User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Douglas Southall Freeman

As I do volunteer work at our public library's bookstore on Fridays, upon arriving I was fortunate to find Freeman's seven volume biography on George Washington, which had been donated a couple of days before -- in excellent condition. These books, as I'm assuming you know, are pretty pricey and go for hundreds of dollars on eBay and elsewhere. Without hesitating a moment I purchased the set at the unbelievable price of seven dollars, i.e.one dollar a book, (!) the typical price for hardcover books at our store. In volume six, Dumas Malone pays tribute to Freeman in his short essay, The Pen of Douglas Southall Freeman. Freeman had died at 67 before he got a chance to write about Washington's second term. The day he died he had delivered his regular radio broadcast in Richmond that morning. I found Malone's account on Freeman almost as fascinating as that of Washington. I've stumbled across Freeman's name in the past but never was familiar with or came to appreciate the man, and his works, until now. Thought I'd share this with someone who might also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What a great treasure! I just missed a similar find at a library sale of a comprehensive multiple volume set of Lincoln's correspondence and proclamations in a stack under the table I was browsing while holding hands with my younger toddler daughter . . . as I reached out for the volumes, she took the chance to escape at a full run turning left at the table corner and out of sight. When I dashed after her to scoop her up (she had not made it across the next aisle), I quickly trotted back to the Lincoln volumes with her held closely to my chest, but the books were gone.

The Freeman volumes might also be a treasure trove of sources for "further reading" and citation cross-checking. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Found this at archive.org:
 • Lee, Robert (1915). Freeman, Douglas Southall (ed.). Lee's Dispatches. New York and London, G. P. Putnam's sons.
   See also: Lee's Dispatches -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Let it not be said that Fremman's Washington biography is not the most thorough of them all. Freeman doesn't start out with Washington's youth, parents and grandparents, but goes back to the 1600's and thoroughly covers colonization of the "Great Neck", the area between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers, that there was no population to speak of there until 1640 and thereafter. Freeman maintains that to understand the environment that Washington grew up in, an understanding of the formation of his homeland and the families Washington came to know is in order. Freeman refers to, in his notes, sources I never knew existed. I'm sure you have similar sources but here are a couple, available for download, and searchable. Paging forward in a cursory view, there are many more to be had.

• Jones, Hugh (1865). The present state of Virginia. New York : Reprinted for Joseph Sabin.

• Beverley, Robert (1855). The history of Virginia in four parts. Richmond, J. W. Randolph.    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Great good leads and rich research for the Virginia history . . . you've inspired me to take a look at my shelved six volume set of Richard L. Morton, professor of history at W&M, "History of Virginia" (1924) published by the American Historical Society at Chicago and New York, republished in 1960 by the UNC Press at Chapel Hill at $6 a volume on line used . . . to my surprise I have found modern Virginian scholars taking paragraphs whole from Morton's work without attribution . . . scenes of John Smith in a canoe hiding in marshy reeds from native passers-by . . . I guess we need someone for Virginia history like a Stephen E. Ambrose crafting NYT bestsellers such as "Nothing Like It In the World", with whole chapters verbatim from riveting 1870s newspaper accounts of the building of the Transcontinental Railroad . . . all legit because the original passages are out of copyright . . . only it was just not "original scholarship" for use in an accredited degree-granting university. But surely popularizing important American history and making a fortune on the side is justifiable in the short run . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Coming across some interesting names reading Freeman. e.g.Thomas Lee, Robert Carter, John Mottrom, Lord Culpper, all early inhabitants of the "Great neck" who were doing all they could to secure land in their dealings with James II of England. Not wanting to spread myself out too thin, I'm almost tempted to create the article Great Neck of colonial Virginia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Might be something to collaborate on . . .

Early on, the Rappahannock Algonquin tribe with a capital at the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, as I understand it, were military allies of the Jamestown English, as they did not want to become tributary to Powhatan (Wahunsenacawh), who had so greatly increased his father's domain. (Algonquins entered the Tidewater Chesapeake region about 1400 (the Jamestowne placards asserting Algonquin ancestors had been in place for 1,000s of years refers to the "mound people" who were extinct by European discovery - by Algonquin right of conquest, no mound-people reservations set aside, only land mark geographical names which are not of the Algonquin language are left as a legacy), Powhatan's father had fewer than a dozen tributary tribes by about 1580.

At LVA, we have: "The Northern Neck, or "Fairfax Proprietary," consisted of 5,282,000 acres located between the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers. [Virginia's Royal Governor William Berkeley (see LVA page) was appointed by Charles I. Berkeley's first administration pushed the frontier west and developed real estate patents; he served from 1642 to 1652 when Virginia submitted to Parliament.] In 1649, King Charles II, then in exile [during Cromwell's Interregnum], gave this unsettled region to seven loyal supporters, including Lord Fairfax. [Berkeley was an acting governor elected by the General Assembly 1660, then duly appointed by Charles II 1661; he tried to diversify Virginia's economy until he was ousted by gentry opposition (tax base evaporated at Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars) and loss of support at Court (as Charles II replaced his father's courtiers), the proximate cause being Berkeley's mishandling or provoking, of Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 and its immediate aftermath.

"[Charles II ruled from the Restoration in 1660 to 1685 at his death.] By 1688 most of the region was owned by Thomas, Lord Culpeper. Lord Culpeper's daughter married Thomas, Lord Fairfax, in 1690 [at the dawn of colonial Virginia's planter "Golden Age", of which Lawrence Washington, then George Washington, was a part], and the region became synonymous with the Fairfax name." . . . and, as the Northern Neck land grant stretched to the north and west for hundreds of miles, it included territory now West Virginia, and touched on Virginia western colonial border disputes with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New France. -- Hence George Washington's interest that led him to "Fort Necessity" . . . etc., TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good gosh, I am so inclined to launch such an article. Your depth of knowledge only reminds that I am but a history buff. At this time I am commmited to the main Washington article and at times it feels like an uphill battle. If and when we decide to write a ' Colonial Great neck' article I would recommend we touch on ancient times briefly and concentrate on events in the latter 1600's that lead up to Washington's day. At times, Freeman is a difficult read when he expounds on, in great detail, all the land patents and persons involved, and such, during the 1600's, and the early 1700's. I now have Freeman's seven volume works, and starting at page one, I intend to read through to the final chapter. Along the way I hope to introduce facts not mentioned by the average one volume biographer. Got coffee? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Very good. I'm in. Slow-motion article evolution versus bursting into the heavens full-blown.

Maybe I can throw up a "stub" article "to see if it attracts any flies" . . . no, no . . . "to run the idea up the flag pole to see if anybody salutes" . . . . . . nah, "to test the waters" --- that's better. In my old age, I really appreciate the editorial flexibility that Wikipedia editor space allows for self-adjusting "re-dos", collegial amendments, and adversarial elaboration -- for the common good of the online encyclopedia article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A draft?

I've no inclination rushing into this full bore, I'm in my mid 60's myself. Yes, as you seem to realize, this topic is sort of a specialized one and likely will not attract a lot of readers right off. Linking it to and from other popular articles will of course increase the readership. The George Washington and Northern Neck articles would be good places to link to our prospective article. (e.g.In See also). Getting the article nominating for DYK of course will get it on the front page. Perhaps the way to start is with a draft of the lede. Freeman starts out with mention that the settlers didn't appear in the Great Neck in any appreciable numbers until 1640. Of course a general description of the area in question is also in order. The Northern Neck article already has a general history section but its coverage of the history is very general and broad, beginning with mention of Captain John Smith in 1607 and inclusive through the Civil War, while the section is filled with links of famous people and places from and in Virginia. The section is basically an outline. Our article would concentrate on colonial times from the mid 1500s up until the Revolution. Here is a crack at an opening lede statement:

The Great Neck of colonial Virginia, (also known as the Northern Neck) in Virginia consists of a peninsula approximately 150 miles long and bordered to the north by the Potomac River and to the south by the Rappahannock River, encompassing an area of approximately 5,000,000 acres. The first English settlers arrived there in the late 1500s and didn't begin to appear in any appreciable numbers until 1640.

Sources: Aside from Freeman, finding good sources for this specialized topic may or may not be easy. I don't quite know fully, yet. Here are some interesting ones:

• P.A. Bruce; W.G. Stanard, eds. (1893). The Virginia magazine of history and biography. Vol. 3. Richmond, Virginia Historical Society. — Notice the Table of Contents
• Here are some other potential sources
• I've set up a special sandbox and we can begin drafting the article, while using its Talk page to discuss matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• It would seem Washington might get his own subsection. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Very much better procedural approach. You are clearly better acquainted with Wikidom than am I. On my desktop computer "desktop" screen, I've set up a notebook "Wiki Projects" folder, with an entry for "User:Gwillhickers/Great Neck of colonial Virginia". With any luck, I will be able to accumulate contributions without losing anything among the various electronic cubby holes before I post . . . a problem in the past . . .

I also sort of take an interest (pride ?) in the idea of laying the foundation for an historical article on selected pre-21st century historiography -- well researched, ethically written -- the "good" history from earlier scholars in Pauline Maier's meaning.

And then elaborating the foundational work with contributions integrated from modern innovations in historiography, introducing historical scholarship informed by archeology, anthropology, sociology, political science (cliometrics), and psychology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Maier

The "Pauline Maier" article is one of my earlier efforts on Wikipedia from some years back -- I can't get it promoted from C-class due to unsubstantiated opposition claims that the article is "hagiography". [And, no, I have not exhausted the Wikipedia stages of protest and appeal.]

I'm sincerely, in wp:good faith, not sure I understand why the article cannot be promoted in article class. -- Must there be explicit or indirect ethical slurs, or some other sourced form of character assassination in order to meet the wp:neutral criteria for a Wikipedia B-class wp:biography? In each book, Pauline Maier explains her methodology along with its inherent bias in the Forward to caution the reader, along with alternative scholars to consult. Throughout her fifty-year career, she did deliberately choose an alternative writing style apart from and other than, the current "new" historians' fashion to write in an author's voice that explicitly makes inevitable biases into a page-by-page advocacy manual, and then arbitrarily have applied an LOC number E151-E839 for United States history.

I do not see the point of demoting a historian's biography just because she admits a desire to write narrative from the historical characters' point of view, accounting for events in the context of the time -- including the voices of different social classes, ethnic identities, economic interests, various religious viewpoints, abolitionist and slaveholder, as well as integrating past and present American-, and English-, then later, French-, and Spanish-national source contributions -- as she expanded the professional chronological extent of the "American Revolutionary Era" from 1776-1883, outwards towards 1750-1800. A professional feat I believe makes her wp:notable in its own right. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Maier had quite a career. I don't understand why the article is not considered an article. As for claims of "Haigography", I've refuted claims like this from time to time on the Washington and Jefferson pages. To some individuals "hagiography" is something that occurs when you cover too many of the subjects good points, simple facts, and if there are not enough not so good points to be found this is supposed to automatically amount to some sort of "hagiography". There's nothing at issue really when a subject's accomplishments, deeds etc, are covered so long as they are not embellished or exaggerated. e.g.The 'glorious' Washington, 'courageously' marched into battle and came through triumphant and was 'eternally loved' by his countrymen for his 'monumental' victory. — As compared to — Washington marched into battle and won, and was praised for by his countrymen for his effort. — This is the basic way to refute any such claims of "hagiography".
Writing a historical novel from the subject's point of view is fine, so long as this is mentioned and nothing important is intentionally left out or understated, as I'm sure you know. Also, there's nothing that establishes the idea that writing from a subject's point of view automatically amounts to a less than accurate and honest account. In fact, using a subject's POV may well prove to be more accurate, esp since it can keep any anachronistic elements in check. Too often I have found that claims of "hagiography", "neutrality", etc, are nothing more than the product of modern day Presentism and naivety. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

As a sort of sidebar to the Wikipedia hobby, I'm also trying to learn how to flesh out two volumes on Virginia Constitutional Conventions. I've now have written and "workshopped" chapters at a local writer's project non-profit, two years before writing up summaries for the Wikipedia articles.

Narrative chapters of debate are written for the conventions of 1776, 1788, 1830, 1850, 1861-Richmond, 1861-Wheeling, 1868, and 1902. In these I think I have drafts comparable to the published work of Robert Sutton Revolution to Secession: Constitution making in the Old Dominion (1989), Gutzman Virginia's American Revolution: from Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840 (2007), and William Freehling and Craig Simpson Showdown in Virginia: The 1861 Convention and the Fate of the Union (2010)-- an edited excerpt of the Journals and Papers of the Virginia State Convention of 1861. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1966,

-- the last is a compilation of journal excerpts made into chapters with short introductions for context and plot outline . . . generally for my chapters, I have followed the reliable sources of scholarship relative to importance, emphasis, and consequence as relayed in these authors' annotated bibliographies, --- as well as related academic publications in political history and politics, and other authors who show how each convention ties into Virginia's legal history and the state's subsequent jurisprudence.

But I mean to do better. I'm taking seminars at the writer's center with practicums in "creating a character web", "plot as a journey", "crucial central conflict", and "settings" . . . in an effort to gain the tools to link and explore the well-known background that was left unspoken by floor-leader delegates and in principle speeches with each other on the convention floor issues publicly laid out for all interested parties in a) partisan newspapers, local, state and national, b) religious affiliation newspapers and magazines, c) industry newspapers and magazines associated with the delegate home district's top 3-5 census of industry and census of agriculture, as well as any private correspondence or subsequently published accounts I can find. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Great Neck of colonial Virginia, draft

I'm assuming your "Wiki Projects" folder is resident on your computer and not here at WP. In any case, for purposes of discussing sources, article structure, and adding simple statements/ideas for consideration, I've set up a Talk page on the flip side of the draft article. Also, at this stage we can add simple statements of fact in the draft article, as I've done here, and as time goes by we can assimilate them into a narrative. Feel free to edit as you please in the article and of course on its Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for the links. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Capt John Smith

These dated publications offer some interesting coverage of Smith's exploits on and about the Potomac.

• Simms, William Gilmore (1846). The life of Captain John Smith, the founder of Virginia. New York, G.F. Cooledge.
• Jenks, Tudor (1904). Captain John Smith. New York, The Century co.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I never realized that Smith was something of an accomplished author, and had written extensively about his explorations in Virginia. I just stumbled upon these two publications of his works (below) earlier today. As primary sources I'm hoping they will be of use in the (draft) article.

• Smith, John (1910). Arber, Edward (ed.). Travels and works of Captain John Smith, Vol I. Edinburgh J. Grant. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help)
• Smith, John (1910). Arber, Edward (ed.). Travels and works of Captain John Smith, Vol II. Edinburgh J. Grant. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editorlink= ignored (|editor-link= suggested) (help)

-- Edited by Edward Arber, published two years before his death, they're available for download and are searchable. Smith's spelling, or more accurately, use of the alphabet, is interesting. He uses the letter 'I' in place of the 'J'.  e.g. 'Jamestown' is spelled 'Iames towne'.  'V' is used in place of the letter 'U'.  e.g. Once 'Vpon' a time. –– Gwillhickers (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Good work. You are a little ahead of me for now, but I will try to pick up a thread myself shortly . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Your edits on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 22

Please note that it is my right to use Chinese characters to register my user account, and all procedures are (or intended, if I really made mistakes on File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg) on English Wikipedia's speedy deletion procedure. Please refrain from making racist claims, such as calling others "(a)n ethnocentric Wikipedia user". I look for a resolution based on policies, but if the situation continues, proper dispute resolution would be requested, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no "situation", I take everything I see on WP by wp:good faith. Of course you can use any symbols you choose in any order, unless it conveys something untoward that is prohibited by the English Wikipedia. Please link the administrator's post that translated and approved the term -- "廣九直通車|廣九直通車" -- for use on the English Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting read

Not sure if you have access to JSTOR, but here is a very good source for Northern Neck colonial history and the Culpeper family { 1, 2 ) by Fairfax Harrison. Approximately 45 pages.

• Harrison, Fairfax (1925). The Propreitors of the Northern Neck, Chapters of Culpeper Geneology. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol XXXIII, No. 2 / JSTOR. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Great ! -- yes, I do, thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And another

• Green, Raleigh Travers (1900). Genealogical and historical notes on Culpeper County, Virginia. Culpeper Va. / Library of Congress; americana.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Cartmell, Thomas Kemp (1913). An historic sketch of the two Fairfax families in Virginia. New York, The Knickerbocker press.

New developments

In my search for sources and information for the Northern Neck of colonial Virginia draft article, I came across an interesting source: Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861, a book that chronicles the events which led to the "dismemberment" of the Old Dominion and the formation of West Virginia, which was actually in the works years before the Civil War, as you no doubt know. The author of this work, Charles Ambler, evidently was a preeminent historian on West Virginia's history, and native of this state. One thing led to another and I ended up creating the article, Charles Henry Ambler. Below are some of his notable works. If you get a chance, give the article a read. There's a selected list of his works in the article. I've listed a few below, available for download in PDF, and searchable. -- Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ambler, Charles Henry (1910). Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

• Ambler, Charles Henry (1913). Thomas Ritchie; a study in Virginia politics. Richmond, Va., Bell Book & Stationery Co.

• Ambler, Charles Henry (1918). The life and diary of John Floyd, governor of Virginia. Richmond, Richmond Press. — (Note: Ambler obtained Floyd's diary/manuscript from a former student and made extensive use of it in Floyd's biography.)

Thank you very much. Ritchie was huge as a newspaperman in the New Nation period, Floyd became an fire eater secessionist and Confederate general, and the Amblers have figured in Virginia Assembly and Convention history.

I am still very interested in our project. Funeral earlier this week, doctor's today, Sunday a writer's seminar on magazine submittal where I'm offering up a draft for "workshopping" from a manuscript chapter on the Virginia Ratification (Federal) Convention. My magazine proposal strips off chapter sections relating to context, setting and outcomes, to focus on relating the debate in modern idiomatic American English.

Both sides sought a governance for posterity that would increase numbers of Virginia residents with guarantees for their personal liberty and expression, security from attack and crime, and prosperity in enterprise and marketplace . . . James Madison among nationalist republicans (sidebar: seek to abolish primogeniture to effect the economy by breaking up big estates 'by nature' over time) ----- squares off against Patrick Henry among liberty patriots (sidebar: extend cultural protections to the established Anglican/Episcopal church) . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you have much on your plate already. Hope the funeral doesn't involve your immediate family. My condolences if it does. Currently I am still sorting out the Culpeper and Fairfax families and have somewhat of a handle on these very involved topics. Re: Charles Ambler – if you know of any other sources covering the Ambler's and Virginia Assembly and Convention history, they would be most welcomed. Hope all is well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:First Bull Run 2011 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources of interest

• Virginia magazine(s) of History and Biography

• Encyclopedia of Virginia biography

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Book

Recently created the article, Charles Henry Ambler, and searching for sources came across this book.

• Ambler, Charles henry (1910). Sectionalism in Virginia from 1776 to 1861. Chicago, The University of Chicago press.

Enjoy -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Good lead, thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

My article on the Confederate gov. in WV

Hello. I recently wrote and submitted an article on the history of the Confederate gov. in WV. I learned today that the reviewer rejected my article as not having "Sufficient content". I was very surprised by this. I was wondering if you would look at the article and give me your thoughts on it, if you have the time. You are one of the more active editors on Virginia history, so you will be very familiar with the subject. Just go to my Talk page at the bottom of the page and click on the title of the article. Thanks. Dubyavee (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my article. This is the first article I've made through this process, all the others I created directly without reference to comment. I will never do it this way again, I worked for months on this article and to have it arbitrarily dismissed like this is unsatisfactory. I titled the article "in West Virginia" because technically it was "of Virginia", but I see your point in retitling the article. I am not sure what to do, to submit for comment on the History of West Virginia, which seems very silly to me, or just create the article with the new title. Dubyavee (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that the arbitrary and capricious dismissal of your article has to do with some sort of administrator agenda to quiet American Civil War pages by guarding against perceived controversy among the "Lost Cause" crowd and others of a sectionally nostalgic and romantic interpretation of history rather than reliably sourced publications by the preponderance of scholars in the field.

For instance, I made a simple copyedit on the Confederate States of America page to substitute "readmitted to the US Congress" for existing "readmitted to the Union", inasmuch as there is no such thing as state "secession" from the Union as a matter of "settled" Constitutional law in the United States, so there is no “readmission” to it for the purposes of an English language encyclopedia in the 21st century.

The [User:BayouMagnolia] administrator simply removed the post without taking it to the discussion page, justifying her move with the unsupported assertion, "This controversial change of verbage (sic) will need to be opened for debate in an RfC on the talk page."

So, it seems to me that the most expeditious and non-contentious route to thread the needle among the agenda-driven powers that be, would be for you to submit to the proposed article to an RfC at the Talk Page for the History of West Virginia. Surely the regular contributors to that page will perceive the editorial appropriateness to treat West Virginia history of governments with the same interest as Wikipedia now exhibits for other American Civil War states with both US and CS Congressional representation: Missouri's stub, Virginia's C-class, and Kentucky's featured article as noted.

I now discover we might consider another to make five polities in both Congresses, with a Stub article comparable to Missouri's, extracted and elaborated from information found New Mexico Territory in the American Civil War, a B-class article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Harrison family of Virginia - Update

We've talked about this before and I wanted you to know it is a GA, and now of High importance on the Va. project. It's a bit of a challenge to get this type of subject promoted. In the process we have also enriched the content I think. Tell me, what are you working on? Your cousin, Hoppyh (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. I look forward to giving it some study.

I recommend an interesting colonial Virginia project on the Northern Neck afoot. I've not been able to make much contribution beyond brainstorming, but User:Gwillhickers has begun a draft article at User:Gwillhickers/Northern Neck of colonial Virginia.

For me personally, I’ve been enmeshed in my webpage, as it has been recently somehow hijacked, proliferated into five other US sites and sixteen international, so I found my domain name “suspended” on my browser . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers noted: “this topic is sort of a specialized one and likely will not attract a lot of readers right off. Linking it to and from other popular articles will of course increase the readership. The George Washington and Northern Neck articles would be good places to link to our prospective article. (e.g.In See also). 

”Freeman starts out with mention that the settlers didn't appear in the Great Neck in any appreciable numbers until 1640. Of course a general description of the area in question is also in order. The Northern Neck article already has a general history section but its coverage of the history is very general and broad, beginning with mention of Captain John Smith in 1607 and inclusive through the Civil War, while the section is filled with links of famous people and places from and in Virginia. The section is basically an outline. Our article would concentrate on colonial times from the mid 1500s up until the Revolution.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

11 books on colonial Northern Neck

@Gwillhickers and Hoppyh: As I run through some of my website titles related to the colonial Northern Neck in Virginia, I find

(1) William C. Wooldridge wrote Mapping Virginia: From the Age of Exploration to the Civil War in 2012 at University of Virginia Press. -- This atlas of 301 maps are owned by the Virginia Cartographical Society collected over forty years. It presents not only the charts of navigation and orienteering, but historically, the “idea of Virginia”. — The maps are generally organized by time period, such as John Smith’s Chesapeake, The Revolution in Virginia, and the Civil War. They are also regional presentations of the Big Bay and later, The Back Parts of Virginia.

(2) Sam White wrote A Cold Welcome: The Little Ice Age and Europe’s Encounter with North America in 2017 Harvard University Press. Reviewed in the William and Mary Quarterly. -- This environmental history synthesizes historical research, archeology and climate science. Following 1607 whether in Santa Fe, Quebec or Jamestown, the Europeans walked into a Little Ice Age in North America that hampered their acclimation and fostered violent encounters among the Native peoples as well as with the new comers.-- Under stress of colder temperatures, drought and increased hurricane activity, Natives faced an onset of scarcity with the Hurons driving Iroquoian-speaking tribes south out of the Saint Lawrence Valley, for instance. The maize dependent Algonquin-Powhatans adopted new political arrangements that were at once more hierarchical and centralized. The inherently violent process of European colonization was magnified when Native traders would not exchange sufficient foodstuffs in trade to supply colonist needs. The extreme weather and its scarcities worsened Native conditions related to conflict, disease and famine of the period.

(3) Martin D. Gallivan wrote The Powhatan Landscape: An Archaeological History of the Algonquian Chesapeake in 2016 at University Press of Florida. -- Powhatan the chieftan appears in the next-to-last chapter. This book is about tying the pre-colonial past and the immigration of the Algonquin Powhatans into the Chesapeake region (Tsenacomacoh) to the onset of the Euro-American world. Early beginnings around 500 B.C.E. brought lasting place names chosen from the vantage of a canoe, the forager-fishers of the coastal estuary system occupied a “waterscape”. — Algonquin speakers migrated into the region about 200 C.E., bringing a reorientation of Native American culture toward the estuaries and an expanded agriculture. Those of the Chickahominy River Basin never fully became a part of the Powhatans who developed a paramount chieftain style of colonial rule over many adjacent tribes. -- Chief “Powhatan” (Wahunsenacawh) at the end of the 1500s moved the Powhatan capital to the sacred site of Werowocomoco. When the English arrived at Jamestown in 1607, he sought to incorporate the English into his trading polity as he had with others previously.

(4) Stephen R. Potter wrote Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley in 1993 at University of Virginia Press. -- The Algonquins settling in the Northern Neck of Virginia along the Potomac River about 200 C.E. were called Chicacoans. They lived in modern Northumberland County between the Piscataway (Conoy) paramount chiefdom centered at modern Washington DC, and the expanding Powhatan paramount chiefdom centered in the Lower Peninsula on the James River. Potter describes the pre-contact Potomac River Valley of Late Woodland Native American culture, and then turns to integrate it with an account of the rise of complex societies. Intimidation, warfare and tribute to paramount chiefs were important elements to building more complex societies after 1500. — The narrative of pre-contact environment, technologies and social framework is followed by an explanation of the complex interactions occurring between native and European cultures following 1607 contact. The earlier developments among pre-contact groups set the expectations for the natives about how to relate to the newcomers from across the Atlantic.

(5) James D. Rice wrote Nature and History in the Potomac Country: From Hunter-Gatherers to the Age of Jefferson in 2009 at Johns Hopkins University Press. Rice studies both Native American and European economies, land use patterns and conceptions of the natural world. The narrative encompasses geological time, sociopolitical and economic developments, and historic moments for both natives and European settlers. With the introduction of agriculture, natives moved upland from the tidewater towards better soils. — The “Little Ice Age” in the 1500s to 1700s found themselves in a middle zone between the Iroquois hunters to the north and Cherokee farmers to the south. Complex and ever-changing alliances and conflicts developed not only among native groups but then on their arrival, among various European groups of Catholic, Puritan and Anglican, among Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. — Not until the 1700s did Europeans attempt substantial settlement above the Fall Line into the Piedmont, when Virginia and Maryland encouraged the non-English Swiss, Germans and Scots to settle as a frontier buffer against Indian attacks.

(6) Helen C. Rountree and E. Randolph Turner III wrote Before and After Jamestown: Virginia’s Powhatans and Their Predecessors in 2002 at University Press of Florida. — Anthropologist Helen C. Rountree and archaeologist E. Randolph Turner III collaborated in writing a general history of Virginia’s Powhatan Indians from 900 C.E. to the late twentieth century. Their habitat centered on an area one hundred miles-square, south of the Potomac River and east of modern I-95 to the Atlantic Ocean. Their cultural history is described in their housing, furnishings, dress, diet, occupations, warfare and religion. — The history of the tribe’s conquest by the English and its population decline from 25,000 to modern 1,500 enrolled members is a poignant one. Early English diplomatic contacts with great politeness were misconstrued as agreement, and subsequent Indian attacks took the English by surprise. — Following their conquest, the Powhatan in the 19th and 20th century struggled against racism and in the late 20th century they were determined to achieve official tribal recognition. 

(7) Colin G. Calloway wrote White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal Peoples and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America in 2008 at Oxford University Press. -- Scots Highlanders and Amerindians of the 1600s were both tribal peoples living on the edge of cosmopolitan European empire. As Highlanders moved in large numbers into North America, voluntarily and in forced removals following their defeat in total war, they found themselves and English Amerindian allies fighting on the same side, making exchanges in northern fur and southern deer trade, and intermarrying creating multigenerational “Gaelinds” spanning cultures. — The two tribal peoples could also come into conflict, especially as the Highlanders displaced from ancestral lands sought to acquire holdings on the English colonial frontier that infringed on Native hunting grounds. Highlanders were seen as “natural warriors” and placed on the English frontier as a buffer to Amerindian war parties.

(8) Michael J. Puglisi edited Diversity and Accommodation: Essays on the Cultural Composition of the Virginia Frontier in 1997 at University of Tennessee Press. -- Non-English ethnics settling in the Valley of Virginia between the Potomac and the James Rivers and in southwestern Virginia’s Roanoke Valley and New River Valley, generally engaged in trade, lived as neighbors and learned to tolerate their differences in town life. — Local leaders were appointed to preserve and extend eastern Virginia hierarchies regardless of the gentry’s ethnicity. Initially ethnics protected their separate identities through religious practice, inheritance and marriage patterns. -- But Scots-Irish and the Germans in Virginia, especially compared to settlement in Pennsylvania or western Maryland, grew more dispersed and their ethnic ties became more tenuous by learning English and marrying across ethnic lines. — African American slaves were sometimes the first pioneers on the Indian frontier making clearings for farms and establishing trade with Native Americans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also of some general interest applicable generally to the time and place — (a) relative to trade, (b) relative to warfare, and (c) relative to Native-American migrations that were initiated apart from colonial Virginia that impacted colonial Virginia:

(9) Seth Mallios wrote The Deadly Politics of Giving: Exchange and Violence at Ajacan, Roanoke and Jamestown in 2006 at University of Alabama Press, on Kindle and online new in paperback. — This anthropological history of Algonquin, Spanish and English gift exchange in the early contact period of the Spanish Jesuits on the Roanoke River in North Carolina and the English in the Chesapeake region at Roanoke and Jamestown. Mallios attributes the violence on both sides as a consequence of unwitting violations of each other’s cultural norms. — To Algonquins, gifts to Europeans created an obligation for reciprocity and mutual allegiance. To Europeans, gifts were either taken as something-for-nothing tribute, or a commodities exchange related to acquiring impersonal wealth. When Europeans traded with other tribes than themselves, the aggrieved tribe would withhold food or strike in retribution. When Natives sought “forced reciprocity” by stealing tools or weapons, the Europeans would strike.

(10) John Grenier wrote The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607-1814 in 2005 at Cambridge University Press. — This book is a military history that surveys the development of war making by Americans from Jamestown to the War of 1812. Two principle elements are considered, first the development of unlimited war, and second the routine use of irregular warfare. Over time attacks on non-combatants, villages and agricultural resources were accepted, then legitimized and finally encouraged. — The first hundred years developed the use of scalp bounties and ranger units in the English colonial defeat of several powerful eastern tribes. By the mid 1700s Seven Years’ War, British imperial policy integrated irregular warfare and unlimited war. The Americans continued the tradition on its frontier during the Revolution as did the British. The unlimited warfare continued in the American frontier wars in the Ohio Valley, Great Lakes and southern Appalachian Plateau.

(11) Cynthia Van Zandt wrote Brothers Among Nations: The Pursuit of Intercultural Alliances in Early America, 1580-1660 in 2008 at Oxford University Press. — Intercultural alliances were forged by English settlers in the first half of the 17th century from the Chesapeake to New England. During early stages when colonists were especially dependent on Indian aid, native priorities disproportionately shaped alliances between settlers among Europeans, among Indians and among Africans. The Susquehannocks in particular were allied with the Huron and in establishing trade with French, Dutch, Swedes and English, systematically sought allies against their Iroquois enemies. — Far-flung events were connected due to inter-colonial communications. Indian conflict in one arena could effect the fundamental attitudes and approaches of colonists to their neighbors in another. On the other hand, Susquehannocks influenced conflicts surrounding Virginia and Maryland’s Kent Island, New Netherland’s Peach War, the fall of New Sweden and Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia. — Isaac Allerton, the son of a trader in New Netherlands relocated to Virginia to expand the family business participated in the initial assaults on the Susquehannocks that precipitated Bacon’s Rebellion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC) 

TVH, thanks for your extensive research. As usual, I'm impressed with such resourcefulness. I'm more or less committed in other areas presently but hope to get back to the 'Great Neck' saga soon. In the mean time, esp since your knowledge is more extensive than mine in this area, I hope to see you put these sources to the task of expanding on the history of George Washington as it concerns the Great Neck of Virginia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers: as I say, I am enmeshed with the immediate problems related to the webpage.

But I want to reiterate my sincere admiration and support for your dedication and endurance in editing George Washington - - - both for your contributions and for your additional hard-fought efforts to "thread the needle" among various historical interpretations in "moving the peanut forward" [the circus elephant parade trick] there, towards its eventual Featured Article status.

I do follow "George Washington" edits whenever I return to Wikipedia, and I mean to support your efforts and make occasional contributions as I see the opportunity . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

William S. Hillyer

Aye, TVH. How goes it these days? Haven't 'seen' much of you around lately. Hope all is well. I've a question. I just created the article William S. Hillyer, who was Grant's last surviving staff member, present at Shiloh and Vicksburg, and later served as a Treasury agent under Grant when he was president. When Hillyer first joined the army as a private he participated in the capture of Fort Johnson, presumably in Virginia. My google searches have left me wondering where this camp was. There was a Union camp on the shore of Lake Erie, but this was a Union fort/camp, so of course this couldn't have been the camp captured by Union forces. Do you know of any Confederate camps, or forts, named after a Johnson' during the Civil War? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

HA ! it took a couple of hours, but here's the upshot: In the write-up for UVA's "Hillyer Papers" in its collection, we are misled with a "Fort Johnson" reference [There is a Fort Edward Johnson built by Confederates in April 19, 1862 nearby McDowell, Augusta County, in Virginia just over the mountain from Charlottesville that the UVA librarian describing the collection may have known.]

At the National Park Service write up on the Shiloh National Military Park, October 18, 2015, The General’s Staff, Grant and Capt. William S. Hillyer, there's lots of juicy inside narrative on Hillyer’s drinking, Hillyer's tiff with Gen. Lew Wallace, Grant’s alleged drinking, . . . “[Hillyer] served as city attorney for New Albany and in the Indiana House of Representatives before moving to St. Louis in 1855.” . . . “When the Civil War broke out Hillyer joined a company of Union men commanded by Francis Preston Blair, Jr., who participated in the capture of the Confederate sympathizing state guard at Camp Jackson on May 10, 1861.” (Frank Blair was brother to Lincoln's cabinet Postmaster Montgomery Blair of Maryland, himself a former Attorney General in St. Louis, and on his remarriage and move to Maryland, subsequently defense counsel for Dred Scott in his appeal to the Supreme Court.)

EXCEPT, it was Lyon who commanded the Union troops assaulting secessionists at Camp Jackson outside of St. Louis to prevent them taking the largest Missouri armory located in the city (they had just taken the federal armory at Liberty, Missouri). At Wikipedia’s Camp Jackson affair, The “Jackson” in Camp Jackson is the secessionist Missouri governor in 1861. Blair is described as a Republican leader and former US Representative from St. Louis. While the Missouri General Assembly all but secedes, Blair with authority from Lincoln, appoints Lyon to lead Unionist forces in Missouri. Later Frank Blair is a Union division commander by the Vicksburg campaign, and one of Sherman’s Corps commanders taking Atlanta.

At Find a Grave “William Silliman Hillyer”, we have “A pre-Civil War lawyer, he was practicing law in St. Louis, Missouri, where he became known to Ulysses S. Grant. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he was part of a force that captured the secessionist Camp Jackson on May 10, 1861. - - After that incident he moved to New York City, New York to establish a law practice, but was drawn into the war when he was tapped by Grant, who had been commissioned as a Brigadier General of Volunteers, to be part of his staff.

"Commissioned as a Captain of Volunteers on September 8, 1861, he served as an aide-de-camp to General Grant through the campaigns of February to April, 1862 that resulted in the capture of Island No. 10 and Fort Donelson, and the Battle of Shiloh. Promoted to Colonel of Volunteers on May 3, 1862, on June 24th he was assigned as the Provost Marshal General of the Department of the Tennessee. In May 1863 he resigned during the early stages of the Vicksburg Campaign, because his health had been damaged from his exertions in the field. On March 13, 1865 he was brevetted Brigadier General, US Volunteers for "gallant and meritorious services during the war", a reward for faithful work on General Grant's staff. When General Grant was elected as President of the United States, he appointed General Hillyer as a United States Internal Revenue agent. General Hillyer died in Washington, DC in 1874, and was the last surviving member of Ulysses S. Grant original military staff.”

Also, though a lesser source, there is additional detail to follow up on at Find a Grave, “William Silliman Hillyer”. It also corraborates that Hillyer was “A pre-Civil War lawyer, he was practicing law in St. Louis, Missouri, where he became known to Ulysses S. Grant. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he was part of a force that captured the secessionist Camp Jackson on May 10, 1861.”

Hope that gives you some leads to flesh out the article . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

TVH, Thanks for your prompt reply. Yes, the Hillyer Papers is one of the sources used in the article. I don't think Fort Edward Johnson is the camp referred to in the Hillyer papers, as this camp was built in April 1862 -- the one referred to in the Hillyer papers web site says this camp was captured in May of 1861. There is a discrepancy about the name of the camp or fort. Find a Grave refers to it as Camp Jackson, while the Hillyer papers site refers to it as Camp Johnson. I have a feeling that Camp Jackson affair is the incident being referred to by Hillyer papers site.   Here's another source, by Spencer Tucker, describing the event as to of occurred on May 10, 1861, which is at least consistent with the date at the Hillyer papers site. Before I add anything else to the article on this particular topic I'm going to continue digging. Anything else you can come up with would be most appreciated -- and of course, anything at all you can add to the article would be welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Been working on some articles. Peter Force, Charles B. Norton, (just created) archivists, and Fitz John Porter who was court-marshaled after the Union defeat at Second Battle of Bull Run, in Virginia, as you know. Unearthed some old and revealing sources and have added them to the articles. In particular there's the, Appeal to the President of the United States for a re-examination of the proceedings of the general court martial in his case, by Grant and Porter, where Grant came to Porter's defense. Check 'em out? Virginia, almost as beautiful as upstate New York, rolling hills, Mountains to the north, multiple lakes, rivers and forests. Of course I speak with a Yankee bias. :-) Hope you are well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note: been trying to revive the website, fumble around on Facebook and work with SBA veterans outreach center for an LLC startup. Benefits have been extended back into Viet-vet era, so support is now available that was not there ten years ago at retirement from schools.

- Thanks for the leads . . .

- Also for more delightful rolling hills to mountains, I found Princeton NJ area to be spectacular. No wonder Woodrow Wilson relocated there, he was a Shenandoah Valley boy.

- Also, just for some social context and political framework: it came to mind recently that there is a monograph on Thomas Jefferson's Image of New England:Nationalism versus Sectionalism in the New Republic by Arthur Sherr at City University of New York. Jefferson admired New England:

1) he introduced 3-5 "magisterial districts" in every Virginia county, hoping that administrative districts apart from established Anglican parishes would structurally replicate New England townships throughout Virginia's elective politics and magisterial courts [now mostly used for uncontroversial school names, and in property surveys for land title transfers and realtor home sales],

2) following the War of 1812, Jefferson lobbied for expanding the electorate to all enrolled militia ~18-50, regardless of property or race,

(Virginia Civil War buffs will recall free black men in Virginia drafted from militia rolls into Confederate service, only to be turned away due to race; akin to the Louisiana rebel government refusing the service of the drilled and self-equipped units of free blacks whose fathers' regiments were victorious Indian fighters in Spanish, French and US campaigns . . . at a time of rebel undrilled units outfitted with broom sticks to learn drill . . . a regionally widespread, repeated, willful, deliberate choice of racist-slavery over "revolution" and independence, again, and again . . . regardless of any persistent Lost Cause mythology invoked nationally since 1880 . . . )

3) Jefferson sought public education for Virginia akin to New England's in his time, consulted Adams for additions to his library, and

4) he personally recruited Harvard professors for positions at "the university" of Virginia, his most beloved project in later years.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2013 I launched the article, Edmund Bacon (1785–1866), Jefferson's manager at Monticello. Bacon helped Jefferson outline the grounds on which the University of Virginia was built. Bacon was the one who witnessed various men leaving the quarters of Sally Hemings in the middle of the night over the years he was at Monticello. Btw, there's a book out by [David Barton, 2012, The Jefferson Lies], which exposes the Sally Hemings fiasco for all the conjecture and speculation it's based on, along with other myths aimed at Jefferson. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Important elements of the conversation. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

A great and well earned "Thank You!" for all your efforts over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War. It is well appreciated. Jersey John (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. I hope to return to the section-by-section copy edits today. I'm trying to keep all citations and their coding in tact, as changing them is beyond my technical ability. But I can try to remedy all the complex sentences rendered in the passive voice . . . and mitigate most of the out-of-balance emphasis on Boston-Harbor-from-Bunker's-Hill. While Massachusetts and Virginia were best-responders in meeting Congressional manpower and money requisitions--throughout the Revolution and at the war-end Congressional audit for 1776-1783 found in its Journal online at the Library of Congress. But each and every state made contributions to their common cause for American independence, and I mean for the article to reflect that verifiable historical fact.

On the other hand, the Great Siege of Gibraltar is an event for Spain's imperial purpose at the same time as the ARW, in accordance with its treaty with France among three-way mutual Great Power declarations of war during Britain's "Bourbon War". However, Gibraltar is not in the ARW by way of the French-US defensive treaty for the explicit Article II purpose of US independence with its sovereignty in North America.

But as it stands now, I am embarrassed for Wikipedia to attract any formal administrator attention to be drawn to the article before a once-through copy-edit is completed. Much to do, just walking through the existing convoluted phrasing bloc by bloc . . . BEFORE any RfC's to establish a collaborative consensus on various issues - - which I am confident that we can do, supported by the preponderance of reliable sources without any wp:fringe, wp:error, or wp:hoax. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing the archives

The Talk page cleanup looks good, however, it says at the top of each archive banner that an archive should not be edited. No big deal for me since you've only added things, but I'm hoping it's not going to cause any issues. Just thought I'd give you a head's-up just in case you didn't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine the inefficiency of one post per archive. My archiving Talk-page GOAL: is to make "Talk" accessible for all interested editors, without wading through an impenetrable "wall-of-words" with discussions of "done-deals". PROBLEM DEFINED: For nearly a month, only the same 3 editors are wiki-fencing in isolation. THE GOAL: Enable a wider editor participation at ARW Talk.

An "honest broker" does NOT obfuscate, the intent is a marketplace (of ideas) with 'perfect information publicly held by all parties in the exchange' (Adam Smith): (a) To highlight changes, there is a Talk-section of "Archive Notices" with each post's archive number for reference (at Gwillhickers suggestion); (b) All changes are also routinely available for review at the "View History" tab.

I did hesitate at first, but I discovered by trial and error that the ARCHIVE TEMPLATE ALLOWS for addition. Then, since the additions to be archived were to be NOT mechanically sequential by FIRST post-inactive at 90 days, but instead (a) sequential by INACTIVE-first post over 21 days; and (b) COMPLETED-first post-no comment proposed over 7 days.

The trim followed: a Talk page "Table of Contents" that fits on one computer screen, 32 TOC sections reduced to 15, with two on the chopping block. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

p.s. VICTORY report: On another matter, thank you for your help and encouragement to adopt standard Wikipedia style. I wrote my first standard footnote last night (after five years frustration, and four tries even with a-little-help-from-my-friends, but I finally did one). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

McCrady

Upon searching for the previously orphaned McCrady citation [91] it was found at archive.org — detailed accounts of the British attempt to take Charleston and Sullivan's Island. PDF, downloadable and searchable. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• McCrady, Edward (1901). The history of South Carolina in the Revolution, 1775-1780. New York, The Macmillan Company; London, Macmillan & Co., ltd.
• McCrady, Edward (1902). The history of South Carolina in the Revolution, 1780-1783. New York, The Macmillan Company; London, Macmillan & Co., ltd.

Good work. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ARW info box

The changes you've proposed for the info-box seem fine, but I'd recommend that you'd just make the changes, with a brief summary in ARW Talk, and if there are any vialble, or other, objections they will present themselves. I fear that too much in depth explanations/outline will only tend to make other editors avoid the Talk. We already have a clear consensus to focus on the actual war for independence. You have to remember, you're the doctor, the rest of us are just history buffs. :-) Most respectfully, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the Talk page cautionary.

I think I may have become a little gun-shy, overcautious, defensive, at XGs earlier sweeping deletion at a single stroke, taking away three-days of work invested in four edits.

I can keep the accounting to myself on a Word document in my desktop ARW folder in the future. Thanks for your support and encouragement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

You may want to chime in on this discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

For your library

• Baugh, Daniel A. (March 1998). "Withdrawing from Europe: Anglo-French Maritime Geopolitics, 1750-1800". The International History Review. 20 (1). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 1–32. JSTOR 40107934.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations and sources

Here is a simple 'crash-course' on how to employ the citation convention used in the ARW article using your last citation/source entry as an example. To link the below 'cite book' source listing to a citation simply add the |ref= parameter in the cite book template using the same labels (in bold):

* {{cite book |last=Mays |first=Terry M. |title=Historical Dictionary of the American Revolution |authorlink= |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |year=2016 |isbn=978-1-5381-1972-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e35_DwAAQBAJ |ref=mays2019}}

<ref>[[#mays2019|Mays, 2019]], p. 3</ref> (Notice the pipe.)

To use the same citation more than once, first define the citation (example below outlined in bold) when this citation is used in the first instance:

<ref name=mays3>[[#mays2019|Mays, 2019]], p. 3</ref> (Notice the pipe.)

To use this same citation a 2nd, 3rd ... time, simply place   <ref name=mays3/>   at the end of the statement to be cited, but include a forward slash before the closing bracket. Don't forget to place the pipes ( | ) in the right places. It looks sort of tacky at first, but upon review you'll see that it's simple, if you haven't already.  Fun times! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Spanish Treaty Passage

TVH, one of the passages you recently left in the ARW discussion really hits the nail on the head:

"But, in March 1783 SPAIN recognized US independence in Paris by treaty four months after George III announced for American colony independence in a public joint session of Parliament, WITHOUT WAITING for a British peace with France and Spain, but BEFORE an end to the Spanish artillery barrages on Gibraltar. Interestingly, that was one month before the rebel/independence Congress in April 1783, formally accepted British terms that met the US peace aims."

These facts indeed put's the Gibraltar campaign in its proper perspective. However, I can't seem to find the source this was derived from. With a source listing we should be able to close out the ARW discussion for good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Here it is, also posted at the last update of Talk: ARW peace TIMELINE, making ten items.

Spain's recognition of US in their conclusive treaty: March 17,1783. "This Treaty can be directed to four objects: one to recognize the independence, and this is not needed by them, nor is there any objection from the King to admit a Minister of Congress and send another ... With these the greatest recognition is made that is possible from a sovereign state." - See the last page in (Google Translate) for the citation, last = Hernandez Franco, first = Juan. 1992, "El gobierno español ante la independencia de los Estados Unidos. Gestión de Floridablanca (1777-1783)" (PDF). Anales de Historia Contemporánea (in Spanish). Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. 8. ISSN 1989-5968.

- I used Google Translate, Spanish to English, for the treaty passage from the Enlightenment Spanish King Carlos III, that although the object of the treaty is Spanish recognition of US independence, "this is not needed by them" from Spain (this, after George III December 5, 1782 Speech from the Throne announcing for US independence to a public joint session of Parliament, or on the other hand, perhaps by Natural Right, I'd like to read the entire text of the treaty myself).

- My guess is that it is not currently found in the State Department's online treaty archive because the US archival copy of it was probably lost in the August 1814 fires at the British raid in Washington DC (Dolly Madison saved Washington's White House portrait, Congress sent original copies of the Declaration and the Constitution to Philadelphia for safe-keeping.) I have a friend in the press who is contacting the State Department to see if their online document record of US treaties with foreign nations can be updated to include the complete text of the Spanish-American "treaty of Paris - March 1783".

- It would be fun if I could find a copy online, perhaps in Spanish and then use the Wikipedia translator to place the English version above it, and that could be added to the Wikipedia Archive. The source is given in a footnote in a related Wikipedia article I scanned, that I then confirmed for myself online . . . in the bio on Floridablanca ? . . . if there were an EASY way to track down the contributor of the article footnote, asking that editor at their Talk page might be a way to get a hold of the entire treaty text the fastest . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm just getting an "invalid identifier" result. I'm hoping we can source the individual dates and such by other means. Esp in regards to King George recognizing US independence four months before the T.O.P. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

checking ... checking ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I tracked the document down again, the connection is the Spanish Minister signing the Anglo-Spanish Peace of Versailles on September 15, 1783, was ALSO the Spanish minister signing the Spanish-American treaty in Paris on March 17, 1783: ARANDA at wp:Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, 10th Count of Aranda. Sorry, I don't know how to directly link the passage, but wherever I stumbled over it the first time on Wikipedia, the first click worked . . . I just don't have the code right somehow.

SEARCH IN YOUR BROWSER for the topic sentence of the last paragraph: “Floridablanca, cuando vuelve a dar instrucciones a Aranda el 17 de marzo de 1783”. Click on the first result, and the PDF file automatically downloads to your browser. Click on the tab: “90481-Texto de….pdf” to view.

Last paragraph, p. 185,It reads: {tq"Floridablanca, cuando vuelve a dar instrucciones a Aranda el 17 de marzo de 1783, con el fin de firmar el Tratado con los Estados Unidos, reconoce tácitamente su independencia. Se da cuenta de la tardanza en otorgársela y propone el intercambio de embajadores: «Este Tratado puede encaminarse a cuatro objetos: uno el de reconocer la independencia y esto ni lo necesitan ellos, ni de parte del Rey hay reparo en admitir un Ministro del Congreso y enviar otro... Con estos se hace el mayor reconocimiento que es posible de un Estado Soberano»...}}

In English (Google Translate): "Floridablanca, when he returns to give instructions to Aranda on March 17, 1783, in order to sign the Treaty with the United States, it tacitly recognizes its independence. He realizes the delay in granting it and proposes the exchange of ambassadors: "This Treaty can be directed to four objects: one to recognize the independence, and this is not needed by them, nor is there any objection from the King to admit a Minister of Congress and send another ... With these the greatest recognition is made that is possible from a sovereign state."

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

George III Dec 5, 1782 Speech from the Throne

@Gwillhickers: CITATION: Frederick, George William. George III Speech from the Throne, Thursday 5 December 1782. - from the Pennsylvania Packet, Philadelphia 15 February 1783, received by sail in New York, February 9, 1783. Viewed online June 9, 2020.

"My Lords and Gentlemen: “Since the close of the last session, … I lost no time in giving the necessary orders to prohibit the further prosecution of offensive war upon the continent of North America. Adopting … whatever I collect to be the sense of my Parliament and my people, I have pointed all my views and measures, as well in Europe as in North America, to an entire and cordial reconciliation with those colonies.

Finding it indispensable to the attainment of this object, I did not hesitate to go the full length of the powers invested in me, and offer to declare them FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES, by an article to be inserted in the Treaty of Peace. Provisional articles are agreed upon, to take effect whenever the terms of peace shall be finally settled with the Court of France.

In thus admitting to the separation from the Crown of these kingdoms, I have sacrificed every consideration of my own, to the wishes and opinion of my people. I make it my humble and earnest prayer to Almighty God, that Great Britain may not feel the evils which might result from so great a dismemberment of the empire; and that America may be free from those calamities, which have formerly proved in the Mother Country, how essential Monarchy is to the enjoyment of constitutional liberty.

Religion, language, interest, affections may, and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two countries. To this end, neither attention nor disposition shall be wanting on my part."

The article continues on the next page, but it is not on the webpage screenshot. - posted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll leave it to you for getting this briefly summarized in the article, with further explanations on the talk page if need be. It seems Eastfarthingan and myself have come to an agreement of sorts. See my proposal on the ARW Talk page and let us know if there are any further issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted my basic agreement, qualification, and the suggested historiographic paradigm for Military Project articles related to Europeans fighting wars in North America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sad news

In accord with the recent effort to tear down statues of confederate figureheads in Virginia and elsewhere, a statute of Ulysess S. Grant, of all people, has recently been torn down in San Francisco. The Statue teardown section on the Grant Talk page, I'm assuming, should be of interest to you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: My personal preference is for a public affairs without "violence and tumult" in the streets, but rather public policy in each community by deliberative legislation under a rule of law in a democratic-republic. The Founders principle for good governance is "liberty without license" (Madison), or "rights and responsibilities" (Hamilton).

I am content to let each local jurisdiction of city-town-county determine the monumental statuary for its own public places. I do think that it may be time to relocate statues of the Great Rebellion from prominent public places to either (a) Confederate Cemeteries, (b) museum grounds, or (c) battlefield parks, as appropriate for each locality and state.

- It is of some wry irony that Northerners who are amazed at Southern remembrance of that "Late Unpleasantness" (great-grandmother), still celebrate General Sherman of the "Sherman's March Through Georgia", with a monumental statue in NYC Central Park to this day.

- I do now admire Sherman for his patriotism in ADAMANTLY REFUSING the "Presidency-on-a-platter". Recognizing the substantial sectional resistance to his assuming any national office, Sherman famously said, not once, but in two separate election cycles, "I am not a candidate for President". At the second time he elaborated with the famously quotable: "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected." That is now known in the popular mass-media press as a "Sherman-esque" declaration by a politician, a very, very rare thing indeed.

- BTW Sherman also was once a hero of Texas high school history books for his US Army service post-Civil War as a legendary Indian Wars fighter.

- And concerning your post about Grant, while there are those who damn all 19th-century slaveholders indiscriminately as immoral degenerates, we can remember Grant after his alcoholism-driven resignation from the Army, then as a failing young farmer in Missouri. He did free his one fellow-farm-laborer slave gifted by his father-in-law, RATHER THAN forestalling his personal bankruptcy by selling the laborer into perpetual slavery. Not only was it common practice among slaveholders, in Grant's case the sale would have covered his debts, unlike in Jefferson's case, for instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing the archives

The Talk page cleanup looks good, however, it says at the top of each archive banner that an archive should not be edited. No big deal for me since you've only added things, but I'm hoping it's not going to cause any issues. Just thought I'd give you a head's-up just in case you didn't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't imagine the inefficiency of one post per archive. My archiving Talk-page GOAL: is to make "Talk" accessible for all interested editors, without wading through an impenetrable "wall-of-words" with discussions of "done-deals". PROBLEM DEFINED: For nearly a month, only the same 3 editors are wiki-fencing in isolation. THE GOAL: Enable a wider editor participation at ARW Talk.

An "honest broker" does NOT obfuscate, the intent is a marketplace (of ideas) with 'perfect information publicly held by all parties in the exchange' (Adam Smith): (a) To highlight changes, there is a Talk-section of "Archive Notices" with each post's archive number for reference (at Gwillhickers suggestion); (b) All changes are also routinely available for review at the "View History" tab.

I did hesitate at first, but I discovered by trial and error that the ARCHIVE TEMPLATE ALLOWS for addition. Then, since the additions to be archived were to be NOT mechanically sequential by FIRST post-inactive at 90 days, but instead (a) sequential by INACTIVE-first post over 21 days; and (b) COMPLETED-first post-no comment proposed over 7 days.

The trim followed: a Talk page "Table of Contents" that fits on one computer screen, 32 TOC sections reduced to 15, with two on the chopping block. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

p.s. VICTORY report: On another matter, thank you for your help and encouragement to adopt standard Wikipedia style. I wrote my first standard footnote last night (after five years frustration, and four tries even with a-little-help-from-my-friends, but I finally did one). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again?

The info-box in the Battle of the Mona Passage article indicates that this battle, involving no American belligerents, was (also) part of the American Revolutionary War. I just left a message on that Talk page contending this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the collaborative nature of each Wikipedia article makes it impossible to determine an encyclopedia-wide standard, and then enforce it against a concerted effort by numerous sequential editors who are [spontaneously?] determined to undermine the efforts of a few concerned editors armed with wp:reliable source.

That is to say,In the case of the American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War, and the most important few among their related articles, the standard definition of a conflict between British subjects in North America for or against US independence can be maintained using RfCs.

Otherwise, its a case of wp:other stuff on Wikipedia.

Consider the official flags of the Confederacy (American Civil War) at Flags of the Confederate States of America.

The first two years (50%) of its existence, the "Stars and Bars" was its official flag of 9, 11, or 13 stars, .

The second 49.9% was the "Stainless Banner" or "Flag of Surrender" , with the square battle flag as a canton. But it was flown only from (1) the Richmond Capitol and (2) the Confederate White House in Richmond. RS from the University of Mississippi report that all other government buildings kept their first flag variant (as seen in July 1864 photos at Atlanta's surrender).

- The single exception was one day at Fort Sumter, when Union besiegers sent a flag of truce to inquire about the Confederate surrender. It was not used a second day. No other use of the flag is reported anywhere. It was a total failure as a flag. Its oblong rectangular shape caused it to hang limply against a flagpole; the banner as designed and adopted could not catch the wind to fly in it.

For the last 40 days of existence -- before Jefferson Davis reported in his published Memoir that the Confederacy "disappeared" -- partisans claim a "Blood-stained banner" , for contemporary Neo-Confederate cells opposing the legitimacy of the United States Government.

- This foreshortened flag was "adopted" by a rump session of the Senate-only without a quorum because most Confederate legislators had fled Richmond at the time. It was "never seen" according to the Confederate General who was author of the official Veterans of the Confederacy history.

- But besides a few of the most important articles, such as Confederate States of America and Congress of the Confederate States of America, the Neo-Confederate flag is found among all the biography articles, such as in the Robert E. Lee Infobox.

- At the 'Robert E. Lee' bio, repeated efforts ten years ago to restore the political "Stars and Bars" (now found on "Heritage not Hate" bumper stickers throughout the American South) were overturned by a sequence of editors with under three-years as an editor at Wikipedia, a different editor each time. When I tried to engage the Military Project to standardize the banner used across all CSA-related articles, the conclusion was that I should disengage for the sake of stability in the articles and quiet on the Talk pages, resigning myself to wp:other stuff.

- My opponents carried the day asserting a moral equivalence of "nationhood" between the flag of the USA and the flag of the CSA wp:balance. In this case in 1865 during the 38th United States Congress, (a) that of the CS Congress (i) in the Senate-only without a quorum, (ii) occupied states with full representation (KY, MO, AR, TN, LA), (iii) their pro-Jefferson Davis Senators & Representatives appointed by exiled governors or by regiment-in-camp voice-votes without civilians, (iv) without Opposition in either house (three such Representatives expelled);

- versus (b) that of the US Congress (i) with quorum majorities both Houses, (ii) Senators and Representatives only from states or districts voting over 50% of the 1860 election, and (iii) 20% Opposition Democrats in the Senate, 40% Opposition Democrats in the House.

Q.E.D. OTHER STUFF. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Mil Hist Project

I dropped in on the conversation with user Cvalin and left him a message about the ARW article and debate, per article stability, etc.

Btw, got any use for this?

This user is a member of
WikiProject Military history.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought the effort was worth the try, for the both of them.

And, yes, I think it's time I should 'hang out my shingle' at the Military history project, too. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Photolab

Photography reply|Montage for Revolutionary War (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)}}

Invitation to DRN Event

Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You are being invited to an event for dispute resolution concerning American inspiration and influence on the start of the French Revolution, as has occurred on the talk page, arranged at the direction of administrator Tenryuu. Best Wishes. 021120x (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 021120x (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War

I wanted to give it some time before explaining why I stepped out of this; and it is not intended to be a 'You should do it this way' explanation. (a) I recognise this is a sensitive article and one I'm not really interested in because I did it at university. I enjoy educating myself on areas I know of, but not in detail, so I specialise in 17th/18th century European history, with the occasional foray into things like the Quasi-War. (b) I condense to make the article shorter because its an online encyclopaedia; that means leaving out stuff that might be interesting but not essential to the general user. I think we have a difference of approach, and while I enjoy discussion, I don't enjoy conflict, so better not to stress myself and you by arguing about it. There are plenty of other articles to work on. (c) My observation (and please feel free to ignore it) is too much compromise can be unhelpful. I think the amount of energy spent on Belligerents is a case in point and the Wikipedia guidelines can help prevent that. But that's a personal view. To use an Oz expression, I didn't want you to think I'd 'thrown my toys out the pram'; it was a considered response. Good luck with the article. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kinder, gentler words. Though we still disagree on the specific point, your general point is well taken.

Though you meant the comment in a different context -- "too much compromise can be unhelpful" -- for me, the sentiment relates directly to my short-term strategy to dump so much controversial material into huge-kB chunks of article Notes. Most is related to narrative and sources of the "international perspective" of the American Revolutionary War. Another beast entirely apart from our discussion. --- But also to that point for editorial policy and 'blue-pencilling', some of the extended-Note practice is mea culpa, material that I think is really interesting and relevant, such as listing four or five important Whig-Opposition members of Parliament who are in the mix who were deeply influential among the Patriot "radical-Whigs".

IMHO, there is more at stake for the 6,000 visitors a day. It is important for especially the American readers to know that the "Founders" and "Forefathers" did not just "make up (liberty, rights) and (national independence, American experiment) all alone by themselves", with or without the Bible -- the Continental Congress were acting within a growing British intellectual tradition kick-started at the ascension of William and Mary. And so much of modern American political thought is derivative of British 1700s MPs and their contemporaries: Edmund Burke, Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, "on both sides of the aisle" in today's United States. But I digress. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ARW influence on the French Revolution

A dispute resolution is about to begin at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, at section, French Revolution discussion, over whether there should be a statement in the lede about the ARW influence leading up to the French Revolution. Outside opinions are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for taking the lead and for all your work on American Revolutionary War. I've stepped back from that project since there seem to be enough cooks in the kitchen, but it's obvious that you've expended a great deal of effort improving that article. Canute (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And, thank you for your encouragement and support. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)