can you live with… The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and colloquially as America, is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. — yes: TFD, Golbez, older≠wiser first choice (Bkonrad), CMD.
Can you live with… The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America, The territories have differing degrees of autonomy. — yes. TheVirginiaHistorian, older≠wiser second choice (Bkonrad), Collect, Gwillhickers, Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast.
More TFD misrepresentation on my statement "Crimea is a part of Ukraine.” see Diff [166].
Six scholar publications in law journals, university press monographs, and Congressional Quarterly all attest to the five major territories are a part of the United States in the modern, post WWII era.
G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [167]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [168]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [169]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232,
[170]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [171]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [172]).
G. Alan Tarr (2005) The U.S. "now encompasses” DC and island territories. (p. 382 [173]). Ellis Katz (2006), "The American federation is composed of … a federal district … five major territories, ... and ... tribes. (p.296 [174]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), the five major territories are “a part of the United States” (p. 1 [175]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “At present, the US includes” five major territories and DC. (p. 231-232,
[176]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), territories "are officially a part of U.S. territory,” (p. 649 [177]). Earl H. Fry (2009), the “U.S. federal system” includes the five major territories (p. 297 [178]).
Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008) at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 [179]). Yet,
G. Alan Tarr (2005) at Rutgers University, “The United States now encompasses” DC and island territories (e.g., Guam and Puerto Rico), and … tribes ...”. (p.382 [180]). Ellis Katz (2006) notes that "The American federation is composed of … a federal district … five major territories, ... and ... tribes. (p.296 [181]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992) at University of Hawaii, includes the five major territories as “a part of the United States” (p. 1 [182]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005) at University of Texas-Austin, notes, “At present, the US includes” them and DC. (p. 231-232,
[183]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008) at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 [184]). Earl H. Fry (2009) at Brigham Young University describes the “U.S. federal system” from U.S. Virgin Islands in the east to Guam in the west including the five major territories, … their delegates to Congress have the same status as DC. … complicated by … tribal governments. (p. 297 [185]).
Scholar G. Alan Tarr at Rutgers University, describes how “The United States now encompasses 50 states, a federal district (Washington DC) that serves as the capital, 11 island territories (e.g., Guam and Puerto Rico), and some 600 federally recognized Native American tribes ...”. p. 382 [186] in John Kincaid and Alan Tarr eds., “Constitutional origins, structure and change in federal countries” (2005) McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Scholar Ellis Katz notes that "The American federation is composed of fifty states, a federal district (Washington, D.C.), fourteen territories" (five major territories, and nine small islands) and numerous federally recognized Indian tribes. p. 296 [187] in Akhtar Majeed, Ronald L. Watts, Douglas Brown eds., “Distribution of powers and responsibilities in federal countries” (2006) McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Scholar Jon M. Van Dyke at University of Hawaii, in a peer reviewed journal “[188] The evolving legal relationships between the United States and its affiliated U.S.-flag islands" in the Hawaii Law Review Fall, 1992 includes the five major territories as “a part of the United States”.
Scholar Bartholomew Sparrow at University of Texas-Austin, in a peer-reviewed publication, “Empires External and internal: territories, government lands and federalism in the United States” found in “Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803-1898” (2005) which he co-edits with Sanford Levinson, p. 231-232, enumerates the five major territories and notes, “At present, the US includes” them.
Scholar Donald P. Haider-Markel at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. p. 649 [189]. in “Political Encyclopedia of U.S. states and regions” (2008) Congressional Quarterly Press.
Scholar Earl H. Fry at Brigham Young University describes the “U.S. federal system” from U.S. Virgin Islands in the east to Guam in the west including the five major territories, … their delegates to Congress have the same status as DC. … the system is complicated by 562 federally recognized tribal governments. p. 297 [190] in “Foreign Relations in Federal Countries”, (2009) Hans Michelmann ed., McGill-Queen’s University Press.
U.S. Presidential Proclamation, September 2, 1999. found in Sean D. Murphy, “United States Practice in International Law: vol. 1, 1999-2001. Extension of U.S. Contiguous Zone enumerates the five major territories and “any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty”.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), [191] U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution], November 1997. p. 9n. The five major territories have U.S. citizens/nationals by birth with “permanent allegiance to the United States” with Constitutional provisions beyond fundamental as extended by Congress and the Courts, including citizenship and the franchise excluded in the Insular Cases. The nine uninhabited islands are also enumerated, eight of which have only “fundamental personal rights under the Constitution”, “no determinative determination has been made” for uninhabited Palmyra Atoll. p. 7.
From the statute governing Homeland Security (14) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States. (16)(A) The term ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States [192].
Presidential [193] Executive Order 13423, addressing national environment, energy and transportation management legislation of the Congress, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and associated territorial waters and airspace.”
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Needing a passport enumerates the five major territories and describes them as “parts of the United States”.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, [194] Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants” p. 7, 77, 101, summarizing current U.S. law, reports that the United States “now consists of” 50 states, DC and the five major territories.
U.S. State Department addresses the five major territory governors as residing “throughout the territory of the United States” in the Legal Advisor [195] Memorandum of January 20, 2010, regarding U.S. Human Rights Treaty Reports, and again regarding human rights in a [196] letter February 18, 2014 referring to the five major territories as “throughout our country”.
U.S. Congress, [197] Mapping Congress, “History, Art & Archives" includes the modern five major territories in the Range of Congresses: 80th-114th. Viewed January 27, 2015.
7 FAM 1112 [198] p. 3 The term “United States” includes Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands; American Samoa is characterized as the last "outlying possession" with non-citizen nationals p. 5. [199] 7 FAM 1120, however they are not considered aliens within the United States, they may not be deported. Domestic in a foreign sense, it is foreign in a domestic sense as the Insular Cases provided, but in the 21st century with nationals of the soil, enfranchised self-government and delegate Member of Congress withheld by the Supreme Court.
U.S. Census reports “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) including the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico and four major territories [200]. It excludes the “U.S. Minor Outlying Islands”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
U.S. State Department. Report submitted to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. The persons living in DC and the five major territories live "within the political framework of the United States” [27], with local government “largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the U.S. and the will of the residents.” [80] [201]
U.S. National Response Framework for FEMA defines U.S. in the Stafford Act: “United States” means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. p. 2. [202]. We can find modern examples of including the five major territories in legislation, but none to exclude them in any respect but for taxes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
For medicare, The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and ships in territorial waters. [203]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
For the Department of Education, DC and the five major territories are included in the U.S. political framework, “State” ... refers to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. note 5. [204]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The Social Security Administration uses the term "United States" to mean the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Swain's Island, and the Northern Mariana Islands. [205]TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
No, here we are talking about the “political union” of the Northern Marianas Covenant on November 3, 1986 with the U.S. as sourced, (p.2 [206]), which made it “within the political framework of the U.S.” just as DC is, as sourced (item 27 [207]). All five territories are "officially part of U.S. territory" as well as "unincorporated" -- as sourced in a Congressional Quarterly publication (p. 649 [208]),
TFD again raises the non sequitur of limited economic “unincorporation” for some federal taxes and tariffs and pretends that contradicts the “federated United States is composed of” the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands as sourced (p.296 [209]), which it does not.
The citizenship and franchise withheld in the century-old Insular Cases have been mutually agreed to in the modern era. As one of TFD sources, Leibowitz says, "The Supreme Court has itself noted the inability of the unincorporated v. incorporated doctrine to determine judicial disputes but has not as yet been willing to formulate judicial doctrines more relevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns (p. 114 [210]).
I am getting sustained pushback to sourced information I would like to add to the encyclopedia. References to “50 states and DC” which omit the territories are almanacs in Spring 2013 discussion and databases in Fall 2014 discussion. I ask for sources to justify the leap from "unincorporated territories" for internal tax regime in primary documents to territories as "not a part of the United States in any sense", --- but none are forthcoming. I am accused of wp:cherry picking and wp:original research, debate tricks and twisting references, disruption and sea-lioning by experienced Wikipedia editors. What am I missing?
1. Sources
Presidential Proclamation in 1999, “in accordance with international law, …proclaim[ed] the extension of the contiguous zone of the United States of America, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands…”, p. 163 [211]
The U.S. Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol declares in 2015, "U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card” [212].
Scholar Ellis Katz notes that "The American federation is composed of fifty states, a federal district (Washington, D.C.), fourteen territories" (five major territories, and nine small islands) and numerous federally recognized Indian tribes. p. 296 [213] in Akhtar Majeed, Ronald L. Watts, Douglas Brown eds., “Distribution of powers and responsibilities in federal countries” (2006) McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Scholar Jon M. Van Dyke at University of Hawaii, includes the five major territories as “a part of the United States”, [214] "The evolving legal relationships between the United States and its affiliated U.S.-flag islands" in the Hawaii Law Review Fall, 1992.
Scholar Donald P. Haider-Markel at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. p. 649 [215]. in “Political Encyclopedia of U.S. states and regions” (2008) Congressional Quarterly Press.
I can find no scholar who looks at the primary sourced "unincorporated territories" for an internal discriminatory tax regime and then concludes they are "not a part of the United States" for every sense in the modern era. In fact, the opposite seems to be true in the case of Puerto Rico. A federal district court has ruled unchallenged for seven years that Congress evolved a political incorporation by statute of Puerto Rico "in fact" p. 26 [216], and scholars Lawson and Sloan in the Boston Law Review note Puerto Rico is the paradigm of an "incorporated" territory as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art p. 1175 [217].
3. Content. The U.S. is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, and five major territories. -- as sourced with scholarly reliable sources above. Two scholarly sources omitting territories also omit DC, which is not acceptable among the editor consensus. Since 1988 the constitutional privileges and immunities clause has applied to the territories p. 28 [218], and like DC the five major territories have a delegate Member of Congress for participation in the national councils of the federal republic in the American tradition for territories p. 297 [219].
4. Counter argument.
Executive sources refer to the territories as “unincorporated”. --- “Unincorporated” refers in 1901 to internal tax regime withholding citizenship. In 1922 it refers to fundamental constitutional protections. Discriminatory tax regime is still governing law, but additional constitutional protections are extended by Congress and Courts in the modern era; a federal district court unchallenged in seven years observes Congress has “incorporated” Puerto Rico by statute “in fact”; scholars Lawson and Sloane conclude it is “incorporated” as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art. The citizenship withheld from "savages" by the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases have been mutually made citizens by modern referendums in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.
Of the five major territories, the United Nations classifies Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Islands as “non-self-governing”. — The U.N. does not secede sub-units of federal republics. Alaska and Hawaii were on the list mid-20th century, but they remained a part of the U.S. -- French Polynesia and New Caledonia are French on the U.N. list, described in the Wikipedia article France as comprising the French Republic with membership in the National Assembly. All five major U.S. territories have the same delegate Members of Congress as DC, which is conceded as a part of the United States federal republic.
The Supreme Court declared territories “unincorporated”, the Supreme Court Insular Cases must be over turned or the Congress must explicitly “incorporate” territories before they can be seen as “a part of” the United States. That is a wp:or editor interpretation of primary sources. The U.S. government asserts and scholars conclude that the five major U.S. territories are “a part of the United States”, and are “included” in the United States.
Congress has gutted the judicial “unincorporation” of the five major territories. In the post-WWII modern era, the “alien” islander populations of 1901, once held by the Insular Cases to be “dangerous” to the American republic, have attained what was once judicially withheld by superseding Congressional action, including citizenship, elective self-governance and delegate Members of Congress.
While territories remain “unincorporated” for a remnant of internal tariffs and domestic taxes, the State Department reports that the U.S. constitutional "political framework" currently includes non-state sub-units including DC and five major territories, they are within the "national jurisdiction" and its "geographical area". Scholars attest they are a part of the U.S., using the phrases “encompasses”, "composed of”, “a part of”, and “includes” in law journals, university press monographs and the Congressional Quarterly.
The territories have exercised their “internal” self-determination within the United States guaranteed by international law to form political union by plebiscites in the modern era. Despite a limited domestic sense of “unincorporation”, they have attained equal citizenship without regard to religion or race, elective self-governance, and representation in the national councils.
No original research wp:psts policy forbids original editor interpretation of primary material. Anachronistic use of sources describing the “unincorporation” effect one hundred years ago are not appropriate for evaluation of territories today. The scholarship of modern territories describes citizenship, elective self-governance and delegate Members of Congress in what the territorial constitutions call political "union".
U.S. related databases should be taken from current sources with the most comprehensive aggregating of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government. There is no uniform reporting system for U.S. databases, WP should not arbitrarily impose one. Some non-U.S.G. political scientists exclude DC and the 5 major territories, as does Encyclopædia Britannica [220]. But the discussion is related to sourced inclusion of DC and the five major territories reflecting available databases, including them in sovereignty and area; "50 states, DC and Puerto Rico" for NAFTA and customs; "50 states and DC" for population, then footnoting alternate aggregates.
To date, online almanacs (2013) and an unsourced database footnote (2014) have been advanced to support excluding 4 million U.S. citizens from the article as "a part of the United States". We should use secondary sources per wp:psts. Supporting documentation includes scholars and U.S. executive orders, statutes, adjudication, administration — but no modern counter sources exclude the five major territories, only editor references to "unincorporation" for an internal tax regime. The U.S. government considers the five major territories as within "the contiguous zone of the United States" [221], the WP country article should also. —
The RfC closed with “no consensus” but a lot of common ground was established during discussion for three months in spring 2013 and for three months in fall 2014.
The U.S. is sovereign over the five major territories. POTUS is the Head of State for all. For international readers the U.S. is a ‘“sole person” conducting the international affairs of 50 states, DC and five territories. They are within defined U.S. territory with a permanent population of U.S. nationality. --- This much seems to be stipulated by both sides, discounted by excluders, seen as governing by includers.
It is contested that territories are politically "a part of the U.S.” though they are in a constitutional status above “possessions” by locally self-governing polities of U.S. citizens and nationals, with delegate Members of Congress, organic acts, constitutions and referendums for political union, the State Department reports DC and the five major territories as constitutionally within the political framework of the U.S. --- in this, only the conclusion "a part of the U.S." is contested —
AND territories are judicially “unincorporated” for certain taxes and constitutional provisions until Congress extends them under the Constitution's Territorial Clause as it has over the 20th century --- this is stipulated by both sides, discounted by includers, seen as governing by excluders.
The point is that despite the various means of acquisition, the five major territories in the modern post-WWII era have made self-determination to mutually be a part of the U.S. nation state with a) local elective self government, b) representation in the national councils and c) equal citizenship without regard to religion or race. This is the modern international test for “self-determination” of a defined group within a nation-state. The U.S. historic tradition for non-state territories is a delegate Member of Congress in the national councils.
Golbez agreed to change the introductory sentence to include islander citizens following a Dispute Resolution, until he didn't. Most recently when he removed territories from the lead again Seqqis Diff. [222], Golbez Diff. [223]. While varying groups of 6-8 editors form to include islanders as a part of the U.S. over the last two years, there are only 2-3 who persist in unsourced efforts to exclude them in the modern, post WWII era. The sourced majority understanding of modern U.S. citizenship as without regard to religion or race will inform the article in the face of an unsourced editor minority excluding islanders for no good reason, because Wikipedia is a sourced collaborative online encyclopedia.
Excluders hark back to century-old superseded court decisions by the Plessy v. Ferguson Court of racially motivated “separate but equal”. That decision was superseded by the Courts and Congress in the post WWII modern era. Scholars likewise describe Insular Cases of that Court as racially motivated, and those cases have likewise been superseded by Congressional, Court and mutual islander actions voting 95% for political union with the U.S., including citizenship, elective self governance and delegate Member of Congress. Misinformation and misdirection abounds. TFD last implied Congress has not extended due process to the five major territories to supersede the Insular Cases, yet one of his sources says, "Among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are due process and equal protection. Both rights apply to the five larger insular areas." (p.35, [224]).
Editors base their opposition to inclusion on the same Insular Case doctrine of "incorporated v. unincorporated" which is irrelevant to present day U.S.--territorial concerns (p.114 [225]). Insular Cases are still good law for domestic taxes and tariffs, but the judicial doctrine is not relevant to inclusion of U.S. citizens in the federal republic. The lead description should reflect the U.S. federal republic as composed of U.S. citizens/nationals represented in Congress, including DC and the five major territories with delegate Members of Congress -- consistent with modern post WWII history as sourced by six scholars and U.S.G. sources. Existing inequities should be addressed. The info box should include U.S. territory area as sourced by the Census, the info box "Current composition" should include the most recent U.S. territory, CNMI the Northern Marianas as sourced by the State Department, and the subject of this thread.
The U.S. common core report to the U.N. is information about the country relevant to all treaties, such as its political structure [226]. The December 30, 2011 report to the U.N. says that "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions. Item 22 [227].
A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Item 27 [228].
Common core document is information of a general nature about the country which is relevant to all the treaties, such as information on land and population, on the political structure, on the general legal framework within which human rights are protected in the State, and on non-discrimination, equality and effective remedies. It constitutes the common initial part of all the State reports to the treaty bodies. [229]
U.S. Department of State. “common core document of the United States of America” report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Dec 30, 2011. [230]
1. Description of the constitutional structure and the political and legal framework
22. The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.
27. A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The governmental frameworks in these areas are largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of their residents.
Other governmental levels.
80. The governmental frameworks in areas not within the 50 states, such as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, are largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of the residents.
The territories should be included as a part of the U.S. federal republic in the lead sentence. The racism of the Insular cases withholding citizenship and elective self-government is ended. They have an ambiguous status, economically "unincorporated" for some federal taxes and tariffs, but "they are officially a part of U.S. territory, and their residents have U.S. citizenship or are U.S. nationals" (p. 649 [231]). They are self-governing
But supposing we can source the “ambiguous constitutional status of the overseas territories”? Donald P. Haider-Markel, “Political Encyclopedia of U.S. States and Regions”, (2008)“Overseas Territories” p. 649 [232]. “The United States overseas territories — the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, [American] Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico — …These conflicting attitudes ...are reflected in the ambiguous constitutional status of the overseas territories: they are officially a part of U.S. territory, and their residents have U.S. citizenship or are U.S. nationals (as in American Samoa), but they remain 'unincorporated territories', lacking the full constitutional protection and political citizenship afforded to the states.”
U.S. related databases should be taken from the most current sources reflecting the most comprehensive aggregating of United States citizens by the U.S. government. There is no uniform reporting system for U.S. government databases, WP should not arbitrarily impose one. These are reported in descending order as a) 50 states, DC, and the five major territories (sovereignty, area figures); b) 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico (NAFTA, customs figures); or c) 50 states and DC (population, housing figures). Figures which are not current, wherever they may appear, should be updated with more current, more comprehensive figures as better information becomes available. As of August, 2010, the “State and other areas” Total for the United States is 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau [233], which includes 50 states, DC and the five major territories as sourced.
The U.S. is sovereign over 50 states, DC and the five major territories of Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa, with U.S. citizens and nationals as permanent residents permanently loyal to the U.S., p. 1, 9 [234]. According to the U.S. Government in the 21st century, they are within "the contiguous zone of the United States" [235], "the US now consists of" the five major territories. p. 7, 77, 101 [236], and they are "parts of the United States" [237]. Scholars say they are "part of the United States" [238], and "At present, the US includes” them. p. 231-232 [239]. These have chosen to be a part of the United States by external self-determination (3-5% for independence in various referendums 1950-2012), and they exercise internal self-determination within political union with the U.S. without regard to creed, color or race, p. 1-2 [240], by local governance of organic acts and constitutions, territorial representation in Congress and preservation of local customs. p. 148. [241].
Supporting documentation to include the five major territories, executive orders, statutes, adjudication for the entire nation are dismissed as being narrowly related to homeland security, citizenship, environmental protection, energy, and transportation, — but no modern counter sources are directly provided to exclude them. Insular Cases are cited by editors without supporting scholarship for the 21st century to exclude 21st century U.S. citizens. They advance the judicial doctrine of territorial incorporation promulgated for an internal tax regime in 1901 which is still good law for taxes. A 1922 Supreme Court case ruling on a 1917 organic act for Puerto Rico was superseded in 1952; the Puerto Rican Constitution declares "our union with the United States" [242], and approved by Congress, p. 10 [243]. Additional constitutional provisions have been extended by both federal courts and Congress since then [244]. This has been evolving legislation p. 28 [245]. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane conclude, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when the Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” p. 1175 [246]. Puerto Rico alone is 91% of the five major territories and its population of U.S. citizens is larger than 20 smaller states.
Discussion on this topic began in Spring 2013 for three months, and again in Fall of 2014 for three months. The DR resolution in 2013 was a 2-to-1majority (minority of three) for including the territories in the introductory sentence: the U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories represented in Congress. [n] DC and five territories have territorial delegates representing them in Congress. — To date, online almanacs (2013) and an unsourced database footnote (2014) have been advanced to support excluding 4 million U.S. citizens from the article as "a part of the United States". — We can do better, we should use secondary sources per wp:psts, and report all U.S. citizens represented in Congress as a part of the federal republic, “throughout the territory of the United States” [247] and “throughout our country” [248], without regard to creed, race or color as the U.S. reports itself to the U.N. [249]. U.S. Census database for total "state and other" area [250] allows us to begin that process for this article.
I argue for promoting the 50 states, DC and the five major territories as the scope of the United States, footnoting “50 states and DC” in area and population, --- otherwise following the databases readily available that do not include all five territories, including those using "50 states, DC and Puerto Rico". Two SCHOLARS include territories: "The five island political communities in the Pacific and Caribbean that are part of the United States...”, Jon M. Van Dyke at [251]. "At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, ...”, Bartholomew Sparrow, p.231-232 at [252]. The article should follow secondary sources, wp:psts.
Regarding the international status of the five major territories, using Puerto Rico as the “paradigm” of incorporation, — Jesus de Galindez, stated in International Affairs (1954), "The status of Puerto Rico is perhaps comparable to that of the Associated States of the French Union.” p. 337 [253]. At France we have an example for use here at United States article, "France, officially the French Republic, is a unitary semi-presidential republic located mostly in Western Europe, with several overseas regions and territories.”. — “The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories.” — all have Members of Congress as representatives or territorial delegates.
WP has international readers. Territories have an INTERNATIONAL status and a domestic status. For international readers the U.S. is a ‘“sole person” conducting the international affairs of 50 states, DC and five territories. POTUS is the Head of State for all. Internationally, the five territories are “a part of the United States” as polities within U.S. territory with a permanent population of U.S. nationality.
WP has general readers. Territories have a dual DOMESTIC status, they are politically "a part of the U.S." with locally self-governing polities of U.S. citizens and nationals, with delegate Members of Congress, organic acts, constitutions and referendums for political union, AND they are judicially “unincorporated” for certain taxes and constitutional provisions until Congress extends those to the territories. The article should not represent territories as only one part of their two characters, but narrate both international and dual domestic aspects.
Thank you for your previous support to include BOTH the five major territories as a part of the United States internationally in a geographical sense, AND to report the "50 states and DC" separately in area and population to conform to other databases, footnoting one or the other. Puerto Rico alone among the five major territories is larger in population than 20 smaller states. They are commonly reported together for area and population, they should not be dismissed as “minor” considerations of either area or population in the United States Infobox.
Two scholars include territories: "The five island political communities in the Pacific and Caribbean that are part of the United States but are not states have always had a unique legal status under U.S. law.”, reports legal scholar Jon M. Van Dyke [254]. "At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” from political scientist and historian Bartholomew Sparrow, listing the five major territories. p.231-232. [255].
The U.S. Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol declares "U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card" [256].
Presidential Proclamation, “in accordance with international law, …proclaim[ed] the extension of the contiguous zone of the United States of America, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands…”, p.163 [257].
The State Department Legal Advisor’s office communicates to all five major territory Governors in relation to international treaties and human rights as applying “throughout the territory of the United States” (2010) [258] and refers to the "dedicated efforts of state, local, insular, and tribal governments throughout our country.” (2014) [259]. In reports to the United Nations, the U.S. has included the five major territories: “All references to States...are applicable to the territories and include by reference any State ..., DC, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the US." [260]
a) TFD admits the five major territories are under the sovereignty of the United States by the Territorial Clause of its Constitution, they are “within the spheres of responsibility assigned to the central government” [261]. b) TFD admits all five major territories have permanent allegiance to the United States of America in a “uniformity of nationality” required of the federated State. [262].
c) In an unsourced POV, TFD cannot bring himself to include islanders who are under U.S. jurisdiction with U.S. citizenship because of an internally domestic tax regime judicially applied in the Insular Cases over one hundred years ago to restrict the Commerce Clause application to judicially "unincorporated" territories. But "international law does not inquire into the nature of the internal political systems of the State.” [263]. And Territories are included in the federated State internationally, p.272 [264]. And in any case, legal scholars Lawson and Sloane find Puerto Rico now politically “incorporated” as 21st century jurists understand that term of art, p.1175, [265].
The century-old judicial doctrine of “incorporation” to exclude the Commerce Clause from territories before their citizenship by Congress is for the purposes of an internal domestic tax. It does not relate to territorial extent of the US or its common nationality with the five major territories today as mutually enacted by Congress through organic acts and local referendums.
The five major territories are sourced in the 21st century as a part of the United States by scholars Jon M. Van Dyke [266] and Bartholomew Sparrow p. 231-232 [267] and Homeland Security, ""U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) …" [268].
And from scholar Carlo Focarelli, "As specified in Article 2 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention: ‘The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law’, its member states not being independent … Statehood is not affected by ... the form of government of the state ... p. 160-161 [269]. From legal scholars Lawson and Sloane, Puerto Rico, 91% of the Insular territory population is “incorporated” as 21st century jurists understand that term of art. p. 1175, [270].
The legal definition from West Publishing’s Encyclopedia of American Law [271] admits including the five major territories as a part of the US: “Territories of the United States: portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states.” --- It explains a) three territories with a "lesser legal and political status” than states within the United States, and b) two commonwealths, “a legal and political status that is above a territory but still below a state. c) uninhabited “U.S. possessions have the lowest legal and political status" Finally, d) "land used as a military base is considered a form of territory.” Three excluding editors have admitted none of these distinctions, offer no counter sources, but conflate military bases with Puerto Rico, a reductio ad absurdum of my argument.
The mechanics of Congressional incorporation is discussed at some length by the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases, incorporation hinges primarily on making U.S. citizens and nationals, which the Court deferred to Congress to decide when islanders had demonstrated a capacity for republican forms of government. — Well, the self-governing status of the five major territories for the last half of the 20th century has progressed to include citizens and nationals in the GAO report (1997) and for Puerto Rico, federal jurists such as Gustavo Gelpi (2008) and scholars such as Lawson and Sloane (2009) to observe the Congressional process of incorporation is effected for Puerto Rico, 91% of the Insular Territories population.
As we learn in “Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion” (2005) by Levinson and Sparrow eds., --- In the U.S. after 1805, most U.S. territories have had a four-stage life-cycle of 1. Possessions. Military governors...; 2. Unincorporated territory. Presidentially appointed governors ...; 3. Incorporated territory. Locally elected governor of U.S. citizens, elected legislature, Article III federal courts, and a Member of Congress with debate privileges; 4. Statehood.
Source. 48 U.S. Code § 737 - Privileges and immunities” [272]
The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.”
Source. In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 252 (1901) [273]
"The Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. The net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated."
"Indeed, the whole body of the U.S. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character. Notice must be taken that incorporation of a territory takes place through the incorporation of its inhabitants, not of the territory per se.” The inhabitants of the territory are made U.S. citizens to politically incorporate them, while the territories per se remain “unincorporated” for an internal tax regime, part of the United States “federal character".
Source. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, [274]
“Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” There are no counter sources for the 21st century.
1) Government self-definition. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas."
2) Congressional enacted inclusion. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
3) Presidential authorized inclusion. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.
4) Judicial inclusion. This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175]
From Downes v. Bidwell 1901 [275], Political incorporation is made by Congress with extension of the privileges and immunities of the Constitution “in effect produces the incorporation of that territory.” which Congress has done as of 1988, see 1991 GAO report p. 28 [276].
Why does this article name a different land area from the CIA World Factbook? (the number is not footnoted)
72.48.166.220 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. Census Bureau reports “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The article should report the area internationally recognized as belonging to the United States.
"The table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. The area measurements were derived from the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER®) database. The boundaries of the states and equivalent areas are as of January 1, 2010. The land and water areas, including their classifications, reflect base feature updates made in the MAF/TIGER® database through August, 2010. The area measurements, in square kilometers and square miles, are for statistical purposes only."
The MAF/TIGER database is used for the geospatial data layer for Homeland Security activities, transportation layer of USGS National Map Program, House of Representatives, federal redistricting, distribution of federal funds to state, county and local government for schools, transportation, Medicare and others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The info box and introduction text should read, 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. (9,857,306 Sq. Km.), excluding the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, now added to the main article, footnoted to the U.S. Census Bureau, MAF/TIGER as of 2010.
The three sources earlier in the “Geography, climate and environment” section include a) Encyclopedia Britannica retrieved in 2008, b) Demographic Yearbook, 2005, and c) World Factbook 2009. The article should reflect the most recent 2010 database used by Homeland Security. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Pedroia1519 wants “CIA Factbook” numbers without a link citation or edition year, Gingeroscar seeks "only land area and inland waters", but has no reference for 3,678,208 sq.mi., — suspiciously close to the 2008 Encyclopedia Britannica. But the Britannica is not the "world" of reliable sources on this matter. Land area is reported by the U.S. Census as less than Gingeroscar’s unsourced "land and inland waters".
The U.S. Census table uses three categories, total area, land area and water area. Water areas are reported by the U.S. Census as total, inland, coastal, Great Lakes, and Territorial. Alaska alone has 19,304 sq.mi. Inland, 26,119 sq.mi. Coastal, and 49,320 sq. mi. Territorial area reported.
This summary article should use the U.S. Census Bureau figures for U.S. total area, a resource also used by the USGS and Homeland Security. The talk page should be used for discussion on the topic rather than initiating a slow motion edit war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I support, the figure used by the U.S. Census Bureauwhich differs from the value used by the World Bank, which list territories such as Guam separately, as being one that is verified to a reliable source. Changes to others have not been supported with a RS, and thus could be removed/reverted via WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The Census Bureau provides totals for the United States (3,795,951 sq mi) and "State and other areas" (3,805,142 sq mi). I think we should use the figure for the United States. If we want to include the unincorporated territories then we should have a separate line which says including unincorporated territories or similar wording. An exact figure is not possible because shorelines can change or be determined in different ways. So any properly sourced figure is acceptable, but the Census Bureau seems better because it is possible to determine where, when and how it was determined. TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Go with census bureau -- its data seems good enough for USGS. [277]Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
So we have TVH, RightCowLeftCoast, and Alanscottwalker supporting U.S. Census bureau. Also TFD in a way, who persists in wanting to exclude islander U.S. citizens for whatever unspoken anachronistic and unsourced reason. Some territories are "unincorporated" for tax purposes from a century ago which benefits domestic sugar cartels. But the U.S. Census in the 21st century includes U.S. citizen islanders as "native-born", included uniformly with those in states, D.C., Puerto Rico and inhabited "Island Areas", occupying 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. (9,857,306 km2) in the United States for Homeland Security purposes, -- excluding the uninhabited U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Since this article is about the United States, I suggest we use the area provided by the U.S. Census Bureau under the line "United States." If you disagree with how the government of the United States determines what areas lie within its boundaries, then write to them pointing out their error. But we are not supposed to misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Past consensus has been that the scope of this article is about the contiguous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and its territories; as such we should use the land area that meets that scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
We had long wasteful conversations about this and the consensus was that we would accept the view of the government of the U.S., its congress and supreme court, the administrations of the territories, the United Nations, and various legal consensus that overseas territories are not part of the Untied States. TFD (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute resolution in March 2013 reached a consensus by eight to three to include U.S. territories. The following five reliable sources avoid the pitfalls of original research.
1) Government self-definition. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas."
2) Congressional enacted inclusion. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
3) Presidential authorized inclusion. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.
4) Judicial inclusion. This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175]
5) Scholarly inclusion. Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). To date, there is no reliable counter source but editor's original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
"reached a consensus by eight to three" Don't think you know what consensus means. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Consensus defined, we have, “Neither does consensus mean unanimity”. At Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, we have "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.” "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.”
Those who wished to exclude islanders from the United States failed to find reliable sources to support their position. TFD did find one English-language weekly newspaper in Cuba which suggested Puerto Rico was not a part of the United States, but that is not the preponderance of scholarship discussed. And another editor did original research for internet uses of “unincorporated”. The incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy is a judicial term of art to justify discrimination among internal tax regimes of the US. The term excludes no place from the jurisdiction of the United States as a nation-state.
Indeed, the term “state” in the United States as defined in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (36) includes the 50 states, "District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the Untied States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”. American Samoans are either U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals which the U.S. Census defines as “natural born” Americans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The point was counting the votes. We don't vote on consensus here, we vote and discuss to try to obtain a consensus. A consensus was not "reached" by a result of 8 to 3 (I recall the math being iffy on that as well). And I will never cease to be amazed at your ability to insert your "American Samoa is a state" talking points in the most tangential of topics. --Golbez (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Insert: This chart of places which are within the United States does not make DC or any other territory into a state, nor does it pretend that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is constitutionally equivalent to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The chart reports places in the U.S. for Census, Homeland Security and other official U.S. governmental purposes, and as such it is an appropriate source for the area of the U.S. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There are sources to say they meet the criteria, and none to say they do not.
“The constituent states, and the internal and external territories, are not recognized as international actors and do not possess international legal personality.” p.272. Internatinal Law by Donald Rothwell, et al. (2014)
The U.S. officially asserts its territory as the ‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."Executive Order 13423.
Unsourced editor POV to devolve elements of a federal state in a WP article makes a mockery of what the convention determined.
No source to exclude five major territories. You persist in taking the good internal tax law (one view of the USG) and misapplying it to U.S. citizens politically incorporated in the 21st century (another view of the USG), ignoring the sourced conclusion pointing out your error. Here are three additional reliable sources in peer reviewed publications to include the five major territories to help clarify that status of the U.S. as a "sole person" internationally includes the five major territories:
"The five island political communities in the Pacific and Caribbean that are part of the United States but are not states have always had a unique legal status under U.S. law.”, reports legal scholar Jon M. Van Dyke [278]
"At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” from political scientist and historian Bartholomew Sparrow, listing the five major territories. p.231-232. [279]
“'the people of the United States'…in a geographical sense…may mean all the people living within these limits, without reference to the States or Territories in which they may reside, or of which they may be citizens.” see W. L. McFerran [280].
At Wikipedia a position including five major territories in geography and population, supported by quotes from reliable sources in peer reviewed publications should persuade versus no wp:reliable source to exclude them.
Puerto Rico, the largest and most populated of the five major territories (58% their area, 91% their population) is included in the United States, by Presidential Executive Order, by statute "as a state", by federal judiciary, and by legal scholars explaining the "incorporation" judicial term of art.
John F. Kennedy San Juan, PR, 1961. “…I am in my country… and I am glad to be in America this afternoon.”
'[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”, Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l)
48 U.S. Code § 737 - Privileges and immunities. "The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.”
In the 2008 Consejo v. Rullan case, “[Congress’] sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present hs in fact incorporated the territory.” The territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.” [p. 26,28] The court case was upheld on appeal in 2012.
Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175]
In view of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Califano v. Torres, Rodriguez, and C.F. Harris, considering “Puerto Rico’s “similarity to a state, it is incorrect to refer to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a possession of the United States.” p. 83 from GAO report [281]. Legal scholars Lawson and Sloane find Puerto Rico politically “incorporated” as 21st century jurists understand that term of art, p.1175, [282].
"As a general observation, we would avoid the use of the term “possession” when referring to the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. The term appears to be offensive to the people living in those areas, and has the connotation of an area that has neither an organic act nor a constitution.” p. 64 from the Attorney General’s office [283].
Insular Cases no longer apply to U.S. citizenship, it has been extended to Puerto Rico and the others of the five major U.S. territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Your sourced dispute depends on a logical fallacy from faulty definition. In the common usage of the term "U.S. possessions” in a legal sense, they are nine uninhabited places [284], not the five major territories with a constitutional status above “possessions” including territorial Members of Congress with floor privileges, just like judicially “incorporated" DC and unlike British Virgin Islands with an "observer" to Parliament. While not states, territories have always been a part of the U.S. when residents gain citizenship with permanent allegiance to the United States; now they are mutually united by local referendums.
In Harris v. Rosaria, 446 U.S. 651 (1980), the Supreme Court declared, “it is incorrect to refer to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a possession of the United States." In the Journal of Transnational Law and Policy we find, "It must be noted that the term 'possession' [for inhabited territories], while once a common moniker, is no longer current colloquial usage.", p.235 [285]
The “sole person” of a federated state as defined in the Montevideo Convention is the government with a defined territory encompassing a permanent population under a central governmental authority with the capacity to conduct international affairs. [286]
a) You admit to the five major territories are under the sovereignty of the United States by the Territorial Clause of its Constitution, they are “within the spheres of responsibility assigned to the central government” [287].
b) You admit all five major territories have permanent allegiance to the United States of America in a “uniformity of nationality” required of the federated State. [288].
c) In an unsourced POV, you cannot bring yourself to include islanders who are under U.S. jurisdiction with U.S. citizenship because of an judicial domestic tax regime. But "international law does not inquire into the nature of the internal political systems of the State.” [289]. Territories are included in the federated State internationally [290].
It would help if you had sources to justify excluding islanders under U.S. jurisdiction with permanent allegiance to their U.S. nationality in the five major U.S. territories. As it is now it just seems wp:disruption, your Senate testimony source, professor Sloane, has published calling Puerto Rico “incorporated” into the United States, which is more than is required to include in the “sole person” of a federated State.
Secondary sources per WP:PSTS should govern editor original research into primary sources. The State Department and two scholarly sources, Jon M Van Dyke and Bartholomew Sparrow, include DC and the five major territories as a part of the Untied States. Legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report Puerto Rico now “incorporated” as the 21st century federal judiciary uses that term of art. The article should reflect the United States as a “sole person” internationally as it is intended for international readers in the Infobox area and population, and that includes the five major territories. Puerto Rico alone among the five major territories has a population larger than 20 smaller states. The 50 states and DC alone should be footnoted for cross reference to other databases reported in the article.
What does the U.S. State Department say? "U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card" [291].
In reports to the United Nations, the U.S. has included the five major territories: Consistent with the definition of “State” in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, all references to States within the NIPP (National Infrastructure Protection Plan) are applicable to the territories and include by reference any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States (Homeland Security Act) [292]
In the Homeland Security Act, (14) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States. (16)(A) The term ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States [293].
4.07 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is the existing Wikimedia Commons “Map of Virginia Counties and Independent Cities”. Is that what is under consideration?
Map of Virginia Counties and Independent Cities
read the book reviews--sign up for wp:JSTOR to access them.
Although the Infobox identifies the opposing sides as U.S. and Britain versus Nazi Germany showing the Nazi flag, the flag identifying General Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben, who was not a Nazi, is now changed from a German Cross
to a Nazi flag , with the explanation, from Brigade Piron, "Flags are designed to make reading the infobox easier: using un-introduced symbols doesn't add anything..” — I think that I copied this convention from another article. Which convention should prevail for professional German officers who were not political Nazis?
After the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, Jefferson needed the mostly unknown part of the continent explored and mapped for expanding westward settlement and trade. It was important to establish a U.S. claim before competing Europeans, and perhaps to find the long-sought-for Northwest passage.[1] Knowledge of the western continent was limited to what had been learned from trappers, traders and explorers.[2] Influenced by exploration accounts by Le Page du Pratz on Louisiana (1763) and Captain James Cook to the Pacific (1784),[3] Jefferson along with the American Philosophical Society persuaded Congress in 1804 to fund an expedition to explore and map the newly acquired territory to the Pacific Ocean.[4]
President Jefferson appointed Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to lead the Corps of Discovery, to explore and document scientific and geographic knowledge.[5] Lewis had extensive military woodlands experience and proved an apt student of the sciences of mapping, botany, natural history, mineralogy, and astronomy/navigation.[2] Lewis and Clark recruited their company of 45 men and spent a winter preparing near St. Louis.[6] Guided by Sacagawea and various Native-American tribes along the way, the expedition traced the Columbia River and reached the Pacific Ocean by November 1805. They returned to St. Louis September 23, 1806, having lost only one man to disease. The expedition obtained a wealth of scientific and geographic knowledge, including knowledge of the many Indian tribes.[7]
In addition to the Corps of Discovery, Jefferson organized three other western exploration expeditions including the William Dunbar and George Hunter expedition on the Ouachita River (1804–1805), the Thomas Freeman and Peter Custis expedition (1806) on the Red River, and the Zebulon Pike expedition (1806–1807) into the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest.[8] All of the exploration expeditions sent out under Jefferson's presidency produced valuable information about the American frontier and wilderness.[8]
The proposed section removal to another article, — everything in "A revolution in disunion" before the subsection "Inauguration and response” — leads us to consider what summary introduction might replace it. I propose three paragraphs, in outline, I. separation and secessionists, II. causes of sectional division, and III. secession declarations.
I. The Confederate States of America was created by secessionists in Southern slave states who refused to remain in a nation that they believed was turning them into second–class citizens. The "Black Republicans" as they were named by Southerners, and their northern allies were feared to soon become a majority in the United States House, Senate, and Presidency. Craven (1953) p. 350. Southerners feared Lincoln and his party “would attempt to remake Southerners in the image of the North”. Coulter (1950) p. 13. But the division of the country was already almost complete except for the government framework. Southerners in the great majority churches, Methodists and Baptists, had already divided, the last political unifier crumbled with the Democratic party in 1860. Coulter (1950) p.18. The only thing remaining was for secessionists to divide the nation by fifteen states along slave-holding lines without consent of Congress. (Coulter 1950) This, though Congress is required to direct constitutional procedures of amendment in the national establishment from the beginning, as required by Art. VI of the Articles, "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled.”, and again in the U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 10, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.”
II. Southern historian E. Merton Coulter suggested that protection of slavery was the "mighty force" which underpinned secession. “But more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself…the fear of what would ultimately happen…the danger of the South becoming another San Domingo,” or at least loss of non-slaveholder racial status and social standing, were slaves ever to be emancipated. Coulter (1950) p. 8-10. During the campaign for president in 1860, some secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln (who opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories) be elected, most notably William L. Yancey. Yancey toured the North calling for secession in the event of Lincoln's election. Freehling, (1990) p. 398. A Lincoln victory presented Southern secessionists with a momentous choice in their eyes, even before his inauguration, it was "The Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union.” Craven, (1953) p. 366. Secession leaders expected all fifteen slaveholding states to secede; South Carolina adopted a flag with fifteen stars in it. Coulter (1950) p.3. And that secession would never lead to war, because no Yankee could be made into a soldier. Coulter (1950) p.14. In the event, most Southerners believed that their national citizenship came through state citizenship, so even those who had been Unionists until secession resolves gave up their opposition. Coulter (1950) p. 17
III. The South Carolina Program promising union of the slave-holding states before Lincoln’s inauguration was backed by fifty-two commissioners from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana. They pressed state legislatures in every slave-holding state to resolve immediate secession. Thomas (1979) p.43. Every one of the first seven states forming the Confederacy had authorized a sovereign convention before South Carolina’s secession. Just before the South Carolina convention, a large number of Southern Congressional delegations signed a manifesto in Washington, declaring the argument over union was exhausted, that “the sole and primary aim of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union”. Coulter (1950) p. 2. Following the Confederate Constitutional Convention, Fort Sumter became an emotional symbol, both for Federal authority and for Confederate “integrity, existence, and independence”. Coulter (1950) p. 38. Most Americans hesitating at war had their loyalties clarified at the firing on Fort Sumter. But especially important in the balance for the states which had not yet seceded was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 militia from the governor of each state. For most Southerners, even for most of the Upper South Unionists, the choice for secession had been made easier. Secession resolutions from Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina followed. Coulter (1950) p. 39.
DRAFT 2 -- add Potter, to consider what summary introduction might replace it. I propose in outline, I. separation and secessionists, II. causes of sectional division, and III. secession declarations.
I. The Confederate States of America was created by secessionists in Southern slave states who refused to remain in a nation that they believed was turning them into second–class citizens by stripping away their Constutitional right--a "state's right"-- to owning slaves. Southerners feared Lincoln and his party “would attempt to remake Southerners in the image of the North”. Coulter (1950) p. 13. The "Black Republicans" as they were named by Southerners, and their northern allies, were feared to soon become a majority in the United States House, Senate, and Presidency. Craven (1953) p. 350. But the division of the country was already almost complete except for the government framework. Southerners in the great majority churches, Methodists and Baptists, had already divided, and the last political unifier crumbled with the Democratic party in 1860. Coulter (1950) p.18. The Southern Commercial Convention which had begun annual meetings in the 1850s, was transformed from economic and commercial agendas to extreme southern rights proclamations by editors and politicians. Potter, p. 396-397. The only thing remaining was for secessionists to divide the nation along slave-holding lines without consent of Congress.
Despite protests that slaves were contented and loyal, “the white South could never for a moment rid itself of the fear of insurrection”. In the face of over 200 reports of slave “revolts” in the American South, they built a social system designed a system to prevent it, including militias and nightly patrols. Potter, p. 452 The southern reaction to the anti-slavery movement was not so much a fear of what Congress or the northern public might be persuaded to, it was a fear of what abolitionists might persuade slaves to do. Potter, p. 454 Southern historian E. Merton Coulter suggested that protection of slavery and its expansion was the "mighty force" which underpinned secession. “But more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself…the fear of what would ultimately happen…the danger of the South becoming another San Domingo,” or at least loss of non-slaveholder racial status and social standing, were slaves ever to be emancipated. Coulter (1950) p. 8-10. During the 1850s the “spirit of southernism” continued to grow, and even those southerners who were themselves Unionists were prepared to defend other southerners who wanted to leave. Potter, p. 462.
II. During the campaign for president in 1860, radical secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln be elected. Freehling, (1990) p. 398. Even before his inauguration, a Lincoln victory presented Southern secessionists with a momentous choice in their eyes, it was "The Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union.” Craven, (1953) p. 366. Secession leaders expected all fifteen slaveholding states to secede. Coulter (1950) p.3. And that secession would never lead to war, because no Yankee could be made into a soldier. Coulter (1950) p.14. The question became whether the slaveholding society would be safer inside the Union or outside in a new Confederacy. As long as the North and South were fairly equal in economic and political power and slavery had been immune from serious attack, there could be reasonable harmony, but the sections were no longer evenly balanced. Since the Mexican War, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota and Oregon had entered the Union as free states. Potter, p. 474-476.
The legitimacy of the Union in the South was impacted immediately after the John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry of October 1859, a year before presidential election. Northern abolitionists had financed an attempt at servile insurrection. An enemy, proclaimed by the Atlanta “Confederacy”, was anyone “who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral and political blessing”. But if Southerners believed themselves to be a friendless minority within the democracy of the Union, they had solidarity internally. Potter p. 382-383. The Democratic party had been increasingly dominated in Congress by "militant southerners who dealt freely in threats of disunion,” and these now split the national Democratic party. Potter, p. 414-416. In the presidential election, Lincoln won an electoral majority in the North, while Breckinridge won the second place in the South by splitting the 55% majority opposing him throughout the slave states. In political structure, a thirty-year era of bi-sectional parties came to an end. The process of national polarization was nearly complete. Potter, p. 442, 447.
III. When Southern fears of a northern ascendancy came at last, with a Republican Speaker of the House and election of a Republican president, they were not yet united in southern nationalism to either secession or to advancing an alternative republic. “But they were united by a sense of terrible danger”, united in a determination to defend slavery against moralistic attacks of abolitionism and to gain recognition as status as decent, respectable human beings holding an inferior race in perpetual slavery. Potter, p.478 The southerner had learned to accept an interpretation at variance from that held in the North, a conception of states each as politically autonomous from the nation, and so obtaining political state sovereignty and a right to singular secession, or alternatively a reading of the Declaration of Independence which did not require “a long train of abuses”, but merely the anticipated threat. Even southern Unionists agreed in secession as a theoretical right. And Southerners for the most part believed that “no state should be forced to remain in the Union”. Potter, p. 479, 482-484 In the event, most Southerners believed that their national citizenship came through state citizenship, so even those who had been Unionists until secession resolves gave up their opposition as the crisis unfolded. Coulter (1950) p. 17
The South Carolina Program promising union of the slave-holding states before Lincoln’s inauguration was backed by fifty-two commissioners from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana. They pressed state legislatures in every slave-holding state to resolve immediate secession. Thomas (1979) p.43. Every one of the first seven states forming the Confederacy had authorized a sovereign convention before South Carolina’s secession. Just before the South Carolina convention, a large number of Southern Congressional delegations signed a manifesto in Washington, declaring the argument over union was exhausted, that “the sole and primary aim of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union”. Coulter (1950) p. 2. Following the enactment of the Provisional Confederate States Constitution by the first seven states, Fort Sumter became an emotional symbol, both for Federal authority and for Confederate “integrity, existence, and independence”. Coulter (1950) p. 38. Most Americans hesitating at war had their loyalties clarified at the firing on Fort Sumter. But especially important for the states which had not yet seceded was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 militia from the governor of each state. For most Southerners, even for most of the Upper South Unionists, the choice for secession had been made easier. Secession resolutions from Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina followed. Coulter (1950) p. 39.
By 1804 elections had undergone a sea change in turnout. Note the seated party worker in this 1850 depiction writing a ballot for the shirtsleeved voter.
By the end of his career, Jefferson was critical of his home state for violating “the principle of equal political rights”, meaning the social right of universal white male suffrage.[10] But he arrived at that position by stages. Initially during the Revolutionary era, Jefferson accepted Blackstone’s dictum that property ownership led to the independent will required in a virtuous republic, he voted for revolutionary property qualifications in Virginia from 40 years prior. But he sought to further expand the suffrage by land distribution to the poor initially.[11] An alternative to make the electorate more closely reflect “the people” residing in the state was found following 1776 by expanding the franchise from landed gentry to those owning either their own houses or their own tools and paying taxes on them.[12]
After leaving Washington's cabinet as Secretary of State, by mid-October 1795 Jefferson’s thoughts turned on the electoral bases of Republican and anti-Republican (Federalist) political coalitions. The “Republican” classification of the United States for which he would advocate included 1. "the entire body of landholders" everywhere, and 2. "the body of laborers” without land, whether agricultural or mechanical.[13] Beginning with Jefferson’s electioneering for the “revolution of 1800”, his democratic efforts were based on egalitarian appeals.[14]
Following Jefferson's loss to Adams in 1796 by two Electoral College votes, Republicans united behind Jefferson as Vice President, president of the Senate. He personally became “the rallying point, the headquarters, the everything” of the opposition, the certain Republican candidate for president. The election practices of 1796 expanding democracy in Pennsylvania were extended nationwide. In Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey, statewide organizations were begun, with local committees and correspondence networks set up. County committees framed local Republican tickets, and promoted partisan Republican newspapers. The Manhattan organization in New York was acquired with Jefferson’s selection of Burr as running mate.[15] Jefferson in his later years referred to the 1800 election as the “revolution of 1800”, “as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of '76 was in its form”, one “not effected indeed by the sword…but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.”[16]
Jefferson privately promoted Republican candidates to run for local state offices.[17] He sought an aristocracy of merit, not birth. For instance, for his second presidential term, he chose as his vice presidential candidate a New Yorker, George Clinton, the child of Irish immigrants. Unlike the Federalist take on Clinton, Jefferson "allowed for social and political mobility among whites.”[18] Voter participation grew in Jefferson’s two terms, exploding to “unimaginable levels” compared to the Federalist Era, with doubling turnouts.[19] John Quincy Adams noted following Jefferson’s 1804 election, “The power of the Administration rests upon the support of a much stronger majority of the people throughout the Union than the former Administrations ever possessed.”[20]
Jefferson continued his campaign to expand the electorate in his retirement correspondence. In response to a pamphlet advocating a Virginia Constitutional Convention, he went further than the radical convention promoters. Still wishing to keep in the background, he sought a “general suffrage” of all taxpayers and militia-men, as well as equal representation by voter population in the state legislature, not skewed to favor slave-holding regions of the state. He also favored a reform of Virginia's country courthouse system to more nearly resemble that of the more democratic townships of New England.[21]
Contrabands behind Union lines were employed as soldiers, teamsters, laborers, washers and cooks, as well as on abandoned plantations to feed the armies.
Perhaps the most common nickname for Virginia is “The Old Dominion”. It originated in colonial days. Following the Interregnum of Oliver Cromwell, the restored King Charles II of England considered the Virginians “the best of his distant children”. As a consequence, he elevated Virginia to the position of dominion along with England, Scotland, Ireland and France.[22] The oldest of the English settlements in America, they adopted the name “The Old Dominion”, or “The Ancient Dominion”.[23] King Charles I's supporters in the English Civil War were called Cavaliers. “The Cavalier State” nickname is derived from those who left England and came to Virginia during that period. The Cavalier is the mascot symbol of the University of Virginia.[23]
Virginia is also known as the “Mother of Presidents” because so many of the early presidents of the United States were native Virginians. The list includes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. Then later presidents include William Henry Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and in the twentieth century, Wilson. Because of the number of statesmen produced by Virginia, it is also called “Mother of statesmen”, harking back to Revolutionary leaders such as Patrick Henry, George Wythe and John Randolph.[23] The “Mother of States”, Virginia was the first of the states to be settled and there have been a large number of states were formed from Virginia territory ceded to the national government during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and even a part of Minnesota were all a part of the original Virginia territory at the time of the Revolution. Kentucky and West Virginia were later made from Virginia as a state.[23]
The Confederate States of America section shows the Neo-Confederate flag, the so-called Third National Flag, “Blood-stained banner” , “since 1865”, which has no reliable source to say it was ever flown in the historic Confederacy.
David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, Mississippi Historical Society online, observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, Confederate General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.”
The historic Confederacy 1861-1865 which has disappeared had a flag displayed everywhere in the Confederacy at the time. It was the First National Flag the “Stars and Bars" , not to be confused with the square "St. Andrew’s Cross" battle flag. Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, on page 118 notes that the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”, and that is what should be displayed here.
From Gordon S. Wood, “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787” (1972). The nationalistic sentiments in 1776, a “feeling of oneness among thirteen disparate states” assumed institutional form in Congress, which exercised an extraordinary degree of political, military, and economic power over the colonists. It was “centrally responsible for the colonies’ assumption of new governments and the final break from England.” (p.355-356) Delegates such as James Wilson, Benjamin Rush and John Adams held that in matters referred to Congress, 'we are not so many states, we are one state'. (p.357) What was remarkable was the degree of union that was achieved. The substantial powers granted to Congress in Article 9 “made the league of states as cohesive and strong as any similar sort of republican confederation is history — stronger in fact than some Americans had expected.” (p.359)
After consultation with MASEM, three solutions or combinations present themselves.
A. Save for the External Link section we typically don't use inline external links on article pages (but this does depend on situation). But the easiest solution here is to convert the link into an inline citation which retains the line within the citation and there's no restriction against inline cites.
B. An editorial note at the end of each section might do it, with description ending in a note, and the note including citation and link to the image page at National Postal Museum.
Note: Stamps which are restricted by USPS fair use copyright may be seen at Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum online. Click on the footnote number to see the link at the end of the footnote for each stamp.
Note: Stamps which are restricted by USPS fair use copyright may be seen at Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum online. See the link in the footnote at end of each description.
C. Another alternative to avoid the EL in the body is to have a list/formatted section in the "External Links" section, that would start off "Stamp pages at the NPM:" and then list each link with the stamp in question within that section, so it is clear its not just a reference and easier to follow.
Not only is Washington pictured in regular issues, he is commemorated in central events at the Founding, the "Father of his country". Washington’s victory over British General Cornwallis was commemorated with a 2-cent stamp on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Yorktown on October 19, 1931.[24] The 150th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution with George Washington as presiding officer was celebrated with a 3-cent issue on September 17, 1937, was adapted from the painting by Julius Brutus Stearns.[25] Washington’s inauguration as President under the new Constitution at Federal Hall in New York City was celebrated on its 150th anniversary on April 30, 1789.[26]
Washington center, flanked by Gen. Rochambeau & Adm. DeGrasse Battle of Yorktown, 1781 1931 issue
Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, 1787 1937 issue
How do you invent a category, 'Jamestown Exposition Issue' at Wikimedia Commons? Could it also be a subcategory under History of the United States on Stamps? or under Stamps of the United States? If so, how does one routinely initiate a subcategory so that the search feature lists the ten stamps I uploaded in the National Parks 1934 issue?
If you want to create a category, go to an image's description page, click on the '+' sign at the bottom in the category section, type the name of the category you want to create and save it. It will save out as a red link. Click on this red link and it will take you to the category's edit page, which will be empty, because you're about to create it by adding the name of the stamp(s) you want to include. Once saved, the category will appear blue .. and a new category is born.
To create a sub category, click on the category where you would like to include a sub category. Open its edit page and type [[Category:Name of new sub category]], at the bottom of the page and save. (There may be other sub categories there already.) It also will be a red link -- clicking on it will open its edit page, which will be empty as you have yet to include the names of any image(s). Add the name of the file(s) you'd like to add, and save. Note: As you add images, they will automatically be sorted alphabetically. Myself, I wouldn't create a category unless there's about a dozen appropriate images that can be included. IMO, Wikipedia and Commons has far too many categories already, many of them frivolous and unneeded, so create wisely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Source: Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum.
Portion used: Entire stamp.
Author: Government Printing Office, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Copyright owned by United States Postal Service® --- and when available, the name of the stamp designer (e.g.Charles R. Chickering)
Purpose of use: Entire stamp used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image.
Low resolution: Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original.
Replaceable? Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. There is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.
All you need for the Source is U.S. Post Office, or USPS as the case may be, and the place you located the stamp image (e.g. Scanned stamp from private collection, Arago, etc.). For Author, you can cite Gov. Printing Office, or the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and when available, the name of the stamp designer (e.g.Charles R. Chickering). Re: The templae, i don't bother with it, I simply go to the main page or any article page, and click on Upload file, located under Tools in the side bar at the left. As I pointed out before, when you get to Step 3, simply select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use and everything you need is right there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 8:51 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Non-free media rationale– WARNING: Article name goes here does not appear to exist!
Check capitalization. Enter only the exact title of a single article with no [[link brackets]] or other formatting. It is also possible the indicated article was deleted.
Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. There is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.
This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps
to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)
Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. There is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.
This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps
to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)
|Replaceability = Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. There is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.
This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps
to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)
Over three months of October to December 1937, the U.S. Postal Department issued four 3-cent stamps commemorating Insular Territories: Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. The first was to honor the Territory of Hawaii acquired in 1898. It showed the statue of King Kamehameha I, uniter of the Hawaiian Islands, at the Iolani Palace in Honolulu. The second honored Alaska which was purchased in 1867. The stamp pictured snow-covered Mount McKinley with a farm and a village to symbolize modern development in the territory.[27] Alaska and Hawaii territories were admitted as states in 1960.
The third stamp honored Puerto Rico featuring 'La Fortaleza', the Spanish Governor's Palace. Puerto Rico was ceded by Spain in an 1898 treaty ending the Spanish American War. Though some thought the stamp was limited to Puerto Rico, it was valid throughout the U.S. and its territories. The final stamp was in honor of the U. S. Virgin Islands, which was purchased from Denmark in 1917. The stamp displays a view of Charlotte Amalie, capital city of the territory.[28]
Note: Links to states take the reader to the "[state] in the American Civil War" series of articles in Wikipedia.
Wisconsin statehood 1848 (placeholder)
California statehood 1850 (placeholder)
Wisconsin was free territory from the Ordinance of 1787, and became a free-soil state, but no slave state entered the Union to maintain sectional balance in the U.S. Senate.
California following the 1848 gold rush, California was so populated that it qualified for statehood. It was admitted as a free state. Each time Congress addressed disposition of western territory, the issue of slavery arose. In this case, territory of the Mexican Secession had sparked over the Wilmont Proviso.
Minnesota was the third state entering the Union as free-soil state without an accompanying slave state. Although it was north of the Missouri Compromise Line, the Compromise of 1850 and the Dred Scott case erased it. Nevertheless, Minnesota entered the Union as a free-soil state.
Oregon was the second far western state entering the Union as a free state. The first U.S. Senators elected were Democrats.
Kansas had applied for statehood as a slave state from a constitutional procedure racked by violence and corruption, Bleeding Kansas. The House of Representatives failed to accept the recommendation of President and voted the bill down. Before the first shot on Fort Sumter, Kansas was admitted as a free soil state.
The American Revolution was the first successful colonial war of independence against a European power. Americans had developed an ideology of "republicanism" that held government rested on the will of the people in their local legislatures. They demanded their rights as Englishmen, “no taxation without representation”. The British insisted on administering the empire through Parliament, and the conflict escalated into the American Revolutionary War.[74] The Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776, proclaiming that "all men are created equal", and endowed with unalienable rights. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak government that operated until 1789.[76]
Britain recognized the independence of the United States following their defeat at Yorktown.[77] In the peace treaty of 1783, Britain recognized American sovereignty over most territory east of the Mississippi River. Nationalists led the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in writing the United States Constitution, and it was ratified in state conventions in 1788. The federal government was reorganized into three branches in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791.[78]
Although the federal government criminalized the international slave trade in 1808,[79] after 1820, cultivation of the highly profitable cotton crop exploded in the Deep South, and along with it the slave population.[82] The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, converted millions to evangelical Protestantism. In the North it energized multiple social reform movements, including abolitionism, [83] in the South Methodists and Baptists proselytized among slave populations.[Heinemann 2007 p. 197] Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars.[84] The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size.[85] The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism.[86] A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819.[87]
From 1820 to 1850, Jacksonian democracy, began a set of reforms which included wider male suffrage, and led to the rise of the Second Party System of Democrats and Whigs as the dominant parties from 1828 to 1854. The Trail of Tears in the 1830s exemplified the Indian removal policy that moved Indians into the west to their own reservations. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845, during a period of expansionist Manifest Destiny.[88] The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest.[89] The U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War resulted in the 1848 Mexican Cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest.[90]
The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 spurred western migration and additional states.[91] After the American Civil War, New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans.[92] Over a half-century, the loss of the buffalo was an existential blow to many Plains Indians cultures.[93] In 1869, President Ulysses S. Grant's Peace policy reversed the previous costly policy of "wars of extermination" to civilize and give Indians eventual United State citizenship.[94]
Louisiana Purchase approximate outline in black. In the early 1800s Mississippi and Ohio Valley trade flowed south to New Orleans in the Purchase territory
In 1803, in the midst of the Napoleonic wars between France and Britain, Thomas Jefferson authorized the Louisiana Purchase, a major land acquisition from France that doubled the size of the United States. Having lost the revenue potential of Haiti while escalating his wars against the rest of Europe, Napoleon gave up on an empire in North America and used the purchase money to help finance France's war campaign on its home front.[100][99]
Jefferson had sent James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston to Paris in 1802 to try to buy the city of New Orleans and adjacent coastal areas, with the assistance of French nobleman, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours. Napoleon offered to sell the entire Territory for a price of $15 million, which Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin financed easily. The purchase was without explicit Constitutional authority, but most contemporaries thought that this opportunity was exceptional and could not be missed.[102] The Purchase proved to be one of the largest fertile tracts of land on the planet, and it marked the end of French imperial ambitions in North America which were potentially in conflict with American expansion west.[103]
The Louisiana Purchase
Some historians, such as Ron Chernow note Jefferson’s inconsistency, “Jefferson, the strict constructionist, committed a breathtaking act of executive power that far exceeded anything anticipated in the Constitution.”[104] Other historians dispute this with the following reasoning: Countries change their borders by conquest, or by treaty. The Constitution specifically grants the president the power to negotiate treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2), and Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison gave assurances that the Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate quickly ratified the treaty, and the House, immediately authorized funding.[105][106][107][108] On December 20, 1803 the French flag was lowered in New Orleans and the U.S. flag raised, symbolizing the transfer of the Louisiana territory from France to the United States.[109][110]
Historians differ in their assessments as to who was the principal player in the purchase; among Napoleon, Jefferson, his secretary of state James Madison, and his negotiator James Monroe. Peterson agrees with Alexander Hamilton in attributing it to "dumb luck".[111] The historian George Herring noted the Purchase "is often and rightly regarded as a diplomatic windfall—the result of accident, luck, and the whim of Napoleon Bonaparte."[113] Though France was removed as a threat to the United States, Jefferson refused to recognize the new republic of Haiti, the second in the Western Hemisphere, and imposed an arms and trade embargo against it.[101] The entire territory was not finally secured until England and Mexico gave up their claims to northern and southern portions, respectively, during the presidency of James Polk (1845–1849).
While the 1803 Louisiana Purchase was a great achievement of the Jefferson administration, domestically it was complicated by the establishment of pre-existing French slaveholders from modern Illinois to Missouri to Louisiana. Faced with the option to confiscate the slaves of French nationals, Jefferson chose to answer English and Spanish objections to the sale by quickly incorporating resident settlers politically into U.S. territories. Jefferson's failure to tamper with preexisting conditions led to criticism for his having allowed slavery to continue in the newly acquired territory, and the adoption of the Code Napoleon in the New Orleans Territory that would become the state of Louisiana.
An alternative flag which is repeatedly disruptive of Jefferson Davis page and other Confederate personalities is the “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” as identified by the CSA, Inc. Placing this flag on historical articles is pushing that organization’s POV. In the case of the Jefferson Davis article, Lieutcoluseng and ProudIrishAspie tag team the disruption without discussion at Talk where I have posted researched sources for the “stars and bars” flag. ProudIrishAspie has received three ANI blocks for posting infobox flag disruption.
Jeff Davis served under the "First National Flag", the history article at WP should picture the flag of his time, the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. The Stars-and-Bars are used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865. (Coulter, p. 116),
First National Flag- the Confederate flag of history that J. Davis served 1861-1865, and personally flew 1867-1908 while still not a US citizen.
The “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” was passed as Richmond was being lost, it was never fabricated, never a part of the historical Confederacy. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.
In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.
The Tearoom suggested an RfC because at the instant of the Featured Article award for the article, the BSB was showing. I have been blocked once elsewhere for 3R trying to maintain the results of a DR in the face of more experienced tag-team editors. When I challenged it, the administrator simply counted the complainants links, without reading the context. How should I proceed to bring resourced information to the encyclopedia without an edit war?
We know from the Encyclopædia Britannica that the United States is 50 states. The USG defines itself as a sole person in international affairs. A "state" is defined by law in numerous places as in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), and as applied by the US State Department in international affairs. The US includes 50 states with DC, PR, GU, VI and Marianas (MP). Executive Orders bearing on transportation and defense include American Samoa, the last outlying possession of the US. Scholars include the Pacific and Caribbean territories in the United States.
A federal republic has a representative scheme of its citizens in its national legislature. The national legislature of the US is Congress representing states and territories of its citizens according to its constitutional traditions. In the modern United States, 50 states with a federal district and five territories are represented in Congress.
This is disputed on several counts. It is said that law defining six territories cannot stand
US Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, Consular Affairs Volume 7, section 1100. Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)).
INA 101(a)(38) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
b. On November 3, 1986, Public Law 94-241, “approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”, (Section 506(c)),took effect. From that point on, the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States for the purposes of INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) and INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408).
Immigration and Nationality Act: 101 definitions. (29) The term "outlying possessions of the United States" means American Samoa and Swains Island. (36) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, 23 the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .
(38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
You offer no sources to support "The six US territories are not a part of the American federal republic". Can you dispute any source with a directly stated reliable source that is not of your own original research? The following is not original research,
1) At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Marianas." The incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy is a judicial term of art to justify discrimination among internal tax regimes of the US. The term excludes no place, Congress alone is to decide territorial status. Internal taxation variability is not of interest to the general reader.
2) ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
3) Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.
4) This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175] Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). To date, there is no reliable counter source.
I paraphrase Scott Straus in on the Committee on Conscience, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and a professor of political science at U. of Wisconsin, Madison. Indentifying genocide and related forms of mass atrocity – an effort to develop a conceptual standard “to identify the class of events that the atrocity prevention community wishes to prevent.” (p. 25) Some define a mass killing atrocity as 1,000 civilian deaths in a year ... Others define a mass atrocity as 5,000 civilian deaths, still others refer to a class of legal crimes such as crimes against humanity and war crimes (p. 1).
Genocide is a form of extensive, group-selective violence whose purpose is the destruction of that group in a territory under the control of a perpetrator. Extensive violence, is deliberate violence of a large scale, sustained over time and across space; it is organized and systematic, spread out geographically, and the perpetrator has the capacity to inflict such levels of violence (p. 4-5). In short, to assess extent in areas under a perpetrator’s control, outside observers can look at deliberateness, at scale (are substantial numbers being targeted?), at systematicity (organization, coordination, patterned regularity), at time (repetition and sustainment, which are implied by systematicity), at geography (widespread breadth), and at capacity--ability, involvement by institutions (p. 10).
Genocide has a logic of group destruction apart from the political violence which conforms to a coercive logic: political violence is designed to change the behavior of specific audiences. Repressive violence—is largely intended to signal to would-be protestors that such a fate would befall them if they were to do the same (Kalyvas 2006). Terrorist violence is similarly not designed to destroy groups; it is designed to generate fear, to attack symbols, and the like—it has a communicative function (Richardson 2006). Most political violence also envisages compromise and negotiation as an end point. Group destruction implies a different causal logic, namely, that from the perpetrator’s perspective the targeted group cannot be negotiated with, tamed, or repressed (p. 10-11).
Definitions are problematic. How much group destruction, a numeric threshold, state as a necessary perpetrator, distinguishing war from genocide, relating genocide to the Holocaust (p. 15-17). Writer/editors have conflicting objectives:1. Moral or ethical objective: genocide is normative, something very bad. 2. As a legal concept, it must meet evidentiary proof in a court of law. 3. The narrative may be merely an empirical identification of a type of violence with the properties of genocide (p. 17).
Alternatives: Mass atrocity is emerging as the dominant alternative, broader standard than genocide. Along with crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes to describe violence against civilians (p. 19). Within mass atrocity against civilians is mass killing and mass violence. Christian Gerlach defines mass violence as “widespread physical violence against noncombatants, that is, outside of immediate fighting between military or paramilitary personnel. Mass violence includes killings, but also forced removal or expulsion, enforced hunger or undersupply, forced labor, collective rape, strategic bombing, and excessive imprisonment”.
In contrast to mass killing, mass violence includes a range of kinds of violence. Unlike genocide, mass violence is not necessarily group-selective (p. 21-22). Apart from the Indian Wars, we should use “mass violence” to describe the violence perpetrated by local regulators and state militias, Army commands and sutlers, and Interior Department agents and commissaries, against Native American civilians over the centuries of US history.
First National Flag- the Confederate flag of history that J. Davis served 1861-1865, and personally flew 1867-1908 while still not a US citizen.Third National Flag - CSA "de facto", the flag "since 1865" used by neo-Confederates in the 21st century.
There is a controversy arising over use in the Infobox of the First National Flag versus the Third National Flag, "Blood Stained Banner" at Confederate States of America where the consensus is to use the First National Flag. In articles about Virginians, the First National Flag is used at Robert E. Lee, but it is challenged, and the BSB is used at J.E.B. Stuart. The BSB is coincidentally adopted by the Confederate States of America, Inc., a WP:FRINGE organization which seeks to persuade voters to elect state representatives who will vote for state secession in the 21st century.
Is there a way to adopt a consistent usage across Virginia articles concerning the Confederacy? Confederates served under one banner, so history articles at WP should picture the flag of its time, the "First national flag with 13 stars", 1861-1865. Jefferson Davis was the last Confederate citizen, the only man not included in the general amnesty. Heritage Auction offered the original First National Flag flown by Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir “since 1865” – that is 1867-1908 until his death.
David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.
In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”.
The alternate image description for the Blood-Stained-Banner suggests the BSB is in use “since 1865”, yet in Jefferson Davis' Short History of the Confederate States of America, p. 503 it is said that the Confederacy “disappeared” since 1865, in the words of Jefferson Davis. Use of this flag is supported by editors who quote primary source of the Confederate Congressional Journal, but it was adopted by a rump session without a quorum, it was never fabricated and no one ever saw it in 1865. It should not be used to represent the historical Confederacy or anyone serving it 1861-1865. Advocates of the BSB have offered no scholarly sources to support their position.
Is there a way to adopt a consistent flag usage in articles of history of the Confederacy across military articles concerning the Virginians Confederacy?
{{Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = left | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = 45px | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = Gantt przyklad 2.png | info = This user is a project manager | float = center }}
id
info
Idea proposal: Profession: "Project Manager" (alternate). Any of these three images using .png, .svg or .jpg would serve Userbox "project manager" for many contexts besides the stapler image now available. Can someone help me code the Userbox to apply one of them?
In the 2008 Consejo v. Rullan case, “Contrary to other territories, Puerto Rico historically has formed part of the customs and immigration territory of the US.”[p. 21]. “[Congress’] sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present hs in fact incorporated the territory.” The territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.” [p. 26,28]
In contrast to your unsourced POV, we have: “State” includes [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands (MP). [p. 22-23]. This definition is reiterated throughout US Code. That is definitive. Executive Order, includes all five organized inhabited territories, that is definitive. The Census Department defines "native-born American" as "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, or those born abroad of at least one U.S. citizen parent. U.S. Island Areas include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. That is definitive. A political science scholar says, Sparrow says p.232, territories are a part of a federal nation-state; today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific, a federal district and 50 states.
Is the US Government competent to legally define its international geographic extent; should WP recognize that extent as the US defines it, noting international challenges? Sought article text: “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” [note] The United Nations monitors Guam, American Samoa and US Virgin Islands as non-self governing territories of former colonial peoples, 18 Dec 2012. Viewed June 3, 2013.
Primary sources. By the Montvideo Convention, Articles 1 and 2, the US is a "sole person" in its federal republic as represented in Congress: 50 states, DC and 5 territories of citizens. There are three other "States in free association". By Congressional statute, "Aliens and nationality", “Definitions. 29. American Samoa (AS) is an "outlying possession". 36. State includes [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands (MP). [p. 22-23]. This definition is reiterated throughout US Code.
Secondary USG. US Foreign Affairs Manual says the term ‘US’ geographically includes four territories (PR, GM, VI, MP), and 'outlying possession' (AS) [p. 18,22]. Insular Affairs, Application of the US Constitution reports all with self-government. [p. 8] “Native-born Americans” are citizens (PR, GM, MP, VI) or nationals and citizens (AS). Territory residents enjoy rights of citizenship, due process and equal protections. [p. 33, 35] The Executive interprets 'US', to include five territories."Native-born American" include those born in five US territories. Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, [five] territories."
Scholarly sources. Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175] Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232).
Sought language in the US article is, “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” In this case we look at the US as an internationally recognized nation-state, which is disputed.
By the 1933 Montvideo Convention, Art.2, “The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.” States in free association become independent in 20 years if treaty is not renewed for Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and Micronesia. But that the federal state of the US is a "sole person" in its 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories of citizens represented in Congress, is disputed.
Legal scholars (Lawson and Sloane 2009) show Puerto Rico enjoys UN criteria for democratic process, fundamental rights, self-governance and participation in national councils to comply with 1960 UN resolution 1541, allowing for “integration with an independent state” [p. 1134], disputed by reference to pre-1960 primary documents without scholarly interpretation, -- though, once again -- only 3% Puerto Ricans voted ‘independence’ in the Nov 2012 referendum with 80% turnout.
US citizens in the US territories are represented in the US House, --- by US constitutional practice for 220 years, once there is a path to citizenship and 100,000 Americans --- DC (elected mayor) and territories (elected governors) are listed in the Representatives directory by US place represented, equally with the states.
The opposition in part uses the Insular Cases 100 years ago, which allowed Congress to annex territory of aliens without US constitutional protections, who would be made citizens by Congress, just as "at the ratification of the Constitution" (Northwest Territories), --- the test set forth in the Downes case for political incorporation into the US --- by Congress. Territories were not to have the Uniformity Clause applied for revenue purpose as they were not states. But Editors opposed say revenue provisions bar inhabitants from the US federal republic in the matter of citizenship, --- whom Congress has made citizens with self-government and Members of Congress in the federal republic.
Primary sources.8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1101. “Definitions. (29) ‘’outlying possessions of the United States’ means American Samoa and Swains Island. [p. 22]. (36) ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [p. 23]. There is no US statute stating “US territories are excluded from the US for US law”.
Secondary USG - foreign. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Sec.104 [8 u.s.c. 1104] The Secretary of State will administer and enforce the provisions of this Act and all other immigration and nationality laws. Chap. 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), INA provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the US… [from Nov. 3, 1986], the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States”. Only American Samoa and Swains Island are ‘outlying possessions’ [p. 18]. No State Department view of law in force has it, “US territories are not a part of the US for international purposes.” an unsourced opposition assertion.
Secondary USG - domestic. When implementing Congressional statutes, the executive interprets 'United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District… and five organized US territories. There is no Executive Order found stating, “US territories are not a part of the US in executing US law”. "Native-born American" include those born in the five organized US territories. Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Marianas." There is no source disputing US nationality in the five organized US territories, an unsourced opposition assertion.
Scholarly sources. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” Summarized by the political science scholar Bartholomew Sparrow, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). There is no scholar who says, “modern US territories are not a part of the US”, an unsourced opposition assertion. That is definitive.
And, you have NO sources whatever to underpin your unthinking, unsourced POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
As a newbie, I haven't figured out how to make the hot links to (diff) yet. Below are the 28 elements of the edit war on the United States page between A - include territories and B - exclude territories. A = TVH, Gwillhickers, Collect and others. B = Golbez and TFD and others. Every source requirement demanded has been met: government, history, political science and law, primary executive, legislative and judicial, specific acts of legislation and Members of Congress for each territory. "Just quote one president". Okay, John F. Kennedy San Juan, PR, 1961. “…I am in my country… and I am glad to be in America this afternoon. “ Barack Obama San Juan PR, 2011. “I include Puerto Rico… every day, [Puerto Ricans] help write the American story... [also] in our country’s uniform...” But reasonable editors say Obama cannot mean ‘our country’ is a part of the US. And so it goes.
Since 28 October 2012, I have attempted to place a sourced description of the US geographically, nationally, politically and constitutionally in the introduction of the United States article. Golbez reverted, three times --- I subsequently tried Wikipedia approaches --- community talks for geography and political science, third party and mediation --- "Wikipedia does little harm when it is wrong". As the discussion wore into March 2013, at dispute resolution, an accommodation was reached -- eight finding consensus language, three editors including TFD placing the edit war accusation, refused to admit US territories, regardless of the accommodating language. Gwhillickers brought the DRN language to the article on March 19, Golbez placed the final wording.
On April 3, Golbez determined he had made the article, he could unmake it, "I should not have implemented it." On April 20, Golbez found an unsourced revelation to exclude US territories from the US, and so he did. I reverted it because he has no sources, has found no comparable group of eight (Buzity for including territories, has dropped out of the discussion). It may be as simple as refusing to acknowledge the US is not 'we the states' but 'we the people' -- he says below, the nation has no sovereignty, "the country IS the states". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
A. 12:57, 28 October 2012 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Intro: copy edit detail to note per Talk page.)
B. 15:21, 28 October 2012 Golbez . . (rv introduction of error (the territories being part of the us) and overemphasis on citizenship from intro, explained further on talk page)
A. 20:46, 29 October 2012 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Intro. restore sentence adjacent to first sentence -- at previous position in paragraph, per Talk.)
B. 04:12, 30 October 2012 Golbez . . (undo; it actually looks better this way, sorry i suggested this :( it seems odd to say where the territories are before we even say where the country itself is. maybe it can be rewritten? we should do so on the talk page before making a decision?)
A. 09:01, 30 October 2012 TheVirginiaHistorian . .(copy edit per talk page agreement and edit page notes agreement - see talk page)
B. 13:30, 30 October 2012 Golbez . . (rv, i absolutely never agreed to say it's made up of territories)
A. 13:51, 12 November 2012 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (copy-edit for conciseness, comprehensiveness, over-linked intro 'blue out', western puffery -- see Talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (footnote for territory and possession count likely to be challenged)
B. 14:34, 13 November 2012 Golbez . . (rv non-consensus change; you don't say "i propose" on the talk page and then immediately implement it. you wait for discussion. at the very least it doesn't even say what Alaska and Hawaii ARE. Are they states? other countries? Don't assume reader knows.) 14:51, 13 November 2012 Golbez . . (ugh Wikipedia, stop sucking)
A. 18:25, 13 November 2012 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Reverted 3 edits by Golbez (talk): The consensus is to drop wp:puffery, add "The state of Alaska … " per the talk page.
B. 19:03, 13 November 2012 Golbez . . (rv - please tell me where this consensus was gained, because it was not on talk:United States. you proposed and edit and you made it without gaining any comment from others; that is unilateral, not consensus.)
A. 17:10, 19 March 2013 Gwillhickers . . (added 'with differing degrees of autonomy.' per DRN vote)
A (B?). 18:26, 19 March 2013 Golbez . . (this is how its done. if you have a problem with this then you admit the "D"RN cares only about wording and not actually resolving the dispute, and fucking take me to arbcom, no one rational can possibly dispute this.)
B. 02:09, 3 April 2013 Golbez . . (i made this, i can unmake this. i do not recognize the authority or veracity of that edit and should not have implemented it.) 14:02, 3 April 2013 Golbez . . (silly me, i reverted to the wrong, incorrect, poorly discussed, no-consensus version, when i meant to return to the status quo. thanks for pointing out my error, collect)
A. 14:13, 3 April 2013 Collect . . (talk pages shows this as having the most support overall - the status quo had much less support)
B. 03:59, 4 April 2013 The Four Deuces . . (consensus changes and facts need to be supported)
A. 11:59, 4 April 2013 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Reverted 1 edit by The Four Deuces (talk) to last revision by VictorD7.
B. 17:38, 20 April 2013 Golbez . . (correcting per my revelation on the talk page)
A. 06:39, 29 April 2013 TheVirginiaHistorian . .(no consensus to remove territories. see Talk)
B. 12:15, 29 April 2013 The Four Deuces . . (The recent proposal did not say territories were included)
A. 12:52, 29 April 2013 Collect . . (no one can conceivably dispute the sovereignty claim I trust)
B. 14:44, 29 April 2013 Golbez . . (undo collect; sure i can. the country is not "sovereign over" the states, it IS the states. please stop trying to flog the language more than it deserves.)
A. 15:12, 29 April 2013 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (include territories as geographic places and native-born persons in places, sourced)
B. 16:16, 29 April 2013 Golbez . . (rv; insufficient sourcing per talk page, going to need a large consensus to get that in. 'in a geographic sense' in a definitions clause in an EO is not annexation, it's backdoor, we need an affirmation rather than a description. you know better than this)
A. 17:09, 29 April 2013 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Reverted 1 edit by Golbez (talk): The description of the US is sourced per discussion page. There is no backdoor. There is modern era counter source.
B. 18:02, 29 April 2013 Golbez . . (rv; you were bold, i reverted, we now discuss. you do not have consensus on the talk page to make this change.)
A. 21:12, 29 April 2013 TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Undid revision 552761139 by Golbez (talk). No discussion at edit thread, no sources, reneging on previously agreed including "territories" a part of US per of dispute resolution page.)
What is the meaning of U.S. as a place, for use by a general reader?
Presidential Executive Order 13423 of January 24, 2007, includes all five organized inhabited territories: "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands," that is definitive.
The Census Department in its American Community Survey Reports, May 2012, page 1, note 1, defines "native-born American" as anyone born in the 50 states, DC, "Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area... U.S. Island Areas include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and... the Northern Mariana Islands." That is definitive.
Insular Cases are superseded a century later by Congressional statute. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.”
Summarized by the political science scholar Bartholomew Sparrow, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). That is definitive.
There are no counter sources offered to exclude native-born Americans, --- U.S. citizens within the geographical extent of the U.S. --- from the lede of the U.S. article at WP. If there were, they would be a footnote to refer to arcane distinctions not relevant to the general reader.
Territorial incorporation takes place "through inhabitants, not the territory per se," with Congressional extension of Equal Protection Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. That incorporation places them integrally within the geographic boundaries of the US. Two lengthy source quotes follow from "The territories of the US (general)" at 'academic room', Harvard Innovation Lab, each supported by two government sources.
"The Supreme Court of the US is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the US to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. The ... territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the US and cannot, from then on, be separated. Indeed, the whole body of the US Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character."
Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."
"More so, the needful rules and regulations of the territorial clause must yield to the Constitution and the inherent constraints imposed on it in dealing with the privileges and immunities of the inhabitants of the incorporated territory. Notice must be taken that incorporation of a territory takes place through the incorporation of its inhabitants, not of the territory per se. As such, those inhabitants receive the full impact of the US Constitution, except for those provisions that deal specifically with the federal character of the Union."
US Insular Areas Application of the US Constitution 1997, p. 35, 9. "Among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are due process and equal protection. Both rights apply to the five larger insular areas. --- p. 9, "[US nationals] are not aliens and consequently cannot be excluded or deported." It is irrelevant to reference judicial findings that people in territorial places were once aliens when inhabitants there are no longer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
U.S. President Executive Order 13423, January 24, 2007, “United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." And in the American Community Survey Reports, "Foreign born population in the U.S.", 2010, p. 1, the Census Department defines "native-born American" as "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, or those born abroad of at least one U.S. citizen parent. U.S. Island Areas include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Viewed April 29, 2013.
Culture-clash. Native American gift-giving obligated the giver, for Europeans, the receiver.
Quick overview. I like the balance of social history. After all that Jamestown, seems unbalanced unless something nice is added about new England/north need be said, about their education intellectual leadership on the continent – remember Madison et al in the south educated at Kings College NJ, Hamilton got a scholarship up there …
Slavery is well written, but later editors will carve it up as being too long. Writers are flying at 10,000 feet, they need to climb up to 30-50,000. Love the addition of Cromwell, hello, “the king’s Old Dominion”… The New England fisheries were important from this side of the pond because it extended that tradition of trading with other nations for commodities outside the mercantile system. Not sure how to wrap that in there.
I am discovering the large amount of humor directed at my earnest efforts, and I really am going to lighten up. However, just between you and me: The illustration of a native American was at first deleted with an anachronistic WWI pinup “Columbia”, now the demonstrative confrontation over betrayal in part due to cultural misunderstanding --- “Indians giving a talking to” is reduced to “trading”. I suppose it is better than an image of slaughter one way or the other, which is what we had a few months ago.
My concern is the integrity of a source-based encyclopedia. Sources say the U.S. is a republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. I have agreed to LCRC’s proposed wording for the purpose of collaboration. The U.S.G. in a secondary source 2007, says to guide immigrants p.77, The U.S. includes 50 states, the District … and [the five organized territories of] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.
_ 1) Preeminent U.S. constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson edited an anthology in 2005 with co-editor Bartholomew Sparrow. (a)Sparrow says p.232, territories are a part of a federal nation-state; today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific, a federal district and 50 states. (b) Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review p.1160-1162, and (c) Judge Juan R. Torruella Journal of International Law p.326, are “include territories" scholarly sources. No editor has found any scholarly source to “exclude territories” from the Union
_ 2) U.S.G. in primary sources over the last twenty years in multiple examples of statute, jurisprudence and executive order “include territories”. Multiple sources since 1962 include the State Department Manual on ‘Insular Affairs’ interprets INA law as including four major territories as a part of the U.S., with Samoan nationals and citizens, the “last overseas territory”. Since 1990, GAO reports to Congress on the “Insular Territories” report the ‘five major territories’ have a constitutional status “equivalent to states”, which I take to be ‘a part of the U.S.’ These U.S.G. primary sources and reports are said to be editor synthesis and original research which makes supporting scholarly and government secondary sources inadmissible. I disagree on both counts.
_ _ Over a discussion October 2012-March 2013, nowhere is there a source of any description which says, “Since 1901, the official United States is incorporated territory of 50 states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll, excluding U.S. territories with citizens.” Editors must cobble a synthesis across multiple tertiary sources without direct quotes referencing WP articles, lists, digests, dictionaries and encyclopedias, each shown to be inapplicable to U.S. territories of 2013 by secondary and primary sources from the most recent 20 years.
How do we get MEDIATION on a page by someone familiar with WP policy? I have tried Requests for Comment, Third Opinion and selecting from the editor assistance list over a two-months discussion. The United States article says it "includes 50 states and DC". But a scholar looking at U.S. expansion from 1803, says, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p. 232). And now collaborating with Buzity, we have at U.S. Government Printing Office, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, and the territories ...” (Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, 2007. p. 77.)
Golbez agreed to “include territories”, but then reverted them, citing wikilink to the Insular Cases. He has since promised to revert any further edit. Buzity and I found law journal articles, court cases, statutory law, executive orders superseding Insular Cases. U.N. resolutions cited for "include territories" have secondary sources. I have a summary at "Include territories” summary for mediation, and at WP policies for “include territories”. Golbez added a citation using a tertiary source, but WP policy would prefer secondary sources. We are warned that we are only two, we can be banned from the article and talk page, we are illogical and we cannot change anything unless we agree to change everything in all related articles, none of which rings true. Thanks in advance.
More FTD misdirection, attack without contribution. The encyclopedia article is not a list of factoids WP:SCHOLARSHIP. “Opinion” of a scholar in an academic publication provides context and authority beyond mirroring lists from other websites or publishing editors unfounded assertion. If there are two countervailing scholarly opinions from editor contributions, they are to be represented in a balanced way WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. I have proposed the framework for a balance in December and now again in February.
_ _ But there are still no secondary sources for “exclude territories”, so no call for other notice in the article besides "include territories. The onus for amending the article is satisfied. There are reliable sources and quotes for “include territories”, none for “exclude territories”. The article extent of U.S. federal republic as it now reads is cited to a tertiary source requiring a challenged interpretation. “Include territories” should reasonably prevail.
_ _ For “include territories” we have to quoted from a U.S. Government Printing Office publication, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” (A guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.) and "include territories" is supported by the reliable secondary source in the quote, "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232).
_ _ There is nothing offered to oppose "include territories" but unsourced argumentation and a challenged tertiary source.
_ _ Since the 1901-1904 judicial fiat “incorporating” states, district and Palymra Atoll only, there are “include territory” Congressional statutes and reports since 1952. Homeland Security Act, PR concurrent resolution, Oversight committee statement. Consistent with that is the Presidential Executive Order with the force of law. The congressional organic acts incorporating each U.S. territory since 1952 all have been accepted by local referendum in the same manner irrevocably binding in U.S. constitutional practice since 1805, including full U.S. citizenship, protections of the 14th Amendment, and representation on the floor by a Member of Congress. N. Marianas, MoC Sablan; Guam, MoC Bordallo; Samoa, MoC Faleomavaega; Puerto Rico, MoC Pierluisi; Virgin Islands, MoC Christensen.
_ _ Editors for "exclude territories" claim there is only one court case. Besides the unchallenged five-year standing Consejo v. Rullan Case, searchable quotations establishing citizenship is extended to the territories, the federal government treats them as states, they are self governing, congressional organic acts with citizenship means incorporated. These are supported by the reliable scholarly source Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, 2009, on pages 1164-5, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered. Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, Colon v. U.S., Rassmussen, Martin v. Hunter, Posadas v. Tourism, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson, Torres v. Puerto Rico, and others found in Talk Archive 43 and 44.
Every two years, U.S. citizens of the territories popularly elect “Members of Congress”, titled respectively, Congressman and Congresswoman. They “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.” They participate in debate, are assigned offices, money for staff, and appoint constituents from their territories to the four military academies.[30]
Like the delegate from District of Columbia, they do not vote in a role call vote, but they vote on all legislation before Congress as equals in their standing committees, they are included in their party count for each committee, and on conference committees, they are equals with senators. Depending on the congress, they may also vote in the House Committee of the Whole.[31]
Territorial legislators seated today are (1) Commonwealth of Northern Mariana’s Sablan, (2) Guam’s Bordallo, (3) Samoa’s Faleomavaega, (4) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Pierluisi, and (5) Virgin Islands’ Christensen.[32]
Every representative of a territory in Congress votes on all legislation before Congress (1) in standing committee, (2) on an equal footing with other House and Senate members in Conference Committee, and in the House Committee of the Whole in the 103d Congress, according to the GAO Report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p. 26-28).
_ _ Legislators. They are titled Congressman (3) and Congresswoman (3): (1) District’s Norton, (2) Guam’s Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ Christensen. The delegates and resident commissioner “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.”, GAO Report, U.S. Insular Areas,
Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p. 26-28)., after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
U.S. Census Community survey reports. The term -- native born American -- refers to "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, ... [including] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”., Congress defines the official geographical extent of the U.S. at State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 7-Consular Affairs, p. 2-3, referencing an Act of Congress: INA, State Department Consular Affairs Manual, refers to INA statute, U.S. Statistical Abstract. viewed October 31, 2012. “Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and consequently included in the native population. “ (p. 6) Section 29, “Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”, p. 815. “This section presents summary economic and social statistics for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.”, U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1121,2,3,4,5 - Sec.1- Current Law for each. viewed October 31, 2012. “As of 1952, according to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. five dependencies listed as part of the geographical definition of the ‘United States’ in Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act."
No source, only a challenge to rename and relink support for a U.S. government printing office publication, “Welcome to the United States” 2007, p. 77. “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”
No source in the exclude the territories, only a challenge to rename and relink support for a U.S. government printing office publication. Wikipedia has on the one side, seven scholars published in reliable academic publications: Charles S. Chapel, Amitai Etzioni, Gustavo A. Gelpí, Julian Go, Sean D. Murphy, Juan R. Torruella, Bartholomew H. Sparrow. On the other we have one editor's assurance that a terciary CIA Factbook of sentence fragments can be interpreted without textual reference to supersede them all by his opinion.
“The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” “Welcome to the United States” 2007, p. 77. "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, p. 232).
Government publications describe the geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic as 50 states, the District and five territories incorporated by organic law. It’s 2007 “Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants” is confirmed in State Department manuals, Census reports, Geographic Information Systems, Treasury regulations and Postal Service.
_ _ Previously, editors have cited the CIA Factbook, a tertiary weekly digest of sentence fragments which includes territories under its heading “U.S. government” by confuses ‘first-order’ administration by governors, separating states and territories, and adds the District with a mayor which is, by definition, a “second-order” administration of government.
Welcome to the United States A Guide for New Immigrants Pages 77, 83 and 101., U.S. Census Community survey reports. The term -- native born American . Title 13 of the U.S. Code states that each of the censuses it authorizes “shall include...", United States - United Kingdom Maritime Boundaries in the Caribbean - U.S. Department of State. Cornell University Library - GIS Data and Maps -- United States GIS Data & Maps -- United States-, Federal tax law related to U.S. territories., U.S. Census Community survey reports. The term -- native born American -- refers to "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, ... [including] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”., Congress defines the official geographical extent of the U.S. at State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 7-Consular Affairs, p. 2-3, referencing an Act of Congress: INA, State Department Consular Affairs Manual, refers to INA statute, U.S. Statistical Abstract. viewed October 31, 2012. “Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and consequently included in the native population. “ (p.6) Section 29, “Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”, p.815. “This section presents summary economic and social statistics for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.”, U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1121,2,3,4,5 - Sec.1- Current Law for each. viewed October 31, 2012. “As of 1952, according to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. five dependencies listed as part of the geographical definition of the ‘United States’ in Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act."
On setting up the U.S. race-based apartheid colonial rule for island possessions as described by both “include territory” sources from Juan Torruella and from Julian Go, the U.S. “Jim Crow” Supreme Court’s Insular Cases, 1901-1904, stipulated that the judicial fiat would have effect only until congressional statute extended the Constitution.
_ _ Once the Constitution is extended to a place it is irrevocable. Modern courts, district, circuit and supreme courts, have extended specific constitutional protections to territories in addition to those specifically enumerated in congressional organic acts of incorporation. “The Constitution cannot be switched on and off.”
_ _ Acts of incorporation. Six territorial places incorporated into the U.S. by court jurisdiction in USC Title 28 are incorporated into U.S. executive and legislative governance of the U.S. federal republic by Organic Act: (a) District of Columbia home rule, (b) American Samoa deed of cession, (c) Guam organic act, (d) Marianas covenant, (e) Puerto Rico organic act, (f) U.S. Virgin Islands organic act. 48 USC § 1421b as amended, Guam’s Organic Act. Provisions of the U.S. Constitution explicitly extended to Guam. Congressional intent to extend the Constitution was upheld in appellate court in the 1992 Guam OBGYN case. 48 U.S.C. § 1561 Congress extends the Constitution as enumerated to the Virgin Islands, with “the same force and effect” there as in the U.S. or any State of the U.S., with indictments as provided in local law. In the Virgin Islands, CNMI Covenant - In a covenant of political union, Congress extends the Constitution in enumerated provisions to the Northern Marianas Islands, as if it were one of the several STATES, with juries as provided in local law. Subsequent federal court cases 1990-1994 held that additional provisions of the Constitution applied to U.S. citizens there without explicit act of congress, including the 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th Amendments. 48 USC § 1421b u - 1968 amendment by the Congress to Guam’s Organic Act. 48 U.S.C. § 1561 U.S. Virgin Islands , Northern Mariana Islands. CNMI Covenant,
_ _ Legislators. They are titled Congressman (3) and Congresswoman (3): (1) District’s Norton, (2) Guam’s Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ Christensen. The delegates and resident commissioner “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.”, GAO Report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p.26-28)., after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa. But, NO district in the U.K. Parliament for the British Virgin Islands of any description.
U.S. Presidents issue executive orders, once called executive memoranda, to direct officers and agencies of the executive branch with the full force of law. They may take authority directly from the Constitution, but typically they are made pursuant to Acts of Congress, including those which specifically delegate discretionary power to the President.
_ _ '[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”, Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) (l)
The Insular Cases of 1901-1904 were a temporary judicial holding to give Congress leave to govern conquered peoples without "Anglo-Saxon traditions.
The United States of America is not just composed of State Jurisdictions. It also has Non-State jurisdictions that are part of the country.
While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship for the Dominican Republic, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. But Puerto Rico is a part of the United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Act. "Plaintiff returned to Puerto Rico ... and wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, to return and reside in the United States." Alberto O. LOZADA COLON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are part of the United States.
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR GUAM COMMONWEALTH-, FAM Ch.7, that the Court also concluded: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country. Status of Inhabitants of Territories Not Mentioned in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the State Department Manual observes, “because the INA defines "outlying possessions of the United States" as only American Samoa and Swains Island, there is no current law relating to the nationality of the inhabitants of those territories [not mentioned] or persons born there who have not acquired U.S. nationality by other means.”
U.S. Dept. of State -- Foreign Affairs Manual Vol. 7- Consular Affairs.,
This is how it is used in the 21st century: “Incorporated and unincorporated” as referenced in the 1980s court case at Insular cases applies to regulation of U.S. monies by Congress in regions with an average of 50% of U.S. incomes. In those places, the Court has used various prior doctrines to support Congress under its power-of-the-purse -- including enacted lower military housing allowance, less child support, lower unemployment. It also allows lower federal tax rates. Source: Federal tax law related to U.S. territories.
At WP Unincorporated territory we see, “the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, NOT on the [incorporated or unincorporated] territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them [the people].” That was Justice White’s second point of the Court’s opinion as referenced in the Rassmussen case. He continued, Congress MAY extend it. As Justice Brown wrote concurring, Congress MAY NOT extend the Constitution even for incorporated territories when it institutes a temporary government there as in 19th Century Hawaii for Queen Lili’s municipal government to continue until Congress replaced it -- the Court upheld the Congress NOT extending the Constitution to 'incorporated' territory in Hawaii v. Mankichi.
In Rassmussen, the court ruled an Alaskan whorehouse was improperly shut down by a jury of six, but it refers to "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territory. Justice White wrote the opinion. - 1st. Alaska was “not incorporated” into the U.S., but unlike the Philippine Islands treaty in 1898, the treaty concerning Alaska showed the intention of eventual application of the Constitution by Congress by granting the rights of U.S. citizenship. – But that is now likewise the case in the five populous territories status quo in the 21st century.
Congress clearly contemplated the incorporation of Alaska into the U.S. because of the act providing for internal revenue taxation , and establishing a collection district therein. That is now likewise the in the 21st century five populous territories. From
Federal tax law related to U.S. territories, U.S. statutory laws apply to the U.S. possessions, and natives of U.S. possessions both U.S. citizens or nationals. For purposes of assessment and collection of Federal taxes, the possessions are generally treated the same as the States. Taxes imposed by the Code in any possession are collected under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. All U.S. citizens and residents in the territories whose gross income is not exempted are required to file an annual U.S. individual income tax return.
Rev. Rul. 2011-26, 2011-1 C.B. 803 rules that U.S. law applies -- without distinction among “incorporated” and unincorporated -- “possessions” including,in addition to the five populous territories, possessions that the CIA describes as being governed by the Interior Department in Washington, DC. The IRS reference continues, Baker Island, … “Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and any other United States islands, cays, and reefs that are not part of the fifty states or [DC]”.
WP:OR "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are (a) directly related to the topic of the article", here, United States of America, "and (b) directly support the material being presented", here, geographical extent.
- How shall we describe the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic's extent? Let us consult sources, whether they refer to (a) U.S. citizens and nationals as “states, districts and territories”, or (b) incorporated territory as “states, DC and Palmyra Atoll”.
Judge Charles S. Chapel in Murphy’s U.S. Practice in International Law, 2005, p. 34, wrote that courts had agreed that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations "is binding on all jurisdictions within the United States, individual states, districts and territories."
In the Homeland Security Act of 2002, "The term 'State' means any State of the [U.S.], the District of Columbia, ... Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, ... the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the [U.S.]".
Professor Bartholomew H. Sparrow in Levinson’s, The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. p. 232. "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states."
State Department Consular Affairs Manual, | Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term '[U.S.]', when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.” From 1986, “the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States” by the INA.
Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) (l) '[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”
Congress says the extent of U.S. jurisdiction today' in the U.S. Code of Law (USC), Title 28, “Judiciary and judicial procedure”, the jurists read “state” as directed by law: 28 USC § 3002 – Definitions that the word "State" -- in Title 28 -- means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the [U.S.]. — Example.28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction(a) The Supreme Court shall have ... jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) ... [jurisdiction of] all controversies between the [U.S.] and a State (i.e., states, district, territories and possessions).
- To date, there is no counter source referring to the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic by “incorporated territory”, 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll”, because that concept does not apply to the U.S. except as original research. References to the British Raj, the French Constitution, etc. fail the WP:OR test "directly related to the article" quoted above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Census Community survey reports The term native born American refers to "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, ... [including] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
In State Department Consular Affairs Manual, Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term 'United States, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
- Now we are getting somewhere. Referenced in the State Department Consular Affairs Manual, you will find the reference to INA statute, "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. (page 6) Under international law and Supreme Court dicta, inhabitants of those [other] territories, (Midway, Wake, Johnston, and other [uninhabited] islands) would be considered non-citizen, U.S. nationals. (page 7) So we have the official U.S. geographical extent including Northern Marianas, Guam, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
- In the Rasmussen case found at unincorporated territories. Un-incorporated territory met the standard of Congressional INTENT TO INCORPORATE when the unincorporated Alaska Territory had U.S. taxes collected and citizenship was granted. Modern U.S. territories have U.S. tax districts and federal courts with native-born citizens for all places incorporated by Organic Acts into the U.S. including District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas. Your first link is not a United Nations website. But it says, [these] do not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a [nation] state. For various reasons many dependencies have democratically elected to maintain their territorial status, and rejected independence.
- U.N. websites represent documents as PDF files, and none are titled, “Cheap Hotels San Juan” Nevertheless, there we read, “In plebiscites held in 1967 and 1993, voters chose to retain commonwealth status.” That is, population under internationally supervised elections chose continued governance under U.S. sovereignty, with full citizenship, Constitutional protections under Article III Courts (NOT 1904 injustices of Army-Navy courts or later one-man Secretary of Interior dictat), delegate representation in the Congress and free travel within their entire country.
- Your ‘full British subjects with equivalent rights as people born in the UK’ did not include free travel throughout the U.K. without passport, access to U.K. courts, nor directly elected Indian representatives in the U.K. Parliament until 1947. In the 1960s a Jamaican required a passport to travel to England, and did not have access to government aid for university education with the same standing as an Englishman. Puerto Ricans are native-born U.S. citizens in 2012, a part of the official U.S. nation-state. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(1) Organic Act defined for territories. U.S. Dept of Insular Affairs (DOI) defines Organic Act. "The body of laws that the United Congress has enacted for the government of a United States insular area; it usually includes a bill of rights and the establishment and conditions of the insular area's tripartite government". These provide explicitly for protections of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizenship, U.S. taxation provisions, local self-governance and delegate representation in the U.S. Congress.
(3) Reliable source Bartholomew Sparrow at the University of Texas published in a verifiable publication, "At present, the [U.S.] includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson 2005, p.232)." You cite Butler there describing 1901 judicial doctrine to dismiss Sparrow's description of 21st century U.S. governance. That misapplies Butler.
= (4) We have sources for this text and none other yet: The U.S. federal republic extends to fifty states, a federal district, five territories and other possessions.[n.] I propose we [note] two things: -1- the WP:RS for text likely to be challenged, then -2- "U.S. has claimed jurisdiction over territory contested in (a) international disputes, (b) U.N. investigations, (c) U.N. cases in favor of the U.S. and (d) ongoing bi-lateral negotiations on national possession. -- expanding the narrative with you -- along the outline I've made elsewhere. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Black’s Dictionary defines Organic Act as “an act of congress conferring powers of government upon a territory.” In re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 10 Sup. Ct. 700, 34 L. Ed. 219.
- Uninhabited Palmyra Atoll is administered from DC by the Interior Department in precisely the same way as eight other uninhabited places. There are no 21st Century places ‘unincorporated’ in the U.S. By Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l), the geographical extent of the U.S. is 50 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, U.S. and uninhabited islands.
- The judicial fiat of colonial rule to which Golbez refers is a 1904 judicial doctrine of "unincorporation". It was used to justify NOT extending Constitutional protections to the rebels in the Philippine Insurrection. “Incorporation” was to mean the extension of “Anglo-Saxon custom” to places which would "eventually become states". The Constitution is today extended to all five U.S. Territories, although they have not become states -- Anglo-Saxon or otherwise.
- Palmyra will not become a state without population, it was separated from Hawaii on its ‘incorporation’ as a Gilded Age provision for a single coconut plantation family. When Hawaii was 'incorporated' in Mankichi, the Constitution did not have to apply in Honolulu's non-Anglo-Saxon governance. When Alaska was 'unincorporated', in Rassmussen, the Constitution applied because residents there were U.S. citizens.
- All U.S. territories are U.S. citizens native-born, or in Samoa U.S. nationals have Constitutional protections. U.S. citizens are taxed there as they were in 'unincorporated' Alaska. They are all democratically self-governing by local three-branch government and are represented by elected delegates in Congress. The judicial ‘unicorporated’ doctrine which once applied to Puerto Rico is explicitly overturned in 2008 by federal court ruling in the Ponce case, p.5. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
“The United States is not a nation of states, and never has been” notes political geographer and historian Bartholomew Sparrow.[33] By Act of Congress, the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means “the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States.” Since political union with the Northern Marianas in 1986, they too are treated as a part of the U.S.[34] An Executive Order in 2007 includes Samoa as U.S. “geographical extent” as well, and that is reflected in U.S. State Department documents.[35]
The five U.S. territories have voting rights, protections under U.S. courts, pay some U.S. taxes and are represented in the U.S. Congress by delegates who can appoint constituents to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard academies. Approximately 4 million islanders are generally U.S. citizens, about 180,000 U.S. nationals live in Samoa. Under current law among the territories, “only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are non-citizen U.S. nationals”. Samoans are under the protection of the U.S., with freedom of U.S. travel without visas, and U.S. citizens do not lose citizenship by permanent residence there.[36]
United States territories have democratic self-government, in local three-branch governments, found respectively in Pago Pago, American Samoa, Hagatna, Territory of Guam, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, San Juan, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Charlotte Amalie, United States Virgin Islands.[37]
Nine uninhabited places administered by the Interior Department are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island.[38]
In U.S. legal matters, USC § 3002 – Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States. Example.28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: (2) All controversies between the United States and a State.
- The four reliable sources remain, with no counter source quotes. There are objections based on (a) original research reasoned from Wikipedia articles, (b) a WP editorial initiative to make all country-article facts and figures conform to the same reporting database, and (c) federal court 1904 colonial cases excluding 'unincorporated' territory, since overturned for Puerto Rico in 2008 in Ponce case, p.5, Viewed December 16, 2012.
- To define the official geographical extent of the United States of America from a scholarly source and three USG citations show,
- Note. Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012. "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.”
- See also, Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) Viewed December 16, 2012. For an official article-country statement of its geographical extent: "'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace."
- See also, U.S. State Department, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty Chart,Viewed December 16, 2012. Under “Sovereignty”, lists five places under United States sovereignty administered by a local ‘Administrative Center’, ‘Short form names’: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, U.S.
- See also, U.S. State Department, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty Chart, under “Soveriegnty”, lists nine uninhabited places administered by the Interior Department as Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island.
- See also, CIA World Factbook. Dependent Listings. Viewed October 31, 2012. The CIA assigns to the United States, and to no other sovereignty: “American Samoa … Guam … Northern Mariana Islands … Puerto Rico … Virgin Islands … [and nine uninhabited islands]”. "[The US] entered into [“political union”] with the Northern Mariana Islands … [and Compacts of Free Association with] the Republic of the Marshall Islands; the Federated States of Micronesia); [and] Palau." They are now considered a part of the United States. These are listed without reference to a 1904 judicial doctrine for 'incorporated' and 'unincorporated' not found in applicable statutes used by the U.S. State Department in 2012, nor does the CIA "Dependent Listings" make such a distinction.
- Should the country description reflect the official descriptions available from that government or something of original research?
Country-Article First-Sentence Existing ‘France’ and Proposed ‘United States’
Existing France first-sentence
Proposed U.S. first-sentence
“France, … officially the French Republic, is a unitary semi-presidential republic located mostly in Europe [Metropolitan France, mainland and Corsica] - [note: five removed departments] with several overseas regions and territories.”
“The United States of America … is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine islands.
1) Original research can interpret a 1904 judicial fiat excluding Puerto Rico from the official U.S. as ‘unincorporated’ colonial territory never meant to become states. But that is voided for Puerto Rico voided in 2005 in federal district court.
2) Careful editors may want the first-sentence to match reported databases throughout the article, making the “official” extent of places the same as the “statistical” tables of data. Territories left out of an economic report should be left out of the official place name description of the country.
>> Nevertheless, the official geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic is -- supported by a reliable scholarly source, Congressional INA law, State Department Manuals on insular affairs, official Census definition of "native-born U.S. citizen", tables and charts available at State and CIA online – found at U.S. Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) includes 50 states, a federal district, five territories and associated islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Talk:United States#War-of-1812 - THREE reverts without discussion. concerning War of 1812 on 17, 18 and 22 November. While five others collaborated in various ways at Talk, There has been no further activity on the passage at Talk or in the Article for over a week. It is just between the poster and the reverter.
ACW Slavery copyedit for conciseness, encyclopedic style.
ACW ‘Slavery Section’ copyedit to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
In 1860, the last national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines. Anti-slavery Northerners mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states.
In 1860, the last national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines. Anti-slavery Northerners mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states.
In 1857, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. It held that slavery in the territories was to be allowed as a property right to any settler, even where the majority opposed slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision said that slaves were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". Taney then overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel. He stated, "[T]he Act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning [slaves] in the territory of the United States north of the line therein is not warranted by the Constitution and is therefore void."[24]
In 1857, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. Slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney’s decision said that slaves were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect”. The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.[n.]
Republicans denounced the Dred Scott decision and promised to overturn it; Lincoln warned that the next Dred Scott decision could threaten Northern states with slavery.[25] In an attempt to blunt that reaction and reunite the Democratic party, presidential hopeful Stephen A. Douglas developed the Freeport Doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. He argued Congress could not decide either for or against slavery before a territory was settled, and that the anti-slavery majority in Kansas could thwart slavery by refusing to pass police laws protecting property in slaves. Lincoln led the new Republican Party in developing their platform calling slavery a national evil, and insisting Congress end slavery expansion into the territories.[26] Most of the political battles in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery, since most assumed that if slavery could not expand, it would wither and die. Lincoln believed that slavery would die a natural death if contained[27]
Republicans denounced the Dred Scott decision and promised to overturn it; Abraham Lincoln warned that the next “Dred Scott” decision could threaten the Northern states with slavery. The Republican party platform called slavery a national evil, and Lincoln thought it would die a natural death if contained.[n.] Stephen A. Douglas developed the Freeport Doctrine to appeal to North and South. Congress could not decide either for or against slavery before a territory ws settled. The anti-slavery majority in Kansas could stop slavery with its own local laws if the police laws did not protect slavery. Most 1850 political battles followed the arguments of Lincoln and Douglas, focusing on the issue of slavery expansion in the territories.[n.]
But political debate was cut short throughout the South with Northern abolitionist John Brown's 1859 raid at Harpers Ferry Armory in an attempt to incite slave insurrections.
But political debate was cut short throughout the South with Northern abolitionist John Brown's 1859 raid at Harpers Ferry Armory in an attempt to incite slave insurrections.
- Two paragraph copyedit in 'Slavery' section to enclopedic style. Please comment. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
[box.2.a]
The first of these “conservative” theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the historical designation of free and slave apportionments in territories should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[n.]
[box.2.b]
The first conservative view argued for avoiding secessionist crisis by a return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[n.]
[tvh.8.12.2012][tvh.9.12.2012]
Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
[box.4.a]
Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[n.]
Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[n.]
Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
[box.3.a]
The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance – that slavery could be excluded altogether in a territory at the discretion of Congress[n.][n.] – with one caveat: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment must apply. In other words, Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it.[n.] The Wilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846.[n.]
[box.3.b]
But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case (1857), which denied blacks any constitutional rights, a competeing view came to the fore. From the time of the Northwest Ordinance, the Congress could exclude slavery, but never establish it, because of “due process” required in the Fifth Amendment. This was the reasoning behind the earlier northern-backed Wilmot Proviso (1847) and the Republican Party platform of Abraham Lincoln (1860) against expansion of slavery into the territories.[n.]
Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
[box.5.a]
Douglas proclaimed the doctrine of territorial or “popular” sovereignty, which declared that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery – a purely local matter.[n.] Congress, having created the territory, was barred, according to Douglas, from exercising any authority in domestic matters. To do so would violate historic traditions of self-government, implicit in the US Constitution.[n.] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine.
[box.5.b]
Some looked for a democratic solution to transcend the constitution. The “Popular Sovereignty” of Stephen A. Douglas held that settlers from North and South in a territory had the same rights as the sovereign people in their home state, to establish or prohibit slavery as a purely local matter. Once Congress organized a territory, it was barred from legislating on local issues, as a matter of self-government implicit in the Constitution. This doctrine was in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the 1860 “National Democrat” candidate Stephen A. Douglas defended it in the earlier Lincoln-Douglas debates.[n.]
[tvh.8.12.2012[
Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
[box.6.a]
The fourth in this quartet is the theory of state sovereignty (“states’ rights”),[n.] also known as the “Calhoun doctrine”[n.] after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesman John C. Calhou[n.] Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the Federal Union under the US Constitution – and not merely as an argument for secession[n.] All authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state and the role of the federal government was merely to enable the implementation of state laws.[n.] State sovereignty, in other words, gave the laws of the slaveholding states extra-jurisdictional effect.[n.]
[36hb. 7.12.2012.]
“States’ rights” was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[n.] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, “[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power.” [n.][n.]
[box.6.b.1]
Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union.[n.] The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government.[n.] The national government was merely an agent of the sovereign states.[n.] It could only implement state laws in the territories, and all authority regarding local matters of slavery resided in each state.[n.] It was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before.[n.] This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election and southern Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi.[n.]
[tvh.8.12.2012]
Alternate - box.6.b.2 - notes
Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union. The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government. The national government was merely an agent of the sovereign states.[n.] It could only implement state laws in the territories, and all authority regarding local matters of slavery resided in each state. It was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before.[n.] This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election and southern Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi.[n.]
[tvh.8.12.2012[
Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
[box1.a] By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64]
[box1.b] By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64]
[box2.a] The first of these “conservative” theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the historical designation of free and slave apportionments in territories should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[65]
[box2.b] The first conservative view argued for a pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff, by a return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[n.]
[box3.a] The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance – that slavery could be excluded altogether in a territory at the discretion of Congress [66][67] – with one caveat: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment must apply. In other words, Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it.[64] The Wilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846.[65]
[box3.b] But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case (1857), which denied blacks any constitutional rights, a competing view came to the fore. From the time of the Northwest Ordinance, the Congress could exclude slavery, but never establish it, because of “due process” required in the Fifth Amendment. This was the reasoning behind the earlier northern-backed Wilmot Proviso (1847) and the Republican Party platform of Abraham Lincoln (1860) against expansion of slavery into the territories.[n.]
[box4.a] Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[64]
[box4.b] --
[box5.a] Douglas proclaimed the doctrine of territorial or “popular” sovereignty, which declared that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery – a purely local matter.[64] Congress, having created the territory, was barred, according to Douglas, from exercising any authority in domestic matters. To do so would violate historic traditions of self-government, implicit in the US Constitution.[68] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine.
[box5.b] Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections. “Popular Sovereignty” held that settlers from North and South in a territory had the same rights as the sovereign people in their home state, to establish or prohibit slavery as a purely local matter. Once Congress organized a territory, it was barred from legislating on local issues, as a matter of self-government implicit in the Constitution. This doctrine was in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the 1860 “National Democrat” candidate Stephen A. Douglas defended it in the earlier Lincoln-Douglas debates.[n.]
[box6.a]The fourth in this quartet is the theory of state sovereignty (“states’ rights”),[68] also known as the “Calhoun doctrine”[69] after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesman John C. Calhoun.[70] Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the Federal Union under the US Constitution – and not merely as an argument for secession.[71][72] The basic premise was that all authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state. The role of the federal government was merely to enable the implementation of state laws when residents of the states entered the territories.[73] The Calhoun doctrine asserted that the federal government in the territories was only the agent of the several sovereign states, and hence incapable of forbidding the bringing into any territory of anything that was legal property in any state. State sovereignty, in other words, gave the laws of the slaveholding states extra-jurisdictional effect.[74]
“States’ rights” was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[75] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, “[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power.” [76][77]
[box6.b]Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union.[n.] The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government.[n.] The federal government was merely an agent of the sovereign states.[n.] It could only implement state laws in the territories, and all authority regarding local matters of slavery resided in each state.[n.] The federal government was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before.[n.] This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election and southern Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi.[n.]
[box7.a]By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78]
[box7.b]By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78]
(1) The first conservative view said pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff and return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[39]
(2) But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case denying a black man’s rights in a territory, a second view came to the fore. From the time of the Northwest Ordinance, the Congress could exclude slavery, but never establish it, because of “due process” required in the Fifth Amendment. This was the reasoning behind the northern-backed Wilmot Proviso and the Republican Party platform of Abraham Lincoln against expansion of slavery into the territories.[40]
(3) Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections. “Popular Sovereignty” held that settlers from North and South in a territory had the same rights as the sovereign people in their home state, to establish or prohibit slavery as a purely local matter. Once Congress organized a territory, it was barred from legislating on local issues, as a matter of self-government implicit in the Constitution. This doctrine was in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the 1860 “National Democrat” candidate Stephen A. Douglas defended it in the earlier Lincoln-Douglas debates.[41]
(4) Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union.[42] The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government.[43] The federal government was merely an agent of the sovereign states.[44] It could only implement state laws in the territories, and all authority regarding local matters of slavery resided in each state.[45] The federal government was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before.[46] This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election and southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississipp.[47]
ACW Territorial Crisis copyedit for conciseness, uniform treatment, one-browser-frame length per WP guidelines.
Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
Old version
New version
By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64]
By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64]
The first of these “conservative” theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the historical designation of free and slave apportionments in territories should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[65]
(1) The first conservative view said pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff and their Southern Conventions. Return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[n.]
The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance – that slavery could be excluded altogether in a territory at the discretion of Congress [66][67] – with one caveat: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment must apply. In other words, Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it.[64] The Wilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846.[65]
(2) But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case denying a black man’s rights in a territory, a second view came to the fore. From the time of the Northwest Ordinance, the Congress could exclude slavery, but never establish it, because of “due process” required in the Fifth Amendment. This was the reasoning behind the Republican Party platform of Abraham Lincoln against expansion of slavery into the territories, and the Wilmot Proviso.[n.]
Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[64]
Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[64]
Douglas proclaimed the doctrine of territorial or “popular” sovereignty, which declared that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery – a purely local matter.[64] Congress, having created the territory, was barred, according to Douglas, from exercising any authority in domestic matters. To do so would violate historic traditions of self-government, implicit in the US Constitution.[68] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine.
(3) Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections. “Popular Sovereignty” held that settlers from North and South in a territory had the same rights as the sovereign people in their home state, to establish or prohibit slavery as a purely local matter. Once Congress organized a territory, it was barred from legislating on any local issue, as a matter of self-government implicit in the Constitution. This was the import of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the “National Democrat” 1860 candidate Stephen A. Douglas which he defended in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.[n.]
The fourth in this quartet is the theory of state sovereignty (“states’ rights”),[68] also known as the “Calhoun doctrine”[69] after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesman John C. Calhoun.[70] Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the Federal Union under the US Constitution – and not merely as an argument for secession.[71][72] The basic premise was that all authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state. The role of the federal government was merely to enable the implementation of state laws when residents of the states entered the territories.[73] The Calhoun doctrine asserted that the federal government in the territories was only the agent of the several sovereign states, and hence incapable of forbidding the bringing into any territory of anything that was legal property in any state. State sovereignty, in other words, gave the laws of the slaveholding states extra-jurisdictional effect.[74]
“States’ rights” was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[75] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, “[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power.” [76][77]
(4) Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union. The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government. The federal government was merely an agent of the sovereign states. It could only implement state laws in the territories, because all authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state. The federal government was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before. This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election.[n.]
By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78]
By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78]
Six editors have participated in a process to insert a concise mention of the War-of-1812 in the introduction of 'United States'. ONE editor has not joined discussion or entered collaboration but reverts three times. Please note any errors or omissions below this post.
8 November. Article. DancingPhilosopher adds War-of-1812 text to United States introduction, with Canadian consideration.
8 Nov. Article. Golbez reverts DancingPhilosopher without discussion, challenges Dancing Philosopher to use Talk Page.
8 Nov. On Talk. DancingPhilosopher opens War-of-1812 Talk section, edit discussion with sources. -- On Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (TVH) agrees, supports War-of-1812 edit with alternative text. Adds sourced citation to back up DancingPhilosopher. -- 9 Nov. On Talk. Golbez agrees to some War-of-1812 text, wants it in chronological order.--10 Nov. On Talk. DancingPhilosopher agrees to THV text and Golbez placement.
10 Nov. Article. TVH adds War-of-1812, with Canadian context from DancingPhilosopher and placement by Golbez. Independently consults with phrasing with 1812 scholar Rjensen, who concurs on his Talk page.
17 November. Article. Gaylencrufts reverts-without-discussion. “misleading and open to debate”
17 Nov. Article. TVH reverted Galendcrufts with challenge to go to talk. -- 17 Nov. On Talk. TVH opens ‘War of 1812, intro reverted’ section. restates Gaylencrufts revert and rationale, with 3 points: Britain-U.S. bi-lateral commissions for borders carried forward. U.S. made no more invasions north. fringe for repatriating land choses a few tribes at 1800, not 1700 not 1600. -- On Talk. SudoGhost notes a Canadian reference is ambiguous. -- On Talk. TVH offers an alternative War-of-1812 text to incorporate SudoGhost’s. -- 17 Nov. Article. TVH restored War-of-1812 text, reply to “misleading and open to debate”, comment (paraphrase): the precise nature of U.S.-Canadian relations for 200 years -- without exception there is no debate.
18 Nov. Article. Teammm reverts Gaylencrufts to TVH War-of-1812 edit. -- then Teammm partially restores Gaylencrufts edit without discussion. -- then Teammm reverts TVH totally without discussion to Gaylencrufts edit. -- 18 Nov. On Talk. TVH opens Talk sub-section “western Indian edit reverting Talk proposal”. Makes 3-points: Joseph Brant, Red Jacket, Tecumseh all British military allies. War-of-1812 not about 1811 Tecumseh. Amerindians needs fairer weight in 'Settlement' history section – TVH posts two trial double-images (Euro & Amerindian in each, one showing arguing dispute, one showing swords and hatchets) for Settlement section to replace undebatably beautiful art showing Eurocentric arrival-only.
18 Nov. On Talk. Teammm agrees to TVH “ideas”. TVH offers a trial draft – and notes – for four iterations Nov 18-20. -- 20 Nov. TVH adds Amerindian focused text in Settlement section per Talk page, then TVH adds War-of-1812 edit per Talk page. 22 November. TVH adds Amerindian focused image in Settlement section per Talk page.
22 November. Article. Galencrufts reverts-without-discussion and makes no comment.
26 Nov. At Talk. DancingPhilosopher opens Talk section “The Canadians’ prevention of the U.S. expansion (during War of 1812). Noted archiving of prior discussion, loss of War-of-1812 with Canadian element as previously agreed to on Talk. Proposed re-introduction of Canadian consideration with Amerindian to conform to Gaylencrufts reverted-text-without-discussion. -- 26 Nov. At Talk. TVH makes a three point recount of War-of-1812 consensus edit, Amerindian inclusive text expansion at ‘Settlement’, and Amerindian inclusion in double-image at ‘Settlement’. Calls for restoration of agreed text .
Six editors participate to narrate War-of-1812 in a way inclusive of Canadian experience, British Amerindian allies inclusive, AND editors to extend Amerindian narrative apart-from-British from the Columbian era into the Revolution and Early Republic. SIX editors participating in collaboration are reverted by ONE without discussion three times. What is the next step to respect the Wikipedia process? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
As the first seven states began organizing a Confederacy in Montgomery, the entire US army numbered 16,000, however Northern governors had begun to mobilize their militias.[48] The Confederate Congress authorized the new nation up to 100,000 troops sent by governors as early as February. After Fort Sumter, Lincoln called out 75,000 three-month volunteers, by May Jefferson Davis was pushing for 100,000 men under arms for one year or the duration, and that was answered in kind by the U.S. Congress.[49]
Please see Talk:CW and language
Colour key
Old version
New version
unchanged
unchanged
paragraph changed
paragraph changed
Editor alignment for GA delisting ACW
Delist GA
Keep GA
No-vote. Debate over article ‘causes’. causes recently made longer, shorter before.
Fails 3.b focus. Four sections into fork articles: Slavery, Territorial Crisis, Emancipation, Victory and Aftermath.
Sections need significant summarizing. Move verified content to appropriate articles.
Battles in “broadest outline” require broadening. Relating to states, systematic bias
Not excessively long for subject.
Summary style, readable length. Still places needs summary style.
Blockade-runner mail to New Orleans via Nassau, stamped 10-cents incoming ship postage due
An interesting naval industry evolved which brought little profit in itself, but it was still a remarkable aspect of the Civil War. Throughout the conflict mail was distributed, including a mail conduit via West Indies Nassau and Bermuda by blockade runners.[50]
Intro. Paragraph -- ‘Civil War’ @ R.E. Lee -- key: proposed specifics and context in bold
Old version
New version
The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28. He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the CSA.[n.]
The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28. He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the CSA.[n.]
-1.a→ After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede. Lee turned down an April 18 offer by presidential aide Francis P. Blair to command the defense of Washington D.C. as a major general, as he feared that the job might require him to invade the South.[n.]
-1.b→ Lee was recalled to Washington to meet with Virginia-born Francis P. Blair, son of Lincoln’s cabinet Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, who had opposed violence to admit Kansas as a slave state.[n.] Offered command of the defense of Washington on 18 April, Lee refused on the spot, seeing that Lincoln's volunteer army would move against organized resistance. Lee immediately reported to Virginia-born Winfield Scott, general of the army.[n.]
-2.a→When Lee asked Scott, who was also a Virginian, if he could stay home and not participate in the war, the general replied "I have no place in my army for equivocal men."[n.]
-2.b→ Scott recommended that Lee resign before receiving orders to active field duty, "I have no place in my army for equivocal men."[n.] Resignation would hurt old army comrades -- of thirteen colonels then serving from southern states, Lee was only one of three to resign. And his family was sharply divided.[n.]
-3.a→ Lee resigned from the Army on April 20 and took up command of the Virginia state forces on April 23.[n.]
-3.b→ Two days later, Lee resigned on 20 April. Governor Letchner sent representatives to meet with Lee and Scott concerning Virginia service. General Scott refused but the next day Lee rode to Richmond by train where he was formerly offered the command of Virginia’s defense with the rank of major general on April 23.[n.]
-4.a→ Mary Custis was the only one among those close to Lee who favored secession, and wife Mary Anna especially favored the Union, so his decision astounded them. While Lee's immediate family followed him to the Confederacy others, such as cousins and fellow officers Samuel Phillips and younger brother John Fitzgerald]] remained loyal to the Union, as did 40% of all Virginian officers.[n.]
-4.b→ Among Lee’s own family, “the majority of his generation" favored the Union side, wife Mary Anna especially, and younger brother John Fitzgerald Lee, wartime U.S. army judge advocate, and Admiral Samuel Phillips Leeof the Union blockade. At Arlington House, Lee wrote letters explaining his decision to General Scott and family. Mary Custis and Lee’s immediate family followed him into the Confederacy, but other Lees and 40% of all Virginia officers remained loyal to the Union.[n.]
-5.a→ While historians have usually called his decision inevitable ("the answer he was born to make", wrote one; another called it a "no-brainer") given the ties to family and state,
-5.b→ While historians have usually called his decision inevitable. One wrote that withdrawing his oath and resigning his U.S. army career was "the answer he was born to make". Another called active rebel service in a civil war, a "no-brainer" given his ties to family and state.[n.]
recent research shows that the choice was a difficult one that Lee made alone, without pressure from friends or family. [n.]
recent research shows that the choice was a difficult one that Lee made alone, without pressure from friends or family. [n.]
This COPYEDIT is to add material to bring CONTINGENCY into the narrative surrounding Lee’s decision, by (a) REMOVING the passage, After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede. It should be removed because -- there is no documentation among Lee's papers to the effect that he believed that so, AND he make presentations to both sides that he wished to sit out the crisis on the sidelines until sighting the mobilized camps in strength on his train trip to Richmond for himself.
- (b) the copyedit otherwise does not alter the SUBSTANCE of the previous article text, but adds specifics and context shown in bold.
SOURCE: Elizabeth Brown Pryor, “Thou knowest not the time of thy visitation: a newly discovered letter reveals Robert E. Lee’s lonely struggle with disunion”. (2011) ‘Virginia Magazine of history and biography’, vol. 119, no.3, pp. 277.
- Prior also wrote “Reading the Man: a portrait of Robert E. Lee through his private letters (2007), winner of the Lincoln Prize, where she observed, “There were four Virginians at that White House reception on March 13. Two—Lee and Joe Johnston—chose to go with the South; but two others—General Winfield Scott and George Thomas—remained with the Union.” She seeks to make a corrective to historians “critiquing other scholars, rather than truly analyzing historical materials, [because that] becomes a kind of re-tread history, causing us to parrot historical errors”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federalconstitutional republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district,
-1.a→
-1.b→ five territories and nine uninhabited islands.
-3.b→ The state of Alaska lies on the continent west of Canada, Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific. The five territories are located in the Western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea.
DISPUTE. One editor would copyedit 'United States' lead paragraph (a) to reflect 21st century territory inclusion for U.S. geographical extent, and other style changes -- but -- (b) another editor insists that an 1904 doctrine of "unincorporated" territory excludes them outside the U.S. geographical extent, and he would place first reference to them geographically mid-paragraph.
PROPOSED CHANGES. - Generally. (a) reduce the blue-screen clutter in an article introduction resulting from too many links per WP:LEAD (b) use a more concise, encyclopedic style, and (c) be more descriptively comprehensive of the 21st century country. [These proposed copy edits are found at -2.b→ and -3.b→ in the proposed first paragraph change chart above.]
ADD the description of the 21st century territorial extent of native U.S. citizens as governed by the “federal constitutional republic” of the U.S. This is described as INCLUDING five territories represented in Congress -- without distinction between "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territory -- at reliable sources from the United States Government: (a)State Department, (b)Census, (c) Legal Code, (d) IRS and (e) CIA. [ This proposed copy edit is found at -1.b→ in the proposed first paragraph change chart above.]
- DISCUSSION: See the U.S. District Court ruling in 2008 in the Ponce case at Organized incorporated territories, that Puerto Rico is “an incorporated territory” in the 21st century. Use Supreme Court rulings (a) the Rassmussen case found at unincorporated territories. Un-incorporated territory met the standard of Congressional INTENT TO INCORPORATE when the unincorporatedterritory of Alaska when U.S. collected U.S. taxes and citizenship was granted; (b) the ‘Manichi’ case, where in-corporatedterritory of Hawaii did NOT require extension of the Constitution in Honolulu until Congress later authorized it. As (a) BOTH unincorporated and incorporated territory may have the Constitution, (b) BOTH apply or not -- it is (c) a distinction without a difference.
DROP the article’s previous use of exclusionary language from 1904 U.S. colonial statutes -- “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territory -- as it applies to 21st century native U.S. citizens under the Constitution, paying U.S. taxes and represented in the U.S. Congress. [ This results in change -1.b→ found in the proposed first paragraph change chart above.]
- DISCUSSION: Abandon an outlook in a 'country' Wikipedia article that equates a two-ghost urban legend haunting the “incorporated” uninhabited Palmyra Atoll, half way between Hawaii and Samoa -- as EXCLUDING the five territories found “unincorporated” in 1904 from the U.S. geographical extent -- with of four million citizens in the 21st century. -- The State Department says they are NO LONGER in “overseas territory”, and that they are WITHIN the geographical extent of the U.S. according to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).
So, I would like to propose the Introduction first paragraph -- replacement of the old-in-gold-items -.a, -- with the new-in-blue-items -.b, as highlighted in the chart above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
(-) Torres, found at Insular cases. Congress can pay less child support in territory with half the incomes of the poorest state;
New England's Mayflower Compact placed London ex-cons and Separatist men on an equal footing in the new land 1620.
Cultures clashed. gift-giving for Amerindians obligated the giver, for Europeans, the receiver.
New England's Mayflower Compact placed London ex-cons and Separatist men on an equal footing in the new land 1620.
Cultures clashed. gift-giving for Amerindians obligated the giver, for Europeans, the receiver.
"Giving a talk" - cultures clashed. gift-giving for Amerindians obligated the giver, for Europeans, the receiver.
The Mayflower transported Pilgrims to New England in 1620. The Mayflower Compact placed London ex-cons and Separatist men on an equal footing in the new land
- The quote in your link does NOT support your “incorporated-unincorporated” dichotomy for classifying geographic extent. It says, “Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes, with the major exception being that some residents do not have to pay the federal personal income tax.” The citation at An Overview of the special tax rules related to Puerto Rico.
- The citation DOES say, “the legislative options included in this pamphlet represent specific proposals with respect to stimulating economic growth in Puerto Rico” (p.1). U.S. statutory laws apply to the U.S. possessions, and residents of U.S. possessions are full U.S. citizens, for tax purposes the Code generally treats the U.S. possessions with a lower “foreign countries” rate.
- The intent is NOT to forever deny U.S. citizenship to PR residents, “the U.S. uses tax incentives to help PR get employment producing investments by U.S. companies.” (p.3). Tax policy is chosen for “its role in the economic development of PR … living standards … are high in comparison to other Caribbean economies, they are low in comparison to the 50 States. (p.5) …
- The intent is NOT to allow Congress to deny protections of the Constitution, it is to “create a local economy that has self sustaining growth, and … entice a taxpayer to retain his or her operation in PR rather than relocating outside (p.6) … significant work incentives for low-income workers … inadequate demand for labor [is] the source of PR low employment … since PR residents are generally not subject to U.S. Federal income tax on their Puerto Rico-source income … the earned income credit may not also apply in future legislation (p.7).
- In denying the U.S. has geographical extent of 50 states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands, you cannot use the link above. It does NOT support the 1904 distinction “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories for the purposes of denying Puerto Rico residents protection of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizenship, U.S. tax obligations, or U.S. Congressional representation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federalconstitutional republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district,
- DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES. Generally, reduce the blue-screen clutter in an article introduction resulting from too many links per WP:LEAD. Use a more concise, encyclopedic style, avoiding repetitions and unnecessary elaboration AND at the same time be more comprehensive.
- ADD the description of the 21st century territorial extent of native U.S. citizens governed by the “federal constitutional republic” of the United States as named in the subject line of the article -- as described in State Department, Census, U.S. Code and IRS references.
-- - ADD understanding from Supreme Court rulings (a) Torres, Congress can pay less child support in territory with half the incomes of the poorest state; (b) Rassmussen, un-incorporated territory meets the standard of Congress INTENT to incorporate Alaska when U.S. collected U.S. taxes and citizenship was granted; (c) ‘Manichi’ case where in-corporated territory of Hawaii did NOT require extension of the Constitution in Honolulu until Congress later authorized it.
- DROP the article’s previous use of exclusionary language from 1904 U.S. colonial statutes -- “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territory -- as it applies to 21st native U.S. citizens under the Constitution, paying U.S. taxes and represented in the U.S. Congress.
-- - DROP a view equating a two-ghost urban legend haunting the “incorporated” uninhabited Palmyra Atoll half way between Hawaii and Samoa -- as EXCLUSIVE of four million citizens living on “unincorporated” territory. The State Department says they are no longer in “overseas territory” status, but within the U.S. “geographical extent” according to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This is how it is used: “Incorporated and unincorporated” as referenced in the 1980s court case at Insular cases applies to regulation of U.S. monies by Congress in regions with an average of 50% of U.S. incomes. In those places. The Court has used various prior doctrines to support Congress under its power-of-the-purse -- including enacted lower military housing allowance, less child support, lower unemployment. It also allows lower ederal tax rates. Source: Federal tax law related to U.S. territories.
At WP Unincorporated territory we see, “the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, NOT on the [incorporated or unincorporated] territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them [the people].” That was Justice White’s second point of the Court’s opinion as referenced in the Rassmussen case. He continued, Congress MAY extend it. As Justice Brown wrote, concurring noted, it MAY NOT extend it even for incorporated territories when it institutes a temporary government there as in 19th Century Hawaii for Queen Lili’s municipal government to continue until Congress replaced it -- upheld by the court in Hawaii v. Mankichi.
In Rassmussen, the court ruled an Alaskan whorehouse was improperly shut down by a jury of six, but it refers to "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territory. Justice White wrote the opinion. - 1st. Alaska was “not incorporated” into the U.S., but unlike the Philippine Islands treaty in 1898, the treaty concerning Alaska showed the intention of eventual application of the Constitution by Congress by granting the rights of U.S. citizenship. – But that is now likewise the case in the five populous territories status quo in the 21st century.
Congress clearly contemplated the incorporation of Alaska into the U.S. because of the act providing for internal revenue taxation , and establishing a collection district therein. That is now likewise the in the 21st century five populous territories. From Federal tax law related to U.S. territories, U.S. statutory laws apply to the U.S. possessions, and natives of U.S. possessions both U.S. citizens or nationals. For purposes of assessment and collection of Federal taxes, the possessions are generally treated the same as the States. Taxes imposed by the Code in any possession are collected under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. All U.S. citizens and residents in the territories whose gross income is not exempted are required to file an annual U.S. individual income tax return.
Rev. Rul. 2011-26, 2011-1 C.B. 803 rules that U.S. law applies -- without distinction among “incorporated” and unincorporated -- “possessions” including,in addition to the five populous territories, possessions that the CIA describes as being governed by the Interior Department in Washington, DC. The IRS reference continues, Baker Island, … “Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and any other United States islands, cays, and reefs that are not part of the fifty states or [DC]”.
- So now we have the U.S. State Dept., U.S. Census, CIA, IRS and the Supreme Court's reasoning found in Rasmussen to geographically define the U.S. in the 21st century as 50 states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
▪ How you first came across the article
▪ What you think the dispute is about
▪ How you think the dispute would best be resolved
How you would like the dispute resolution noticeboard volunteers to help
At Help:Diff
CSS Florida (1862), (cruiser 1862-1864). Commissioned 17 August 1862 at Green Cay, Bahamas. Commanded by Capt. John Newland Maffitt. Sailed to Cardenas and Havana, Cuba before making the famous run into Mobile Bay, Alabama on 4 September 1862.[52][53]
SS Fingal (1861), (CSS Atlanta ironclad 1862-1863). An iron merchant screw-steamer of 462 tons built by J & G Thomson Govan at Clyde, Scotland 1861. Sold to John Low for the Confederate States Navy.[54] Fingal was the last blockade runner to enter Savannah, November 1861, with a large cargo of Enfield rifles, cannon and military supplies.[55] After two unsuccessful attempts to break out of the blockade, she was converted into the ironclad CSS Atlanta (1862-1863). On its second sortie she was out-dueled by two Union monitors, captured and put into service on the James River as the ironclad USS Atlanta.[56]
SS Laurel (1861-1864). A 207-foot iron hull single screw steamer, commanded by Lt. John F. Ramsey, CSN, made 1 successful blockade run as CSS vessel, owned by the CSA, renamed Confederate States and survived the war.[57]
CSS Sumter (1861), (cruiser 1861-62). A 437-ton screw steamer cruiser, was built at Philadelphia as the merchant steamship Habana Purchased by the Confederate Government at New Orleans in April 1861, she was converted to a cruiser and placed under the command of Raphael Semmes. While coaling and getting supplies at Martinique she was blockaded by Federal sloop of war USS Iroquois, but ran the blockaded and made her way out to sea. Sumter captured another six ships from late November into January 1862, while cruising in European waters.[58] In January 1862 the Sumter was sent to Gibraltar but was unexpectedly captured by Federal men-of-war ships and was later sold, thus ending her career as a blockade-runner.[59] [CSS Sumter is not the CSS General Sumter cottonclad river gunboat (1861-1862), then named USS Sumter on capture and deployed in the Gulf blockade.]
CSS Flamingo, three stacked, sloop rigged steamer, Confederate Navy owned. One of the largest types of blockade running vessels operating out of ports in England that carried high priority cargoes.[63]
CSS Kate (1861-1862). A 165-foot wooden sidewheel steamer of 477 tons, made 20 successful blockade runs. Built in New York and purchased by John Fraser & Co, it eventually ran aground at Cape Fear, 18 November 1862.[64][65]
CSS Robert E. Lee (1862-1863). A schooner-rigged, iron-hulled, paddle-steamer of the Confederate Navy, used as a blockade runner, commanded by Lieutenant Richard H. Gayle. Captured 9 November 1863 off the coast of North Carolina by USS James Adger and USS Iron Age.[66][67]
SS Lynx (1861-1864). A 220-foot steel hull sidewheel steamer, made 9 successful blockade runs, owned by Fraser Trenholm & Co., destroyed trying to leave Wilmington, 25 September 1864.[68]
SS Syren (1863-1865). A privately owned iron-hulled sidewheel steamer, built at Greenwich, Kent, England in 1863 for a blockade runner. Owned by the Charleston Importing and Exporting Company, she made her first run on 5 November 1863, running supplies from Nassau to Wilmington. The Syren completed a record 33 runs through the blockade, the most of any blockade runner.[70][71] Her career as a blockade runner came to an end when the Syren, along with the other steamers Celt, Deer and Lady Davis, were captured in Charleston harbor at the Ashley River where she had successfully run in through the blockade the night before, on February 18, 1865.[72] See also: Wilmington, North Carolina in the American Civil War.
SS Syren : The Syren was a privately owned iron-hulled sidewheel steamer, built at Greenwich, Kent, England in 1863 and designed for outrunning and evading the vessels on Union blockade patrol. Owned by the Charleston Importing and Exporting Company, the Syren made her first run on 5 November 1863, running supplies from Nassau to Wilmington. The Syren completed a record 33 runs through the blockade, the most of any blockade runner.[70][71] Her career as a blockade runner came to an end when the Syren, along with the other steamers Celt, Deer and Lady Davis, were captured in Charleston harbor at the Ashley River where she had successfully run in through the blockade the night before, on February 18, 1865.[72] See also: Wilmington, North Carolina in the American Civil War.
CSS General Sumter : A 437-ton screw steamer cruiser, was built at Philadelphia as the merchant steamship Habana Purchased by the Confederate Government at New Orleans in April 1861, she was converted to a cruiser and placed under the command of Raphael Semmes. While coaling and getting supplies at Martinique she was blockaded by Federal sloop of war USS Iroquois, but ran the blockaded and made her way out to sea. Sumter captured another six ships from late November into January 1862, while cruising in European waters.[58] In January 1862 the Sumter was sent to Gibraltar but was unexpectedly captured by Federal men-of-war ships and was later sold, thus ending her career as a blockade-runner.[59]
CSS Florida Commissioned 17 August 1862 at Green Cay, Bahamas. Commanded by Capt. John Newland Maffitt. Sailed to Cardenas and Havana, Cuba before making the famous run into Mobile Bay, Alabama on 4 September 1862.[52][53]
The Lynx, a 220' steel hull sidewheel steamer, made 9 successful blockade runs, owned by Fraser Trenholm & Co., destroyed trying to leave Wilmington, 25 September 1864.[68]
CSS Flamingo, three stacked, sloop rigged steamer, used by Confederate Navy as a blockade runner. One of the largest types of blockade running vessels operating out of ports in England that carried high priority cargoes.[63]
CSS Kate 165' wooden sidewheel steamer of 477 tons, made 20 successful blockade runs. Built in New York and purchased by John Fraser & Co, it eventually ran aground at Cape Fear, 18 November 1862.[64][65]
The Laurel, a 207' iron hull single screw steamer, commanded by Lt. John F. Ramsey, CSN, made 1 successful blockade run as CSS vessel, owned by the CSA, renamed Confederate States and survived the war.[57]
SS Fingal, An iron merchant screw-steamer of 462 tons built by J & G Thomson Govan at Clyde, Scotland 1861. Sold to John Low for the Confederate States Navy.[54] Fingal was the last blockade runner to enter Savannah, November 1861, with a large cargo of Enfield rifles, cannon and military supplies.[55] After two unsuccessful attempts to break out of the blockade, she was converted into the ironclad CSS Atlanta (1862-1863). On its second sortie she was out-dueled by two Union monitors, captured and put into service on the James River as the ironclad USS Atlanta.[56]
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federalconstitutional republic consisting of over 300 million native people principally residing in fifty states.[1] U.S. citizens in the federal district and five other territories in the geographic United States have delegates in the U.S. Congress representing 4.5 million.[2] It maintains special political relationships through Compacts of Free Association with two United Nations members and one foreign dependency together numbering 170,000.[3] The U.S. is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries. Geographically, the United States is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Alaska lies west of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Other territory is found in the western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea, and the country possesses nine uninhabited islands. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2), the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population.
[1]U.S. Statistical Abstract. viewed October 31, 2012. “Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and consequently included in the native population. “ (p.6) Section 29, “Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”, p.815. “This section presents summary economic and social statistics for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.”
[2]U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1121,2,3,4,5 - Sec.1- Current Law for each. viewed October 31, 2012. “As of 1952, according to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. five dependencies listed as part of the geographical definition of the ‘United States’ in Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act."
[3]Dependent Listings CIA World Factbook viewed October 31, 2012. The CIA assigns to the United States (and to no other sovereignty) “American Samoa … Guam … Northern Mariana Islands … Puerto Rico … Virgin Islands … [and nine uninhabited islands]”. [The US] entered into [“political union”] with the Northern Mariana Islands … [and Compacts of Free Association with] the Republic of the Marshall Islands; the Federated States of Micronesia); [and] Palau."
Contrabands— fugitive slaves - cooks, laudresses, laborers, teamsters, railroad repair crews - fled to the Union Army ca. 1862 were not freed until 1863 Emancipation Proclamation
Union army accepted Freedmen. Here Black and White teen-aged soldiers
In each case, Confederate loss of river control resulted in loss of strategic position for the Confederate armies. In March Polk withdrew from Columbus KY to fortifications in and around Island Number Ten, the tenth island in the Mississippi River south of the Ohio River. Pope cut a canal around the Mississippi at flood stage, and Foote’s gunboats USS Carondelet and Pittsburgh supported his crossing to secure the surrender of the Island Number 10 garrison at the same time as Shiloh. Union and Confederates had each lost 10,000 there, but 6,000 additional Confederates were captured at Island Number 10.[73]
Clashes on the rivers were melees of ironclads, cottonclads gunboats and rams, complicated by torpedoes and fire rafts
As Halleck advanced into Tennessee, Corinth was abandoned by Confederates, then Fort Pillow. In June five Union ironclad gunships engaged eleven Confederate “cotton-clads”, defeated them and occupied Memphis TN. Confederate guerrilla activity along the interior rivers remained “especially troublesome” to Union shipping and troop transport.[74] After initiating mortar bombardment April 16, Farragut ran past Confederate defenses at New Orleans and destroyed opposing naval forces April 22–24. Forts mutinied and troops abandoned their battery positions under naval bombardment, allowing Butler to occupy New Orleans without resistance on the first of May.[75]
In the east, McClellan planned to avoid the attrition of Grant’s later Overland Campaign by a riverine envelopment of Richmond. Under the threat of the Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia stationed at Norfolk on the James River, he transferred landing operations to the undeveloped York River in April. Norfolk was occupied on Lincoln’s personal initiative and Virginia subsequently destroyed in May, but McClellan failed to support the Union gunboat advance to Drewry’s Bluff. His Richmond approach was turned back in the Seven Days Battle beginning June 25. Union gunboats began direct support of the retreating army on June 31. Lee reported July 5 that he could not advance in the face of naval bombardment, and he did not deploy nearby. In August McClellan took river transport from Harrison’s Landing, returning to Washington without incident.[76]
Following the loss of New Orleans over the course of the next year, Confederate positions at Vicksburg were fortified. Poor coordination between Farragut and Butler led to Union withdrawal from Baton Rouge limiting Mississippi River passage to gunboats and convoyed shipping.[77] The joint Army-Navy siege Vicksburg reduced the city by July 4, the day Lee withdrew from Gettysburg.[78] Grant’s assessment in “Battles and Leaders” was that “The navy, under Porter, was all that it could be … Without its assistance the campaign could not have been successfully made with twice the number of men engaged. It could not have been made at all, with any number of men, without such assistance.” [79] After July 4, 1863 until April 1865, while sporadic guerrilla harassment and torpedo-mine destruction continued along the interior rivers, the Union Navy kept an increasing river commerce open and supply to advancing armies was uninterrupted.[80]
Gunline of nine Union ironclads from the squadron at Charleston SC April 1863. Continuous blockade of ten ports was made possible by North's overwhelming war production
Blockading squadrons did not disperse even though cruiser chasers alone could not prevent an end to U.S. flag shipping
Cornelius Vanderbilt will later expand his interest in mail delivery by fast ocean-going steamer to become the most famous railroad tycoon in the Gilded Age, delivering mail by express train.
Gunline of nine Union ironclads blockading Charleston SC April 1863
New Orleans April 1862. CSS Manassas dispersed blockaders as Virginia had. Gunboats sortied supported by rams and forts. Seven Union gunboats and four sloops forced passage to capture New Orleans
Union cruiser chasers alone could not prevent an end to U.S. flag shipping[81]
First Charleston Harbor.jpg|Gunline of nine Union ironclads blockading Charleston SC April 1863
New Orleans h76369k.jpg|thumb|New Orleans April 1862. CSS Manassas dispersed blockaders as Virginia had. Gunboats sortied supported by rams and forts. Seven Union gunboats and four sloops forced passage to capture New Orleans.
US Navy 030515-N-0000X-001 SS Vanderbilt (1862-1873) in a period engraving by G. Parsons as published in Harper^rsquo,s Weekly, 1862.jpg |Union cruiser chasers alone could not prevent an end to U.S. flag shipping[81]
This is a flag template. {{flagicon|Bulgaria|1946}}
What Confederate flag best represents the Confederate States of America 1861-1865 for the Infobox?
a.)Stars-and-Bars with 7, 9, 11 and 13 stars; official 750 days. Adopted and flown “everywhere in the Confederacy” (Coulter, p. 116), citations in the discussion from Davis Inauguration 1861 to Siege of Atlanta 1864 (CMH).
b.)Stainless Banner with battle flag union, white field, official 650 days. Sourced atop the Confederate Capitol (Samsing), once at Fort Sumter during a monitor attack, a month before adoption (NPS). The flag did not fly on a flagpole, and it was seen as truce or surrender (Samsing). As a flag, it was “Not satisfactory” (Coulter, p. 119).
c.)Blood Stained Banner with battle flag union, white field, red vertical stripe; official 14 days to Congressional adjournment, less than a month to “collapse” (Coulter, p. 119). Reported by scholarly Confederate authorities after the war as “never” seen (Samsing).
The controversy arises over flag selection to represent an historical nation-state, one a flag sourced as flown “everywhere”, one a flag sourced as “never” seen. Editors await additional scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of shortcuts and omissions made elsewhere in Wikipedia, we find editors successfully handling this level of sophistication in historiographic publication at WP article Battle of La Prairie of 1691. There, the flags pictured are those used by THEN Bourbon French flag NOT the constitutional Kingdom of France flag flag of 1791, NOT the modern Republic of France flag 1792 . The editors there used the flag of England THEN and not the United Kingdom flag of 1606 because I suppose that was not the standard that flew there, and NOT the modern Great Britain flag of 1801 . Yes, let’s open this up for an ABC.
Of course we must factor in what we imagine WP readership to be. When I taught Learning Disabled students (100%) to pass the 11th grade end-of-course Virginia State exam in U.S. History, I used 3"x5" flags for the France of the French-and-Indian-War, the France of the Louisiana Purchase, the Spain of Florida during the Seminole War and the Spain of the Spanish American War. I projected a standard outline of U.S. Territorial Expansion onto the floor and drew a chalk outline. As a little summary recap, students divided into teams and were timed to physically place the flags of each era stuck into bases of modeling clay matching the appropriate territory drawn on the floor. Why cannot WP editors presume that Wikipedia readership has attained a level of historical sophistication equivalent to that of an American public school 11th grader? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Point of order. On 8 June Anon*66 restated my argument conflating the distinction between the Stars-and-Bars (SaB), the symbol of expansion, victory, commerce and arms-length international negotiations, versus the Blood-Stained-Banner (BSB), the two-week symbol of hopelessness and ruin. He represented SaB = BSB = THIS, which misapprehends my point. It is true I do not choose to use BSB. Until the time of BSB, William and Mary’s endowment was comparable to Harvard’s. At that time of the BSB, it lost everything but the old man ringing a bell every fall in a deserted building. The 1861 investment turned out badly. Fortunately, a recent President recruited from Harvard materially increased the current W&M endowments as it entered the 21st Century, and, not unrelated to that, it is a well-respected modern university today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The American Civil War (1861–1865), often referred to as The Civil War in the United States, was a civil war fought over the secession of the Confederate States. The 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President led to resolutions of secession in seven southern slave states and the formation of the Confederate States of America ("the Confederacy") before his inauguration. Additional secessionist resolutions recognized by the Confederacy led to recruitment of rebel regiments (thousands) in six additional states which were seated in its Congress for the duration of the war. Both sides were granted “belligerent status” in the international community during the conflict.
In the midst of maneuvering on both sides, Confederate President Jefferson Davis called for 100,000 militia to defend the new nation and directed hostilities to begin on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Lincoln called for 75,000 to restore Federal property. "The Union" of the national government was divided between “Loyal” Federals and a minority peace faction called “Copperheads”. The thirteen states represented in the Confederate Congress were divided between “Secessionists” and a minority “Unionists”. The “Civilized Tribes” of Indian Territory were very nearly evenly divided in their support at first. While Latin American nations and European colonies and suppliers were involved, none officially negotiated with the Conederate government. none intervened on its behalf.[83] Despite early feelers, no country in the world recognized the Confederacy.[84]
To man their mass armies, the belligerents on both sides turned to their first national conscription laws. In April 1862 Confederates drafted 18 to 45 year-olds. A year later, the Union began drafts of 20 to 45 year olds.[85] Following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation slaves escaping into Federal lines were freed and recruited into the Union war effort. Ending slavery became a Union war goal.[86] It remains the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.[87] Historian John Huddleston estimates the death toll at ten percent of all Northern males 20–45 years old, and 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40.[88]
The American Civil War was one of the earliest true industrial wars sustained continuously for four years over a huge expanse with extensive use of railroads, the telegraph, steamships, mines and mass-produced weapons. The Union Blockade substantially ended water-borne commerce in the South. The practice of total war, as waged by Sherman in Georgia, and the trench warfare around Petersburg foreshadowed World War I in Europe. The North's advantage in manpower, rail and river transport, weaponry and material overwhelmed the South. Confederate governments were dispersed and its armies surrendered. Slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation; other social, political, economic and racial issues that had led to civil war were imperfectly addressed in the Reconstruction Era that followed.
^ abEditor's: Trey Berry, Pam Beasley, and Jeanne Clements (2006), The Forgotten Expedition, 1804-1805: The Louisiana Purchase Journals of Dunbar and Hunter, Editors Introduction page xi
^Trotter, Gordon T., “Yorktown Issue”, Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum online, viewed April 17, 1014.
^Trotter, Gordon T., “Constitution Sesquicentennial Issue”, Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum online, viewed April 17, 1014.
^Haimann, Alexander T., “Washington Inauguration Issue”, Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum online, viewed April 17, 1014.
^Trotter, Gordon. 3-cent Hawaii Issue, “3-cent Alaska Issue”. Arago: people, postage & the post. National Postal Museum. Viewed March 4, 2014.
^Trotter, Gordon. “3-cent Puerto Rico Issue”, and “3-cent Virgin Islands Issue”. Arago: people, postage & the post. National Postal Museum. Viewed March 4, 2014.
^Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012. “… At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.”
^State Department Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 7-Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1112, p. 2-3. See “National v. Citizen” and What is birth “in the United States”?, referencing Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) 101(a)(38)(8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) p. 2-3. Viewed December 16, 2012.
^Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l). “The 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”
^State Department Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 7-Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1112, p. 2+. However, as reported in lawsuit, Newsweek, July 13, 2012. viewed December 16, 2012. Native Samoan objections arise opposing U.S. citizenship at birth as meaning all of the U.S. Constitution applies everywhere in Samoa. That would prevent certain communal land ownership rules in American Samoa favoring those with Samoan blood.
^U.S. State Department, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty Chart, under “Sovereignty”, lists five places under United States sovereignty administered by a local ‘Administrative Center’, with ‘Short form names’, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, U.S.
^U.S. State Department, Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty Chart, under “Soveriegnty”, lists nine places under United States sovereignty administered by the Interior Department in Washington, D.C.: Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island.
^Cite error: The named reference Bestor, 1964, p. 21 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^"With an actual strength of 1,080 officers and 14,926 enlisted men on June 30, 1860, the Regular Army..."War Extracts p. 199-221, American Military History.
^Coulter, E. Merton, “Confederate States of America”, p.308. Accounts of historians differ as to the date and the agency of the Confederate 100,000-man call. See also Matloff, Maurice (1973). "American Military History". U.S. Army and U.S. Government Printing Office, ISBN 0938289705, ISBN 978-0938289708. Retrieved 28 November 2012., "Secession, Sumter, and Standing to Arms", ”…on March 6 the new Confederate Executive, Jefferson Davis, called for a 100,000-man volunteer force to serve for twelve months......." . See also Civil War extracts, American Military History Online. viewed November 28, 2012. and Nicolay, J.G. and Hay, John. Abraham Lincoln: a history, vol. 4, p.264. viewed November 28, 2012. “Since the organization of the Montgomery government in February, some four different calls for Southern volunteers had been made … In his message of April 29 to the rebel Congress, Jefferson Davis proposed to organize for instant action an army of 100,000 …” Coulter reports that Alexander Stephens took this to mean Davis wanted unilateral control of a standing army, and from that moment on became a implacable opponent.
^Kaufmann, Patricia. covers, “Arago: people, postage & the post”, Smithsonian National Postal Museum. Viewed November 21, 2012.
^ abAdams, J. Q., and Pearlie Strother-Adams (2001). Dealing with Diversity. Chicago: Kendall/Hunt. ISBN0-7872-8145-X.
^ abCite error: The named reference Walske4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 105-107.
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 113-115. Memphis was significant by denying the Confederacy three railroads east, and one west. The navy facility used to construct two Confederate ironclads was reoccupied for Union use as a repair center, and Memphis became a major supply depot.
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 123-125.
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 79- 84.
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 134-136.
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 142, 149-152.
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 152.At the same time as Vicksburg, John H. Morgan made a cavalry raid into Ohio, but he was blocked twice by gunboats from recrossing the river to safety and was captured.
^Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by river”, p. 153-155.
^ abCornelius Vanderbilt will later expand his interest in mail delivery by fast ocean-going steamer to become the most famous railroad tycoon in the Gilded Age, delivering mail by express train.
^Miriam Forman-Brunell, Leslie Paris (2010) "The Girls' History and Culture Reader: The Nineteenth Century". University of Illinois Press. p.136. ISBN978-0-252-07765-4. This famous 1863 photo shows a victim who likely suffered from keloid, according to Kathleen Collins, making the scars more prominent and extensive. See Kathleen Collins, "The Scourged Back," History of Photography 9 (January 1985): 43–45.
^European consuls appointed to the United States in Southern cities remained to protect their interests, but the Confederate government expelled them when all instructed their resident nationals to refuse Confederate conscription.
^Cite error: The named reference diplomacy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Military-aged men in the North outnumbered white in the South about 4 to 1. Both systems used deferments and substitutes, both underwent expansions. In addition to a larger population in the North, hundreds of thousands from Germany, Ireland, Canada and former slaves from the South volunteered for the Union. These numbered perhaps 1 out of 4 men in Union blue.
^Cite error: The named reference proclamation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Note: Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky remain with full delegations certified in the 37th Congress, Virginia and Louisiana seat partial delegation. Martis (19 , p. )
A sidewheelergunboat like that in C.S. Navy armed with one swivel-mounted gun at the bow
B&O Railroad, connections showing the South's 10,000 miles of track, west to Lecompton KS Territory Lines connecting places are railroads
NYC subway map rails are represented as lines, places as bubbles like B&O map
State secession and Confederacy - two clicks to animation Reconstruction treated as an extension of the Civil War admission of 4 new states and readmission to U.S. Congress
Inauguration of Lincoln the Capitol, March 4, 1861
Election results by Electoral College vote
Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln the Capitol, March 4, 1861
Election results by Electoral College vote
1860 presidential results
Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln the Capitol, March 4, 1861
state Election results by Electoral College vote
States represented in United States Congress, 1860 - 1870
State secession proclamations recognized by the Confederacy
Confederate Congress without U.S. representation during Civil War
Confederate and U.S. representation concurrent during Civil War
Former Confederacy administered by U.S. military, 1865 - 1870
Former Confederate states seated in U.S. Congress, 1866 - 1870
]]
Fort Pulaski plan shows fort outline, parapet, yard, moat, demilune, bridges, swamp.
Pulaski’s southeast parapet, barbette guns on south wall in place after capture and repairs.
Elevated 8-in. gun used as a mortar. Longer range held besiegers to night construction.
Bombproofs of timbers and dirt on interior walls; trenched yard stopped ricochets.
B&O Railroad, connections showing the South's 10,000 miles of track, west to Lecompton KS Territory Lines connecting places are railroads
NYC subway map rails are represented as lines, places as bubbles like B&O map
State secession and Confederacy - two clicks to animation Reconstruction treated as an extension of the Civil War admission of 4 new states and readmission to U.S. Congress
Inauguration of Lincoln the Capitol, March 4, 1861
Election results by Electoral College vote
Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln the Capitol, March 4, 1861
Election results by Electoral College vote
1860 presidential results
Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln the Capitol, March 4, 1861
Note to the Reader: Scrolling down, the illustration captions can be read in ten minutes. Blue boxes are tables, click [show]; icebergs for original text, Great Seals to projects.
The victories of 1861 were followed by a series of defeats east and west in early 1862. The Federal intent was to (1) secure the Mississippi River, (2) seize or close Confederate ports and (3) march on Richmond. By the end of the Provisional Congress, February 17, 1862, much of northwest Virginia was controlled by the Union.[8]
The Second Amendment guarantees the right of adult men to keep their own weapons apart from state-run arsenals.[a] Once the new Constitution began government, states petitioned Congress to propose amendments including militia protections. [b] Over time, this amendment has been confirmed by the courts to protect individual rights and used to overturn state legislation regulating hand guns.
Applying the Second Amendment restriction only to the Federal government persisted for much of the nation's early history. It was sustained in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) to support disarming African-Americans holding arms in self-defense from Klansmen. Citizens must "look for their protection … from the state, rather than the national, government." Federal protection of gun ownership by an individual's against the state’s right to disarm citizens came in Presser v. Illinois (1886). All citizens “capable of bearing arms” were members of the federal militia. A state cannot "disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government". [c] In 1939, the Supreme Court returned to a consideration of militia. In U.S. v. Miller, the Court addressed Federal prohibition of short-barreled shotguns, ruling that they could be prohibited because they were not part of the U.S. military reserve armament.[d] It did not address the tradition of an unorganized militia. [e] Once again viewing federal relationships, the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) determined that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is protected by the Second Amendment. It is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so it applies to the states.
The U.S. Census Bureau reports “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. km. This includes the states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The article should report the area internationally recognized as belonging to the United States.
"The table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. The area measurements were derived from the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER®) database. The boundaries of the states and equivalent areas are as of January 1, 2010. The land and water areas, including their classifications, reflect base feature updates made in the MAF/TIGER® database through August, 2010. The area measurements, in square kilometers and square miles, are for statistical purposes only."
The MAF/TIGER database is used for the geospatial data layer for Homeland Security activities, transportation layer of USGS National Map Program, House of Representatives, federal redistricting, distribution of federal funds to state, county and local government for schools, transportation, Medicare and others.
The info box and introduction text should read, 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. (9,857,306 Sq. Km.), excluding the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, now added to the main article, footnoted to the U.S. Census Bureau, MAF/TIGER as of 2010.
The three sources earlier in the “Geography, climate and environment” section include a) Encyclopedia Britannica retrieved in 2008, b) Demographic Yearbook, 2005, and c) World Factbook 2009. The article should reflect the most recent 2010 database used by Homeland Security.
Pedroia1519 wants “CIA Factbook” numbers without a link citation or edition year, Gingeroscar seeks "only land area and inland waters", but has no reference for 3,678,208 sq.mi., — suspiciously close to the 2008 Encyclopedia Britannica. But the Britannica is not the "world" of reliable sources on this matter. Land area is reported by the U.S. Census as less than Gingeroscar’s unsourced "land and inland waters".
The U.S. Census table uses three categories, total area, land area and water area. Water areas are reported by the U.S. Census as total, inland, coastal, Great Lakes, and Territorial. Alaska alone has 19,304 sq.mi. Inland, 26,119 sq.mi. Coastal, and 49,320 sq. mi. Territorial area reported.
This summary article should use the U.S. Census Bureau figures for U.S. total area, a resource also used by the USGS and Homeland Security. The talk page should be used for discussion on the topic rather than initiating a slow motion edit war.
So we have TVH, RightCowLeftCoast, and Alanscottwalker supporting U.S. Census bureau. Also TFD in a way, who persists in wanting to exclude islander U.S. citizens for whatever unspoken anachronistic and unsourced reason. Some territories are "unincorporated" for tax purposes from a century ago which benefits domestic sugar cartels. But the U.S. Census in the 21st century includes U.S. citizen islanders as "native-born", included uniformly with those in states, D.C., Puerto Rico and inhabited "Island Areas", occupying 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. (9,857,306 km2) in the United States for Homeland Security purposes, -- excluding the uninhabited U.S. Minor Outlying Islands.
The dispute resolution in March 2013 reached a consensus by eight to three to include U.S. territories. The following five reliable sources avoid the pitfalls of original research.
1) Government self-definition. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas."
2) Congressional enacted inclusion. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
3) Presidential authorized inclusion. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.
4) Judicial inclusion. This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175]
5) Scholarly inclusion. Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). To date, there is no reliable counter source but editor's original research.
At Wikipedia:Consensus defined, we have, “Neither does consensus mean unanimity”. At Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, we have "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.” "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.”
Those who wished to exclude islanders from the United States failed to find reliable sources to support their position. TFD did find one English-language weekly newspaper in Cuba which suggested Puerto Rico was not a part of the United States, but that is not the preponderance of scholarship discussed. And another editor did original research for internet uses of “unincorporated”. The incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy is a judicial term of art to justify discrimination among internal tax regimes of the US. The term excludes no place from the jurisdiction of the United States as a nation-state.
Indeed, the term “state” in the United States as defined in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (36) includes the 50 states, "District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the Untied States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”. American Samoans are either U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals which the U.S. Census defines as “natural born” Americans.
Insert: This chart of places which are within the United States does not make DC or any other territory into a state, nor does it pretend that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is constitutionally equivalent to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The chart reports places in the U.S. for Census, Homeland Security and other official U.S. governmental purposes, and as such it is an appropriate source for the area of the U.S. --
Again a source including islands is misrepresented, and no source is presented to exclude them.
The first sentence introducing the chart titled State Area Measurements... says, "The table below provides land, water and total area measurements for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas.” -- note 2. This table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands.
American Samoa is listed in the “Total” figure for "State and other areas” of the United States at the top of the chart in the first box of the first line, 3,805,927 sq.mi. It is listed individually, under "Island Areas", at 581 square miles. It is not excluded.
^Glatthaar, Joseph T., “General Lee’s Army: from victory to collapse”, Free Press 2008. ISBN978-0-684-82787-2, p. xiv. Inflicting intolerable casualties on invading Federal armies was a Confederate strategy to make the northern Unionists relent in their pursuit of restoring the Union.
^U.S. Supreme Court, 1925. Seated (l to r) - James Clark McReynolds, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,William Howard Taft, Willis Van Devanter, Louis Brandeis. Standing (1 to r) - Edward Sanford, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Harlan Fiske Stone
^Ambler, Charles, Francis H. Pierpont: Union War Governor of Virginia and father of West Virginia, Univ. of North Carolina, 1937, pg. 419, note 36. Letter of Adjutant General Henry L. Samuels, August 22, 1862, to Gov. Francis Pierpont listing 22 of 48 counties under sufficient control for soldier recruitment. Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, Senate Bill S.531, Feb. 14, 1863 "A bill supplemental to the act entitled 'An act for the Admission of the State of 'West Virginia' into the Union, and for other purposes' which would include the counties of "Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Mercer, McDowell, Pocahontas, Raleigh, Greenbrier, Monroe, Pendleton, Fayette, Nicholas, and Clay, now in the possession of the so-called confederate government."
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
Fixed
.svg)
.svg)
John Janney
Arthur I. Boreman
Independence Hall
_in_1858.jpg)
.svg)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk: Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
US population density 2000
District of Columbia
Done
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
US Virgin Islands
, with the explanation, from Brigade Piron, "Flags are designed to make reading the infobox easier: using un-introduced symbols doesn't add anything..” — I think that I copied this convention from another article. Which convention should prevail for professional German officers who were not political Nazis? 
.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
,_by_John_Trumbull.jpg)
.gif)
_in_a_period_engraving_by_G._Parsons_as_published_in_Harper%27s_Weekly,_1862.jpg)
13th, 14th and 15th Amendments failed to secure voting
Black vote candidates had visions of whippings, lynching, and voters shot.
.jpg)
NOT the constitutional Kingdom of France flag flag of 1791, NOT the modern Republic of France flag 1792 
. The editors there used the flag of England THEN 
and not the United Kingdom flag of 1606 because I suppose that was not the standard that flew there, and NOT the modern Great Britain flag of 1801 
. Yes, let’s open this up for an ABC.
.svg)
.svg)
.jpg)
Fort Pulaski plan shows fort outline, parapet, yard, moat, demilune, bridges, swamp.
Pulaski’s southeast parapet, barbette guns on south wall in place after capture and repairs.
Elevated 8-in. gun used as a mortar. Longer range held besiegers to night construction.
Bombproofs of timbers and dirt on interior walls; trenched yard stopped ricochets.
.jpg)
.jpg)
![Chase Court [4] interpreted Reconstruction[5]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Hon._Salmon_P._Chase%2C_Chief_Justice%2C_U.S.%2C_Hon._Nathan_Clifford%2C_Maine%2C_Stephen_J._Field%2C_Justice_Supreme_Court..._-_NARA_-_528362.tif/lossy-page1-120px-Hon._Salmon_P._Chase%2C_Chief_Justice%2C_U.S.%2C_Hon._Nathan_Clifford%2C_Maine%2C_Stephen_J._Field%2C_Justice_Supreme_Court..._-_NARA_-_528362.tif.jpg)
![Taft Court [6] incorporated Amendments [7]](/wiki/File:1925_U.S._Supreme_Court_Justices.jpg)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}