Wikipedia

User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 5

< User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian
Latest comment: 5 years ago by TheVirginiaHistorian in topic George Washington's political evolution
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A year ago ...
 
foundations of the US
... you were recipient
no. 1385 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Here's a Civil War map of Virginia I downloaded from the Library of Congress. It's big. There are others -- (scroll down) Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow. LC is upping their game considerably. I took a one day seminar there about ten years ago, but still have no clue as to how to navigate their archives.
The fortifications about Washington is of considerable interest -- as a young Boy Scout, I was one of the first volunteer groups to begin to clear overgrowth from the now restored fortification trenches at Fort Ward in Alexandria. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Map in different format

I converted the 'tiff' file to a 'jpeg' file and uploaded the second version. The 'tiff' file is a wopping 84.7 MB in size while the 'jpeg' file is only 8.76 MB, yet both images are of equal dimension and quality. The 'tiff' file took several moments to load while the 'jpeg' file loads much faster. Also, my browser is rather dated, and I was having difficulty viewing the 'tiff' file at times. Can't figure. I also brightened and sharpened the image on the right. Could you try both files and give me your feed back when you get a chance? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

N.E. Virginia, 1865, showing forts and roads

 
TIFF format, 84.7 MB
 
JPEG format. 8.76 MB
This is remarkable. I know of at least one publisher's guidelines that require TIFF format submissions for book illustrations, while it seems at least on the WP platform, the JPEG is vastly superior for equivalent images!! I wonder if there may be a difference in ability to crop and enlarge a detail of the image? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I can crop a section of the map if you like. (  Done -- File:N E Virginia forts and roads, detail of Washington2.jpg 18:36, 9 June 2017 ) If you hover over the map image with your mouse-pointer and click the scroll wheel on top of your mouse, the round icon appears and you can pan around and navigate the image without having to use the scroll bars on the right and bottom of the image - just in case you didn't know.
  • As you must know, some of the forts were mustered out after the Civil War, like Fort Haggerty on the Potamac. I'm thinking about making a List of Civil War forts in Virginia, but this no doubt will prompt me to create a number of articles in cases where a list description isn't enough, and I'm not quite geared up for that effort, yet.
  • Here are some other links at the LOC you might enjoy and make use of.

List of forts

Well, someone beat me to it. Civil War Defenses of Washington -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Book of maps from LOC

This book will help you located Civil War maps at the LOC -- picked it up at our beloved public library the other day -- 120 map images, photos, filled with good literature and an impressive bibliography.

  • Nelson, Christopher; Pohanka, Brian (1992). Mapping the Civil War: Featuring Rare Maps from the Library of Congress. Fulcrum publishing Inc. ISBN 978-1-5637-3001-6. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

West Virginia Constitutional Convention

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Congrats on the good article status for Virginia Conventions! If you have time (and I don't, nor the expertise), I think an article is needed for the West Virginia Constitutional Convention of November 1861. While dealing with computer problems (and sleazy real estate investors) recently, I read about West Virginia's founding at our local library, then posted an article about a West Virginia founder who was active in this constitutional convention, but not the earlier Wheeling conventions (Gordon Battelle (minister)). I noticed that you edited the Wheeling Convention article a few months ago, but it's about the First and Second Convention--this convention's not really covered. FYI, I edited the West Virginia article's history section a bit this morning to clarify. However, to clear the redirect to the 1871 U.S. Supreme court case, a new article would be needed. If it's any consolation, noticed that both the Encyclopedia Virginia and its West Virginia counterparts have articles.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wheeling Constitutional Convention of November 1861 is of interest to Virginian historians because it reflects on the Virginia Constitution of 1851 -- how western Virginians who had lived under it sought to reform it -- and it is in great contrast to the reactionary undemocratic Virginia Constitution of 1861 proposed by the Secessionist Convention which was defeated at referendum even though within the constricted electorate of the Confederate regime. I will keep that convention on my to-do list. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I also haven't abandoned the 1868 Virginia Const. Conv. project, but am tackling new Virginia General Assembly articles as well as fixing bot-generated articles where I have time and library access.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg listed for discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg listed for discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Virginia biography

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Came upon these in my travels.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have the volumes as reprints from a Books on Demand bookstore publisher, but I find the helter-skelter organization impenetrable. Some of the volumes do not have alphabetic indexes. However, with these online sources they can be downloaded in their entirety, and then searched. Main entries are sometimes rendered as a last name, then a carrat to signify bold print, I think, so you have to search on the last name alone sometimes, but the results are tolerable. By this method I was able to locate four Virginia U.S. Senators for a project, including an entry on the elusive Stephens T. Mason, who notably violated Senate rules to sneak a copy of the Jay Treaty to the Philadelphia Aurora newspaper on the grounds that the American people had a right to know the substance of their government's treaties. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I used Fitch's vol 2 (NY bio's) to source items in the Adam Badeau article which I've been working on most recently. Yes, they are searchable(!), even as separate pdf files when I'm not online. I downloaded a fair number of them, along with volumes from the Biography of Pennsylvania, and the Biography of New York. I checked out reprints on eBay. Pretty pricey. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I see Tyler volumes ranging to $40 dollars each in a Google Search, but Barnes & Noble is $27 a volume, and Forgotten Books is $17 a volume. I have forgotten how I got to Politics and Prose Bookstore in Washington DC which was comparable to Forgotten Books for print-on-demand of an out-of-copyright book of any description. A comparably priced volume from a London printer got lost in the mail, so two of my three Lyon Tyler volumes in hand are from Politics and Prose. The later volumes of these subscription titles are often vanity publications that are filled with the descendant scions from “distinguished families” who are of little note in the context of political history, which is my primary interest. But it is nice to have the online versions to double check all of them. Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Troubling times

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I suspect being there in Virginia you've heard about the controversy over the proposed removal of Robert Lee's statue at the University of Virginia. Though I am glad we are still an undivided nation, it troubles me to see such an effort, as Lee, I believe, was a noble soul, who didn't want civil war. This came up on the Ulysses S. Grant talk page, per the Lost Cause and Grant's declining reputation in the early 20th century. If you have any insights along these lines they would be whole heartily welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Charlottesville demonstration at Lee's statue was about the modern symbolism of the Confederacy, it was not about Lee. Lee drank from the same communion cup as a black man at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond in 1865, then on his assumption of the presidency of Washington College in Lexington on a campus abutting VMI, he mentored the sons of his generals to be loyal Americans, saying that he was a Virginian before and during the War Between the States, but afterwards he became an American. He took the amnesty loyalty oath to the U.S. Government in writing in 1865, although the paperwork was not discovered in the State Department until 1970 and his citizenship retroactively restored by the Congress and signed into law in 1975 by Gerald Ford. One summer at the Greenbriar resort, Lee famously introduced himself and danced with the daughter of the wartime Governor of Pennsylvania, turning the once shunned debutante into the belle of the season there. Lee personally refused to promote or contribute to statues honoring Confederate leaders, not even for Stonewall Jackson, fearing that it would hurt the healing process in the nation. POV I like the public museum or Confederate graveyard or Civil War battlefield relocation whenever a majority of city council votes funding to both remove and reinstall a statue. I am sure that position will enrage both extremes; troubling times indeed.
I am sorry I do not seem to have much to contribute to the discussion on the Grant Talk page. Grant maneuvered in concert with the officials of the national republican party to divide the Radical Republican "obnoxious clauses" in the 1870 Constitution as proposed, restricting the ex-Confederate vote, so majorities could be found to both ratify the Constitution incorporating the 13th and 14th Amendment (ratified by referendum), and allow most ex-Confederates to vote in Virginia (the obnoxious clauses were rejected in the same referendum). This resulted in the Virginia General Assembly filling Virginia's vacant U.S. Representative and Senate seats in Congress. Grant's referendum innovation as he authorized it for the military government to administer could have been opposed as unconstitutionally altering the outcome of a lawfully convened Constitutional Convention, but with the voice of the sovereign people of Virginia in referendum, the question became moot. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A book of interest?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Yes, thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Lee's memoirs

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Available for download in several formats: Long, 1886. Memoirs of Robert E. Lee : his military and personal history -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history by A. L. Long, in a letter from Texas dated December 27, 1856, “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil . . . While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the [colored race], . . . The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things . . . Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity . . . This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race . . . While we see the course of final abolition of human slavery is still onward , and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hand of Him who sees the end . . . “ (p. 82-83)

At the section "Lee's views on race and slavery", we can remove the extended block quote deprecated for WP style, and write encyclopedically on the subject from his December 27, 1856 letter from Texas, using a more extensive quote than that now available from Emory M. Thomas:

While acceding to the inevitability of slavery under the U.S. Constitution during his own time, Lee believed it to be an institution of “moral and political evil”. While slavery was a painful discipline, Lee hoped for better things for the colored race, and that with prayerful support, the sure influence of Christianity would bring about the final abolition of human slavery as an act of God’s doctrine and miracles. In any case, Lee did not believe that an end of slavery should come at the hands of unlawful violent action by Abolitionists whether in civil war or servile insurrection, nor did he believe the institution of slavery should be preserved by secession of Southern states and the destruction of the Union.

Memoirs of Robert E. Lee: his military and personal history by A. L. Long, p. 82-83, from a letter of Lee's from Texas dated December 27, 1856.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm?

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

First, let me assure you I appreciate all your solid contributions to WP, especially on US military subjects, where our interests have overlapped. This one time, we disagree on your recent additions to R. E. Lee; in no way will that change my overall opinion on your efforts as an editor here.

But, on this edit to the talk page, you seem to be using an extremely sarcastic tone. I assume you know that isn't going to help influence me or other editors to your view -- likely just the opposite. I'm guessing it came out of some short-term frustration, since it's out-of-character. There's a hint, from your edit comment only, that you may propose different wording for your changes? You may want to make that part clear, removing all the apparent heavy sarcasm. This is just my suggestion for something that may help you and your image. Just, FYI; no reply is necessary. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand to what you may be referring. All objections to my initial offering are now met for each one made by each editor participating, so those editors (who meant what they said in wp:good faith), should now be satisfied that the conditions which led them to initially hold reservations about the addition incorporating Lee's adherence to the principle of an apolitical U.S. Army officer corps are now removed, because it is now reliably sourced information and those editors now all will support the amended and modified proposal. That is, unless the revision language raises new additional reservations, which is always possible, --- and I mean that without sarcasm.
This includes the obvious troller who objected on the grounds of my proposals for lacking "political correctness". WP has not adopted an editorial standard of "political correctness". Rather than any such unfounded editor POV, it directs reliably sourced contributions to be incorporated in its articles without editorial prejudice. I noticed that you reasonably mentioned in one string that reference to cruel punishment of Norris might reasonably be linked to his crime provoking Lee's cruelty to him which was disproportionate in my view -- I regret can find only fringe Abolitionist sources in the Antebellum era time that concur with my contemporary view. It certainly did not benefit "many" serving officers to publicly advocate for abolition during the time of Lee's U.S. Army career as one editor objecting to my proposal anachronistically speculated that there might have been, supposing so without a reliable source.
Further --- as an aside ---, willfully censoring an account of the apolitical tradition of the U.S. officer corps from relevant passages of WP articles has contemporary implications. The adherents of Donald Trump who promote the idea that the graduating class at West Point should petition their Congressional representatives en masse for increased pay and benefits --- smacks of General Armstrong's proposed coup to have Congress fund the serving Continental Army's officers their back pay. Washington objected to the proposal to surround Congress by an armed guard until the Delegates might come to their senses and honor the promises of earlier Congresses. He alternatively suggested that officers dissenting from Congress should resign from the U.S. Army and run for Congressional seats themselves in their home states to effect any changes they might advocate.
The principle of civilian rule in a democratic republic is paramount for the success of the American Experiment and should be held inviolate. Seven Days in May is meant to be cautionary tale, not a blueprint for governance by draft dodgers wondering aloud why the U.S. does not use the nuclear weapons it has.
On a personal note, Good Veteran's Day to you, and thank you for your service. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not replying to anything relating to the article contents here; that's for the article's talk page so others can contribute.
Are you seriously saying there's no sarcasm in your comment? It's quite apparent. If that wasn't intended, you'd better fix your comment quickly. Again, any point except sarcasm wasn't even apparent except by the edit summary. In it's present form, the comment undermines any argument you may have, presently and in future discussions, doing you a great disservice.
Thanks, and good Veteran's Day to you as well. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I regret that I have misunderstood. What comment seems to be sarcastic? I will happily withdraw it. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm just warning you that your current talk page techniques are alienating the very people you need to reach consensus with. It suggests that you don't care to reach consensus with them, encouraging them to not take your arguments thoughtfully or seriously. I don't know why that doesn't concern you, and I'm worried that valuable ideas you'll have in the future may be dismissed, but I've said all I can. Thank you for your contributions in the past, and I wish you well. --A D Monroe III(talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Very well, since you can point to no such sarcastic passage, I take it the offending passage has been removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been told by other that the sarcasm I see isn't there. I apologize. I wasn't trying to make you "rue the day" (what would be the point of that?), I was honestly trying to help you to make more effective arguments.

But I'm still left confused. I'd like to understand what I'm misinterpreting in the comment in question:

Thank you for working with me in wp:good faith. Since the factual elements are now explicitly stated in the three sources -- without -- any conclusion, in part because of your good guidance, I will begin crafting the entries, first on the apolitical U.S. Army officer corps and Lee's conforming to it -- without concluding whether a civilian run republic is superior to Napoleon's French Republic, and then the Lee-Norris relationship involving insubordination, running away, a cruel whipping, maintaining Norris' Virginia residence and manumission, without concluding whether all swearing allegiance to the slave-permitting U.S. Constitution among all antebellum federal and state office-holding officials were morally justified in their attempt at a federal republic in the first place. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay if I attempt to break this down here on talk? If you don't care to spend your time on this, that's fine. You don't need to explain, you can just omit replying. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. In my first proposal, the sources were not nailed down because I hurriedly supposed that wp:common knowledge would cover the apolitical ethic in the U.S. Army Corps in Lee's time. And you properly pointed out that I needed specific sources accounting both for the time and for Lee, so I did additional research and provided two in a posting at Talk, which to my mind made my proposal stronger as a direct result of the collegial process that WP editors are supposed to engage in and that you had provided to me. I thought it appropriate to thank you for appropriately critiquing the originally flawed text. That is all I meant to say. I did not mean to presume that you could not have yet another reservation about the amended proposal, just that your objections were concrete and specific, so mading it possible for me to make amendments on my part as the proposing editor to strengthen my contribution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
First, since you replied, that it's okay to investigate my assumption of apparent sarcasm. Just in case I'm wrong, as I stated above, you only have to not reply further, and this will be dropped as merely a drain on your time.
Second, however, your reply didn't address my subject. All you said above was already captured in the clear edit summary for the edit in question: thanks for your help, draft passages to follow. I got that easily, and it was encouraging. But I found the comment itself having additional qualities seemingly not in line with the edit summary. Let my ask about just this additional remark: without concluding whether a civilian run republic is superior to Napoleon's French Republic. Why include this? AFAIK, nothing even remotely of the sort was implied by anyone before. Using it at this point seems like... an exaggeration? An exaggeration to make a point is pretty much the definition of sarcasm.
But, again, no reply necessary. Happy Thanksgiving! --A D Monroe III(talk) 18:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Let me expand the example for clarity. The conclusion, “A civilian run [United States] republic [with an apolitical army and navy military officer corps] is superior to Napoleon’s French Republic.” is a conclusion not sustained by the sources, which ---were it asserted --- would be an example of WP:SYNTHESIS.
As it stands, (1) two sources supporting that at the time of Lee’s adulthood, the U.S. Army officer corps generally expounded the principle of an apolitical officer corps, and (2) two sources supporting that Lee advocated the principle of an apolitical officer corps, and (3) two sources supporting that Lee acted in accordance with the same principle by public silence on the controversial topic of slavery — are not WP:SYNTHESIS, but sourced contributions to the article of three related ideas.
We should not be implying a character flaw for Lee not publicly advocating for Abolition as Foner would have had it, with army officers including Lee conforming to “some white Southerners" of the time --- ("some white Southerners" (a) believing in the eventual end of slavery by God's doctrine made manifest on earth (in a "miracle") as did Lee privately, or (b) calling for a political policy of gradual emancipation as Lee did privately, or (c) the insisting on the immediate abolition of slavery which Lee did not privately?). The take-away for the reader should be that Lee’s silence on slavery while a U.S. Army officer was grounded in a democratic-republican principle which was widely held in his profession at the time of his U.S. Army service -- as reliably sourced with six citations.
Happy Thanksgiving, and thanks for your contributions that make my proposal stronger, however we still may disagree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Reoccurring issue

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Evidently, the Jefferson/Hemings controversy is about to start all over again, and opinions will be needed it seems. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I am generally persuaded that there was a long standing romantic relationship between Jefferson and Hemings, and it is obvious that Jefferson took a special interest in the Heming's children's emancipation, regardless of their paternity. I do believe that the scholarly doubt about Thomas Jefferson's siring the Hemings children should be included -- even if it is required to reduce the balancing scholarship to a separate explanatory footnote apart from citations in the relevant paragraph. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Re my edit to the TJ lede...

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Re your change: That's fine, I don't think I explained it very well, just that some observers have wondered if the power dynamic of a slave having the master's children can be characterized as a relationship. Yeah, of COURSE they were in a relationship but was there ever the power for her to say "No"...that's all. I do somewhat disagree with again including the "historians ranking" sentence. That is only a single sentence within the main text and to include it in the lede seems a bit undue. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonable reply. I think that Gordon-Reed looked to the voluntary return to enslavement from France, where Hemings was educated along with Jefferson's daughter, and other elements of the documented exchanges between the two to surmise a romantic relationship beyond master-slave transactional "relationship" noted by Ira Berlin among the North American enslaved and masters as labor negotiations and accommodations.
I do agree with your assessment of Jefferson's presidential reputation in the introduction, as that ranking is treated in the "historical reputation" section of the article, I believe. If it is not there, the ranking should be noted there, and not in the introduction. (Also, I don't recall other presidential articles featuring presidential rankings in their introductions.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and a recommendation

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your kind words in this edit.[1] Unfortunately, I don't anticipate editing the article heavily in the near future, but if you (anybody) need help finding sources, I can try to do my part. I entered the fray to add my support to one side of a dispute, and as you can see, I have a hard time stepping away once engaged. But I don't enjoy dealing with the disputes that arise in controversial articles and my skill set really is in research and not in arguing or enforcing(?) policies and guidelines. I think it is best for me and for the encyclopedia that I try to stick to articles where I spend my time researching and adding content rather than disputing things. I'll likely keep a close-ish eye on the Lee page at least for the near future, but don't anticipate making many controversial edits. I encourage you (everyone) to check out the resources at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. If your account is 6 months old and you have 500+ edits (and your is, of course), there are some great resources there. In particular, Wikipedia:Project MUSE grants full access to a number of great books and academic journals. I happen to be the account coordinator for Project MUSE (and Foreign Affairs) and can't speak highly enough of it. The application process is free and painless. I usually send in applications at the end of each month and get a response in under a week, so if you apply, you'll likely be multiplying the size of your library 70 times (from 500+ in your library according to your userpage too 36,000+ on project MUSE) shortly after the New Year. For an example, if you search for "American Civil War" on their site, there are over 3,800 book results[2] - all of which would be available. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging use of scholarly sources, they are my chief defense against the Lost Cause anachronisms perpetuated by the neo-Confederate set here at WP. For instance it is hard getting the Confederate flag right and keeping it in a WP Biography Infobox. --- Is there a way to to globally change out the neo-Confederate "Blood Stained Banner", the "Third National Flag" of the Confederacy. It was adopted in a rump session of the Confederate Congress immediately before their flight from Richmond in 1865.
The rationale for removing it which has been successful at Confederate States of America is using David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society, and his observation in Brief history of Confederate flags, that the Blood-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 Blood-stained Banner.
Thanks again, I'll give the Project MUSE a try. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, TheVirginiaHistorian!

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
 
Happy New Year!

TheVirginiaHistorian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mojo Hand (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Enable email

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can you enable email so I can send you your account information (via Special:Preferences or the preferences link at the top right of the screen) for projectMUSE? Smmurphy(Talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I did. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, you did it. One can tell because when email is enabled and you are on a user page or a user talk page, there is a link on the right side under tools to "Email this user". I'll send you the login information shortly. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Congress of the Confederate States

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Congress of the Confederate States you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 2600:1002:B004:A228:9451:A92C:A2C9:C3F6 -- 2600:1002:B004:A228:9451:A92C:A2C9:C3F6 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Chart of Confederate Congress Sessions

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sessions of the Congress of the Confederate States of America - DRAFT
Congress Session Place Date Convened Date Adjourned States & Territories Attending
Provisional 1st S. Montgomery, Alabama Feb 4, 1861 Mar 16, 1861 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX
Provisional 2nd S. Montgomery Apr 29, 1861 May 21, 1861 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK
Provisional 3rd S. Richmond, Virginia Jul 20, 1861 Aug 31, 1861 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN
Provisional 4th S. Richmond Sep 3, 1861 Sep 3, 1861 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN
Provisional 5th S. Richmond Nov 18, 1861 Feb 17, 1862 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr.
1st Cong. 1st S. Richmond Feb 18, 1862 Apr 21, 1862 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
1st Cong. 2nd S. Richmond Aug 18, 1862 Oct 13, 1862 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
1st Cong. 3rd S. Richmond Jan 12, 1863 May 1, 1863 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
1st Cong. 4th S. Richmond Dec 7, 1863 Feb 18, 1864 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
2nd Cong. 1st S. Richmond May 2, 1864 Jun 14, 1864 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Choctaw Nation
2nd Cong. 2nd S. Richmond Nov 7, 1864 Mar 18, 1865 AL, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC, TX -- VA, AK, NC, TN, MO, KY — AZ Terr., Cherokee Nation, Creek and Seminole Nations

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Congress of the Confederate States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Conrad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Congress of the Confederate States

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Congress of the Confederate States you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Congress of the Confederate States for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

FA for Washington article

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi TVH -- would like to notify you than an effort to bring the George Washington article to FA status has more or less begun. Before we nominate for FA a few things need to be tended to. Your help and opinion as we go along is welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in helping out, especially with narrative issues and copyediting . . . I'm not very accomplished at citation conventions. What would you say are the top five areas to address? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry about the citation convention used if this proves difficult. Just cite with what you can. I am mostly concerned about losing content/context when the article is submitted for FA approval, or at any time. Top five areas? Well, nothing sticks out as something that's in dire need of attention, so I guess that would be your call. Assuming you have (far) more than average knowledge of Washington, it would be helpful if you knew of any sources that can replace the dozens of cite web sources used. Any and all help would be of course greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Books of interest

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Am currently reading Claude G. Bower's The Young Jefferson 1743-1789, (1945) -- he makes several references to these books, now in the PD, available for download.

I'm assuming you already know of Burk, if not in possession of his works. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, these are new to me. Pauline Maier said it best when she pointed out that the good scholarship of earlier historians should not be dismissed merely because it did not use modern concepts and terminology. The point of historical inquiry should be to knit together a multi-faceted explanation of connections and causes that contribute to events and developments of interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
It's good to see that some of the various president's articles embrace both the new and the old. As I've always maintained, we can't assume a work is inherently well done simply on the basis of its publication date. I've been working on the George Washington article mostly for the last several weeks, then all of the sudden, my Bowers book (The Young Thomas Jefferson) jumped off the shelf and without intending to do so, I started reading it, from cover to (soon to be the other) cover, and subsequently, have been adding to the Education, early family life section. Much was missing. e.g.Jefferson met Patrick Henry in his youth during his visits to Williamsburg; Jefferson's first encounters with Indians, which he came to "champion", etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

MUSE

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some one took a gander at our above discussion and invited me to join MUSE. You might want to look into it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

1868 Const. Conv. at LVA

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just noticed that the LVA has an evening roundtable discussion about the 1868 Constitutional Convention on Thursday. I really need to travel back to Chicago, unfortunately, but am considering rescheduling in order to hear it. In any case, I thought you'd be interested as well.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a great lead. I no longer drive, so my usual family transportation available to me on weekends can't help out. Rats, I hate getting old in so many ways. If I had more cash I'd take a train and stay overnight. It really sounds great. I hope they put something from the discussion online as a video podcast.
If they offered a DVD of the roundtable discussion at their gift store, I'd buy it. It is something that I have suggested to the Virginia Historical Society relative to their long-term, temporary and one-day specialty exhibits, maybe in a semi-annual DVD issue, but nothing has come of it so far. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Precious two years!

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Another item of interest

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Came across this in my travels.
The Virginia magazine of history and biography,  by  Philip Alexander Bruce, 1893. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Great good fun. Thank you. Hugh Blair Grigsby was president of the publisher, the Virginia Historical Society, into the 1880s I believe. It is remains a valuable resource. I subscribe along with the William and Mary Quarterly for early and late colonial interest, Journal of the Civil War Era (UNC) for Antebellum, Civil War and Reconstruction, Journal of Southern History and Journal of American History. Some expense, but still cheaper than another college course, and they alert me to the occasional monograph that fits current interests.
BTW, I am almost finished Yearns, The Confederate Congress (1960, 2010), and beginning Alexander and Beringer, The Anatomy of the Confederate Congress (1972) and for reference, Warner and Yearns, Biographical Register of the Confederate Congress (1975) --- so I can flesh out Congress of the Confederate States as "comprehensive", per the failed GA review. The volumes are topical, whereas the article is structured chronologically by Congress and Session, so each chapter has to be picked apart and reshuffled into a legislative sequence.
Interesting factoid: In the Provisional Congress, Yancey and other Fire-eaters feared that Jefferson Davis and his allies were not really interested in independence, but were instead merely seeking better terms for reconstruction of the old Union, so they made early attempts to meddle in foreign affairs, especially in "cotton diplomacy" coupled with unauthorized militia burning of cotton stocks -- that some scholars believe were positively a disaster for the Confederacy, short term and long term. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
"Cotton diplomacy" seems to be a perspective that's often overshadowed by the flat earth perspective of the Civil War and its root causes (i.e.follow the money) that's often promulgated through much of academia, unfortunately. I've been buying a good number of books lately, mostly on Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton, but will be returning my focus on the Civil War in the near future. Ebay has a selection of these books, most of them pretty pricey. Haven't seen you around much lately. Hope all is well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. The yard is providing its spring blooms, first the flowering crabapple, wisteria, mountain laurel, red bud tree, Indian hawthorne, now the roses, dogwood and lilies, later the camelia, hydrangea, and crepe myrtle. The spring has been cool, so the fig from Mount Vernon has not leafed yet, but it's budding . . . I'd like to add two apple trees this year or next, maybe fuji and gala if they cross-pollenate . . . I'm picking trees and shrubberies from Wulf, The Founding Gardeners (Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Washington, all influenced by John Bartram, the Philadelphia botanist and his son). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The 'founding gardeners'. :-)    Malone, (vol 6, The Young Gardener chapter) said that Jefferson's involvements in life were largely determined by circumstances, not by preference, and that if he had the luxury of choosing, Jefferson would have opted for pursing his greatest love, working in his garden, cultivating and experimenting. I was born and raised in upstate New York, and Delicious and Macintosh apple orchards were commonplace. In my younger years, my father, brother and I would take the wheel-barrel and walk over to the cow pastures during the autumn months and fill it with dried cow manure. We'd bring it back and spread it around in the garden (after all the vegie's were picked), along with compost, and work it into the soil. Over the winter and upon spring it was well assimilated into the soil where we would again till the soil and plant our garden -- mostly tomatoes, squash, peppers and cucumbers. The four to five month New York growing season also allowed us to plant three separate crops of radishes and two of carrots. Jefferson would have been proud. -- On a different note, the Washington article is about ready for FA nomination. if you're of mind, check in when you get the chance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Virginia intro

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Virginia’s Secession Convention resolved to join the Confederacy with its Congressional representation, Virginia’s First Wheeling Convention resolved to remain in the Union as Virginia with its Congressional representation, then the Second Wheeling Convention resolved to create the additional state of West Virginia in the Union. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Washington & Lincoln

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I fully appreciate your changes to the GW lede; I was trying to “upgrade” the narrative for FA and I knew I was in danger of getting wreckless with accuracy—just wanted you to know my attempt was in good faith.

Also, I recently did some work at Harrison family of Virginia and would appreciate your review if interested.

Thanks, Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The Harrison family of Virginia looks interesting. It seems rooted in an interest in genealogy, which is a very under-appreciated specialty. I noted with some interest the Northern tier track taken by some of the notables mentioned in the Harrison family.
In my own Virginia family society (descended from "Soldier John ---", a neighbor of George Washington's brother before migrating westerly to the Great Valley), there is a great deal of good work done on family trees, but less so in making the historical connection of the family moving west as a part of the larger American 19th century movement out of Virginia, both North and South -- and to Australia in one branch of my family. Interestingly, school teacher seems to me to be the most recurring occupation, male and female, among the dozens of working pursuits (I was one); in recent decades the annual meetings seem to have localized to a Great Plains set, mostly centered in Texas. After decades of not attending I did make it to the reunion in San Antonio --- I wanted to see The Alamo, as it was on my bucket list of historical sites.
I notice the presence of several legislators in various states among the Virginia Harrisons -- a recurring phenomenon I would like to develop seriously one day. Just now it must seem to the casual reader as mere puffery -- but Virginia was not only the "Mother of Presidents", but also the "Mother of States" in that often men Virginia born or of Virginia families became the first Territorial Governor, or the first state Governor or in early state legislatures, or the first of U.S. Senators or of Congressional Delegations from states as they entered the Union in the Antebellum 19th century. --- And I would not leave out Liberia, and numbering Joseph Jenkins Roberts as one of Virginia's sons becoming a Governor and President in a republic. Just how often Virginia was the "Mother of States" during that period would be the point of a serious study, I suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi TheVirginiaHistorian, just wanted to invite you to help edit some Fourth Amendment related pages. I left a message on WikiProject US Constitution Talk which fills out the details and lists the pages.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement of the invite. This topic is a little out of my wheelhouse, but I'll take a look-see. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: thanks for the reply! I contacted you based on your interest in the history of law. But, I guess there are all types of history and it depends if this part interests you.
What I'm trying to do is get a good overview of how the Supreme Court expanded Terry v. Ohio over the years. This would discuss the Warren court, Burger court, Rehnquist Court and Roberts Court rulings on criminal procedure (in particular, investigative detention). In order to do this right, would have to outline how Mapp v. Ohio and the Exclusionary rule were applied to the states. Also, need a good grounding in the Fourth Amendment. So...all a little complex!
I have some notes:
Either way, thanks for your time and I appreciate your reply! Seahawk01 (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States Electoral College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Harrison family of Virginia

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article is up your alley and would also benefit from your contributions, I am sure. Cheers. Hoppyh (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: This is very well done, and coincidently, it seems that the Harrisons are "Virginia cousins" of mine, through the Blair family connection (only Grandmother would have known for sure). Despite my "dilettante" approach in the actual field of study, I am among those historians who believe that genealogy importantly informs the historical narrative, and that family histories of migration are significant -- indeed I like to think of Virginia as the "Mother of States" because so many of the first Territorial Governors, State Governors and initial Congressional delegations were Virginia-born (Virginian Edward Coles was the second Governor of Illinois, abolishing "legacy slavery" in the state that had been "grandfathered" (legally perpetuated) from the earlier French settlement in the region). Much of American eighteenth century westward movement, both before and after the Civil War, was in small family groups related by common brothers or sisters, made up of two and three and four nuclear families.
I had a great time following the link-trails of various public office holders and newspapermen among the Harrisons. I note that a branch of the Virginia Valley Harrison family ended up in Chicago, seeking a land of opportunity. However, the wikipedia article narrative seems to stress a narrative of a sort of patent history of the reaper machine -- interesting in its own right, and important "business history" to fold into any account of either local Chicago history, or that of the family member biographies.
But from a Virginian political history perspective, the Harrisons were part of a cultural stream, an exodus of Virginians before the Civil War that was surprisingly, overwhelmingly to states north of the Ohio River. See Bound Away: Virginia and the Westward Movement. For instance, Cyrus McCormick had followed a similar migration path earlier, when the Virginia General Assembly would not grant a charter for incorporation of a company to manufacture his patented wheat reaper that would have enriched Virginian family farmers without slaves. This was during the same era that the Virginia General Assembly would not extend the James River and Kanawha Canal into a westerly-adjacent county until half of its population was enslaved. So the opportunity for Virginia's City of Norfolk to directly compete with New York's New York City and its Erie Canal westward was lost -- due to Richmond City-Norfolk jealousy. Alexandria had a prosperity boom related to the C & O Canal, which had an acqueduct-canal of four-foot depth crossing the Potomac River.
Then came the railroads to supersede them, incorporated by the Virginia General Assembly principally to expedite parallel communications along great-river transport systems to enhance the profitability of existing great plantations (as elsewhere in the South, in contradistinction to the northern commercial strategy opening up and developing new regions for farming, immigration and industry, which in turn expanded markets regionally, nationally and into Europe). --- Aside: at the failed German harvests in the early 1860s, Northern farmers not only supplied wheat for domestic consumption, and sustained multiple mass-conscription armies in the field during a protracted Civil War, but in addition, they also fed a starving Europe). But I digress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your comment cousin VH, and indeed your depth of knowledge is such a blessing. Hoppyh (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

George Washington's political evolution

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Thanks for your help with sourcing at George Washington. If you have the time and the inclination, I would be interested to read any comments you might have on George Washington's political evolution. I have tried with the limited resources at my disposal to produce a balanced narrative focussing on Washington's transformation from a young man "on the make" (as, IIRC, Ferling writes) to a political giant, but it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees when one is deep into the forest. A fresh pair of knowledgeable eyes on the subject would be very helpful. Factotem (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it some research and thought. I've recently placed an online order for a used library copy of Dorothy Twohig's "Washington's Diaries: An Abridgement", a volume where there have been a couple of citations in our sourcing, noting Washington's net worth in acreage, British investments, and slaves. But I have yet to receive an order confirmation from Amazon.
I am interested in looking into Washington's transforming priorities as he evolved across five political personas:
(1) a young man "on the make" developing a surveying and military reputation to social climb and marry well,
(2) a "public service" reputation, as a vestryman and burgess, voting for ethical British colonial government without personal self-dealing between the General Assembly and Governor's Council, including large scale defrauding of the Virginia Colonial treasury, and voting for measures promoting the Patriot cause, including his serving Virginia in the Continental Congress,
(3) a "nationalist and commander" reputation, as the lead (though contested) general of the Continental Army, including a continuous application among the thirteen states for the pro rata financial support to the Continental Army based on a developed land valuation agreed upon in Congress, but unauthorized in the newly minted state legislatures through out the duration of the Revolutionary War,
(4) an "ethical businessman" reputation, investing in land improved for settlement to expand landed Virginia yeomanry (not stock speculation), personally investing and calling on Assembly development of roads, canals and navigation to open up new territory for settlement (not accumulation of personal lands), along with altering his plantation business model with slave farm managers, converting to wheat cultivation, and developing a distillery to provide for Martha's security and slave manumission,
(5) a "Founder" of the American republic as a member of the Constitutional Convention and U.S. president for the first eight years under the Constitution of 1789. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive_5&oldid=999138264"