TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/American Civil War history on stamps (talk · contribs)
TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/History of Virginia on stamps (talk · contribs)
TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/U.S.Territories on postage stamps (talk · contribs)
TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/U.S. trains on stamps (talk · contribs)
Name - Decl. & Const. ONLY | Prov./ State |
AoA (1774) | DoI (1776) | AoC (1777) | USC (1787) | SRCs ('88-'90) | US Govt BoR ('89-'90) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
John Adams | MA | Y | Yes | - | - | - | Vice Pres. |
Samuel Adams | MA | Y | Yes | Y | - | Y | - |
Abraham Baldwin | GA | - | - | - | Yes | - | House |
Josiah Bartlett | NH | - | Yes | Y | - | - | - |
Richard Bassett | DE | - | - | - | Yes | - | Senate |
Gunning Bedford Jr. | DE | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
John Blair | VA | - | - | - | Yes | Y | Supr. Ct. |
William Blount | NC | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
Carter Braxton | VA | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
David Brearley | NJ | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
Jacob Broom | DE | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
Pierce Butler | SC | - | - | - | Yes | - | Senate |
Charles Carroll | MD | - | Yes | - | - | - | Senate |
Daniel Carroll | MD | - | - | Y | Yes | Y | House |
Samuel Chase | MD | Y | Yes | - | - | N | - |
Abraham Clark | NJ | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
George Clymer | PA | - | Yes | - | Yes | - | House |
Francis Dana | MA | - | - | Y | - | Y | - |
Jonathan Dayton | NJ | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
John Dickinson | DE | - | Delegate | Y | Yes | - | - |
James Duane | NY | Y | - | Y | - | Y | - |
William Ellery | RI | - | Yes | Y | - | - | - |
William Few | GA | - | - | - | Yes | - | Senate |
Thomas Fitzsimons | PA | - | - | - | Yes | - | House |
William Floyd | NY | Y | Yes | - | - | - | House |
Benjamin Franklin | PA | - | Yes | - | Yes | - | - |
Elbridge Gerry | MA | - | Yes | Y | Delegate | N | House |
Nicholas Gilman | NH | - | - | - | Yes | - | House |
Nathaniel Gorham | MA | - | - | - | Yes | Y | - |
Button Gwinnett | GA | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Lyman Hall | GA | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Alexander Hamilton | NY | - | - | - | Yes | Y | Sec. Treas. |
John Hancock | MA | - | Yes | Y | - | Y | - |
Benjamin Harrison | VA | Y | Yes | - | - | N | - |
John Hart | NJ | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Joseph Hewes | NC | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Thomas Heyward Jr. | SC | - | Yes | Y | - | - | - |
William Hooper | NC | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Stephen Hopkins | RI | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Francis Hopkinson | NJ | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Samuel Huntington | CT | - | Yes | Y | - | Y | - |
Jared Ingersoll | PA | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
William Jackson | SC | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
Thomas Jefferson | VA | - | Yes | - | - | - | Sec. State |
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer | MD | - | - | - | Yes | Y | - |
William Samuel Johnson | CT | - | - | - | Yes | Y | - |
Rufus King | MA | - | - | - | Yes | Y | Senate-NY |
John Langdon | NH | - | - | - | Yes | Y | Senate |
Francis Lightfoot Lee | VA | - | Yes | Y | - | - | - |
Richard Henry Lee | VA | Y | Yes | Y | - | - | Senate |
Francis Lewis | NY | - | Yes | Y | - | - | - |
William Livingston | NJ | Y | - | - | Yes | Y | - |
Thomas Lynch Jr. | SC | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
James Madison | VA | - | - | - | Yes | Y | House |
James McHenry | MD | - | - | - | Yes | Y | - |
Thomas McKean | DE | Y | Yes | Y | - | Y | - |
style="text-align: left;" | Gouverneur Morris | NY | -[a] | - | Y | - | - | - |
PA | - | - | Yes | - | - | ||
Lewis Morris | NY | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Robert Morris | PA | - | Yes | Y | Yes | - | Senate |
John Morton | PA | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Thomas Nelson Jr. | VA | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
William Paca | MD | Y | Yes | - | - | Y | - |
Robert Treat Paine | MA | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
William Paterson | NJ | - | - | - | Yes | - | Senate |
John Penn | NC | - | Yes | Y | - | - | - |
Charles Pinckney | SC | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney | SC | - | - | - | Yes | Y | - |
George Read | DE | Y | Yes | - | Yes | - | Senate |
Caesar Rodney | DE | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
George Ross | PA | Y | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Benjamin Rush | PA | - | Yes | - | - | Y | - |
Edward Rutledge | SC | Y | Yes | - | - | Y | - |
John Rutledge | SC | Y | - | - | Yes | - | Supr. Ct. |
Roger Sherman | CT | Y | Yes | Y | Yes | Y | House |
James Smith | PA | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Richard Dobbs Spaight | NC | - | - | - | Yes | - | - |
Richard Stockton | NJ | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Thomas Stone | MD | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
George Taylor | PA | - | Yes | - | - | N | - |
Edward Telfair | GA | - | - | Yes | - | - | - |
Matthew Thornton | NH | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
George Walton | GA | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
George Washington | VA | Y | - | - | Yes | - | President |
William Whipple | NH | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
William Williams | CT | - | Yes | - | - | - | - |
Hugh Williamson | NC | - | - | - | Yes | - | House |
James Wilson | PA | - | Yes | - | Yes | Y | Supr. Ct. |
John Witherspoon | NJ | - | Yes | Y | - | - | - |
Oliver Wolcott | CT | - | Yes | Y | - | Y | - |
George Wythe | VA | - | Yes | - | Delegate | N | - |
preliminary discussion
|
---|
I wonder if editors could comment on how we describe the overall results. To me, colonial America was controlled by the British government, but had a great degree of internal self-government. While not a democracy, the colonial governments relied on local elites for support. They lost this however after the British parliament imposed "intolerable" legislation and sent colonial officials to impose imperial legislation. Many colonists, from all ranks of society, remained loyal to Britain and some 80,000 "loyalists" left the colonies after independence. The distinguished historian Gordon S. Wood saw colonial America as a stratified society that would change into an egalitarian society as a result of the revolution. Gwillhickers sees colonial America as a semi-feudal state with lords and ladies and personally controlled by the King of Great Britain. A class of colonial officials from England formed the upper class, but left following the ARW. I don't know how accepted Wood's view is, but I see no support for Gwillhickers' view in reliable sources. For the overall results section,[2] we need to distinguish the degree of support various views have. It reflects Gwillhickers' view and uses Wood as a source. I think that Wood's view is misinterpreted and is in any case a minority view. TFD (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
|
I propose, the following language, supported by RS footnotes, below. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
proposal discussion
|
---|
|
@TheVirginiaHistorian, this is a great idea. I fully support this. Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Britannica "American Revolution"
CODING FOR SECOND CITE BY SAME AUTHOR |authormask=2
SMALL SIGNATURE —TVH 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Space = orig-year=
FSU History PhD dissertation
Colonial Office Series: Great Britain, America and Canada
France 2,112[1]
By 1783, when fighting stopped, a total of 2,112 Frenchmen had lost their lives for the independence of the United States of America. Footnote #17. Dawson W. Les 2112 Franqais morts aux Etats-Unis de 1777 a 1783 en combattant pour I'independance americaine [The 2112 French soldiers who died in the United States from 1777 to 1783 in combat for American independence]. Extracted from Journal de la Societe des Americanistes. Nouvells Serie, t XXVIII, 1936, pp 1-154. Paris, France: Au Siege de la Societe; 1936.
((cite book))
: Check date values in: |archive-date=
(help); Unknown parameter |duplicate-quote=
ignored (help)Title | Scope | Project | Weighted total |
---|---|---|---|
American Revolutionary War for independence and republic Concord to Yorktown |
American Revolutionary War for independence and empire Concord to Gibraltar et al |
War of American Independence for independence and republic Concord to Yorktown |
War of American Independence for independence and empire Concord to Gibraltar et al |
British insurrection by Congress in North America | War on Britain by Congress = war on Britain by others | British insurrection by Congress in North America | War on Britain by Congress = war on Britain by others |
US History Military History History Project N.Am. Indigenous British Empire |
Military History | Military History History Project |
None |
5 | 2.5 | 1 | 0 |
|
The chart organizes a summary of the discussion.
A. Robinvp11 | B. ARW text | C. TheVirginiaHistorian |
---|---|---|
- Robin accusation here - Robin [ here] Robin here struck through by post - #1 - #2 - #3 - #4 - prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic |
modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow |
A. "American Revolutionary War” | B. "War of the American Revolution" |
---|---|
continuity - used at this WP article and sister articles for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic |
modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow |
Fulbright lectureships & visiting lecturer posts |
|
North-American conflict | Euro-great-power conflict |
---|---|
French and Indian War 1754-1763 pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by Native American allies. |
Seven Years' War 1756–1763 a global conflict, "a struggle for global primacy between Britain and France," which also had a major impact on the Spanish Empire |
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies in Congress against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation. |
War of the American Revolution[1] Bourbon War of 1778[2] 1778–1783 In 1778, the American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution [against Britain], expanding into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents. Most of the fighting outside of America was naval combat, among [Britain and France, Britain and Spain, Britain and the Dutch],[3] the last British-European war with the Bourbons as their enemies.[4] |
Citation ((refnote)) Bibliography
Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
RECONCILE THREE PROJECT RATINGS. American Revolutionary War is rated B-class, Top-importance at WikiProject American Revolutionary War; but Start-class at WikiProject Military History, demoted from C-class anonymously after a request for upgrade from C-class to B-class. Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team/ v0.5 rated the article C-class, Low-importance. The ARW page had an average daily pageview of 5,761 for the year-to-date 10/09/2019 last year, increased to 7,020 this year-to-date, with spikes July 4 at 31,000 and 66,000 respectively. The PAGE VIEW status shows the Start-class from a Project without an importance rating, NOT the B-class from seven projects rating it Top-, High- and Mid-importance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Although each of the two principal editors over the past eight months, TheVirginiaHistorian and Gwillhickers are qualified to rate the article B-status, we seek ‘another set of eyes’ to confirm our progress and suggest avenues of further improvement before applying for a ‘Good Article’ review among the nine WikiProjects following the article.
UNRESOLVED ARTICLE ISSUES: (1) Nature of the American War: At Military History Project, reviewer deprecated article for Infobox not restricting participants to “Belligerents” of nation-states declaring war, as at War of the Austrian Succession. Reviewer an others at that Project Talk would not entertain parallel between ARW and Spanish Civil War “combatants”. In the ARW, besides belligerents and co-belligerent nation-states with declarations of war, page editors argued to include additional combatants: American Indian tribes on both sides, American-side state militias, British-side “Hessians”.
replace picture (again, because this makes it seem as if George III was far more active than he actually was).
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.". But it does not necessarily follow that President John F. Kennedy was a nullity in the history of Anglo-American relations for using it in his Inaugural Address.
”George III did not conduct government or strategy”. This violates wp:reliable sourcing. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in George III: A Personal History.
King George III had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere. - Hibbert 2000, p. 160.– This source may be replaced with yet another using a reference that I have not yet inspected. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
North still hoped for victory in the South, [...]- without a source, without discussion at Talk. Robin persists in a POV about the end of the ARW, that it is somehow disconnected from and unrelated to the ruling Monarch of Britain, George III.
"Peace discussions were held in Paris, leading to the Treaty of Paris, ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence."
"Northabandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone." (Ferling 2007, p. 294)
(-) to be completed.
“despite limited battlefield success [SIC], the Continental Army showed it could not be destroyed“.
professional ability, but [only] the idea of an "army in being" central principle of asymmetric warfare [SIC].--- TVH here: What is your ARW source from an RS that suggests an “asymmetric warfare” in the fighting under discussion including those at Trenton, Monmouth, Saratoga, and Yorktown.
“The term is also frequently used to describe what is also called "irregular warfare"--- In contrast to asymmetrical warfare, the ARW was symmetrical: i.e. the Continental Army and the British Army in North America had "
comparable military power and resources [at the point of contact] and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution." --- QUERY: There is no RS cited in the article assessing the Continental Army as "irregular lawbreakers". So, the TVH ask of Robinvp11 is provide an alternative RS to support the Robinvp11 (to date) unsourced POV purporting to ascribe his “asymmetric warfare” characterization to Mays (2016). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
You mentioned how "O'Shaughnessy explains the actual powers of George III", but fell short of relating those powers to us here in Talk. Was Paine wrong when he said that the King had the "power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills"? Did O'Shaughnessy say outright that this was a false assertion? It would seem your impression that the writings of the founding fathers has been "put on a par with the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible", a straw man accusation, is really your own. Do you harbor the same opinion in regards to the various British writings? All that has been discussed is whether the King had any power. You still seem to think the King was only a figurehead puppet and that he was above any criticism in terms of any ARW involvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
George III micromanaging war Yes, if there are any statements that are deemed to be over-emphasizing the King's role, we need to see them outlined, here in Talk. Otherwise we'll forever be absorbed in another lengthy source debate, which would be uncalled for since the article only mentions the King briefly, esp in relation to Parliament. The debate is somewhat out of proportion to the amount of coverage our article lends to these entities.
Below are the five statements in the narrative, with citations, that cover King George in terms of the war effort and its aftermath. If there are any issues here they need to be addressed specifically.
If any of these statements are inaccurate or completely in error, we need to see the sources that supports that idea in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
discussion 30 Nov - 1 Dec
|
---|
While we don't have to know or explain the English constitution, we need to be precise when we attribute actions of its governments. We shouldn't say for example that George III enacted and repealed the Stamp Act when it was the imperial parliament. Or that he rejected the Olive Branch Petition if it was the cabinet. We wouldn't say today for example that Elizabeth II closed the Canadian border to the U.S., or took the UK out of the EU, or sent troops to Iraq. While George III exercised far more political influence than Elizabeth II, the view that he was an absolute monarch is a myth. TFD (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
|
@TheVirginiaHistorian, Eastfarthingan, XavierGreen, and Lord Cornwallis: — There seems to be some disagreement as to the actual role of King George III before and during the American Revolutionary War. On the one hand it is claimed that he was little more than a figure head, with no joint authority shared with the Parliament and only made speeches, appearances and so forth - on the other, that he had the authority to hold back various bills put forth by the Parliament, and this sort of thing. Currently there are several statements in this article that mention the king, outlined above. Any light that could be shed on the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
"weak George III"who was indeed (True part of half-truth alert ->) the 18th century monarch ruling constitutionally as King-Lords-Commons during the British “American war”.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk: Non-free content#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps
1. Should (a) out-of-circulation currency and (b) stamps issued for mass circulation as currency, be admitted as notable and their non-free images used in visually topical articles such as Federal Reserve note, United States five-dollar bill and Puerto Rico on stamps when accompanied with the applicable image templates?
2. Should NFCC#8 be amended to read, "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Publisher descriptions of currency and stamps issued for mass circulation as currency is sufficient for contextual significance when used along with applicable image templates.”?
Proponents noted that 11 of the top 25 articles with the most use of non-free images are currency articles. We already have two stamp articles on that same top 25 list. The USPS as a governmental agency may not be competent to copyright its stamps at all. Non-free use of USPS images should be allowed in visually topical articles when they are accompanied with the Template:Stamp rationale whenever a free use alternative to the stamp image does not exist of the USPS stamp itself. As it explains at WP:NFCI#3, currency and stamp images may be used for identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it. WP:NFC#UUI#9 justifies use of the stamp image if placed inline next to the commentary, because the stamp itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article. Just using prose does not replace the visual information found in the image. The Foundation allows exceptions to its non-free use policy at Foundation licensing policy. The informal exemption for currency is arbitrarily administered in the case of currency, and results in wholesale deletion of USPS images without discussion on stamp related pages. In the case of Puerto Rico on stamps, it results in removal of over half the US stamps issued about Puerto Rican personalities, places, events in American culture.
Opponents held that stamps are not the same as currency, currency can be informally permitted as non-free use images without formal exception because there are fewer notes. Out of circulation notes and coins may or may not be exempted in the future depending on administration of the NFCC by interested editors -- they are allowed without policy, they may be removed without policy. Contextual significance for stamps is found only by scholarly commentary of the art pictured on the stamps, not the stamps themselves, but currency is exempted. While mass circulated currency is informally exempted without policy justification, only images of stamps with printing errors achieve notoriety sufficient for inclusion at WP. These may be exempted, as well as stamps with out-of-copyright art pictured, and the USPS fine art series with USPS fine arts series descriptions of the stamp art. One or two USPS images can always be used in each stamp related article to suggest their existence since 1978. If exemptions are allowed for currency and stamps issued as currency, it will open the floodgates allowing every non-free use image everywhere throughout WP, violating the Foundation admonition to use few of them. 10:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I would ask why you are relying on an encyclopedia article written 60 years ago when we have an award winning book written five years ago by one of America's leading historians on the era. See Age matters. Also as I said above, there is tendency of some editors to confuse the person of the king with parliament or the cabinet because that is how laws and executive orders were phrased. When we say for example that Horseshoe Falls is crown property, it doesn't mean that Elizabeth II can sell it if she is running short on cash. TFD (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
INSERT - factual error alert: The article at Britannica’s George III was revised and updated 2006, and again in 2008. The Four Deuces year 2008 = 1960 is off-wp:balance, not to say POV dismissive of the gold-standard for scholarly reference of mainstream historiography in the English language. See discussion below at TVH bullet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
"RS scholarly [English-language] reference [for mainstream history]", Britannica at "George III", (b)
"prominent adherents"as sourced, linked, and directly quoted at ARW Talk, and by inline citations throughout the article.
overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only properly sourced representations of George III role in British military affairs by King-Lords-Commons in America 1775-1783, ended 15 April 1783 when Congress unanimously ratified the British King-Lords-Commons preliminary peace of November 1782, and proclaimed the "End of Hostilities" in the mutually ended Anglo-American war. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Whig history ..."over-read" the First Empire as liberal. That does not mean we purge all "Whig history" reference as wp:fringe because Greenwood assesses its substance as overly optimistic and teleological. --- The "liberal" of Greenwood’s "Whig history" entry is italicized to lead the reader to another entry, a convention applied throughout the work.
"by the end of the 21st century", and now as you post in 2020. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
That was George III opinion of himself, and what Parliament Whigs and Patriot Whigs said, but modern British RS in the present say that's not what British monarchs did [example a.] after 1792, or [example b.] after 1952.That is anachronism, bad history. Reference to Whig history is required in a knowledgeable discussion of the ARW, as your Greenwood source says,
"Liberalism"[and its progenitor 'Whig History' as you found, and collegially showed me]
is "a broad and historically enormously successful political philosophy championing, since c. 1750...", then follows Greenwood's list of the governing principles which are adopted by the Patriot Congress at the AWR. That is of interest in the discussion here: religious and political freedoms, free trade, and so forth, Whig history interpretations of what may be classified as significant developments in the political affairs of a nation. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
”Yes, he had more power than in modern day Britain, and a greater willingness to exert it - but he did not make policy. In the end, he did what his government wanted."Svejk74 here on 27 November:
"the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power […] He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited."
"Namier, writing in the early 20th century, demonstrated that most of the assumptions about party divisions made by 19th century historians were wrong […]"
”There is no [RS] claim that the British sovereign can withhold royal assent […] The cabinet has [in 1775-1783] the ability to provide royal assent if the king is unable or unwilling to do so […].”But then after a challenge in discussion, TFD admitted that the British Cabinet overrode George III only after the onset of his dementia, here on 3 December,
”the cabinet had the power to give royal assent to bills if the king failed in his obligation and in fact did so during George's illnesses.”The Regency Bill allowing immediate transfer of George III’s reign to his son was 1788, and he was incapacitated as an administrator of government by 1801, sourced here. Again, 1788 or 1801 does not relate to George III’s role in the ARW. To do so would be anachronistic, bad history.
TVH, certainly there are times when public officials fail or refuse to perform the tasks they are required by law and under their oaths of office to carry out. For example, Kim Davis, who was the elected county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses, which was required by law. We would not say she had the power to withhold assent to marriages. There were consequences for her and ultimately someone else issued the licenses. Also, in the event a king issues an illegal order, it is null and void as are illegal orders in the U.S.
I provided the example of the regency, not because it happened during the ARW, but it is one example of how parliament can assert its authority over a king who is not performing his duties. More severe measures that have been used by parliament or a cabinet with its confidence include forced abdication, replacement with another monarch and decapitation. TFD (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It would seem that the sources substantiate the idea that the King and Parliament both possessed a measure of authority in a checks and balance system of government. Indeed the colonists often addressed the King when they levied their grievances, and it would seem most readers half familiar with the ARW knew he was not the 'Lone Ranger' with in the British system of government. This debate was initiated over the statements involving the King, outlined above, so in the interest of getting through this discussion these statements, all well sourced by noted historians, need to be addressed directly, and any changes needed be made accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The Virginia History Banner | ||
For contributions to further Virginia history on Wikipedia at Thomas Jefferson, a Virginia Constitution Ratification stamp, picturing the Capitol Building of colonial Williamsburg. First the representative colonial House of Burgesses, then the state House of Delegates met in the east wing (right) from 1699 to 1780. Virginia's Ratification Convention met here in 1788. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) |
American frigates such as the USS Constitution, USS United States won some significant naval battles at sea, the USS Chesapeake, USS Hornet, USS Wasp (1810) (USS Wasp), and USS Essex took numerous British merchant and whaler prizes, and other US vessels won some strategic naval battles on the Great Lakes.
The "Political divisions” section should be copy edited to read as follows (maintaining existing links), removing excessive detail concerning state history belonging to another section and the territories belonging in the subsidiary article:
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, two insular commonwealths, the District of Columbia, three insular territories and various uninhabited island possessions.[1] The states compose the vast bulk of the U.S. land mass. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C. The United States also possesses five major overseas territories: Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands in the Caribbean; and American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific.[4] States and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress. The smallest states and the District of Columbia have three electors each.[7]
Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.[8]
The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native Nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.[9]
- ^ Clodfelter 2007, p.124
- ^ Mahan 1890, p. 507
- ^ Clodfelter 2007, p.124, 128
- ^ Mackesy 1993 [1964], Introduction
- ^ Ferling, 2007, p. 113
- ^ Map of the US EEZ omits US claimed Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo Bank which are disputed.
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, DC, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions.[1] The states and territories are the principal administrative districts in the country. These are divided into subdivisions of counties and independent cities. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C.[4] The 50 states and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress.[7]
Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.[8]
The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native American nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.[9]
The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, DC, five territories and eleven uninhabited island possessions.[1] The states and territories are the principal administrative districts in the country. These are divided into subdivisions of counties and independent cities. The District of Columbia is a federal district which contains the capital of the United States, Washington, D.C.[4] The states and the District of Columbia choose the President of the United States. Each state has presidential electors equal to the number of their Representatives and Senators in Congress, DC has three.[7]
Congressional Districts are reapportioned among the states following each decennial Census of Population. Each state then draws single member districts to conform with the census apportionment. The total number of Representatives is 435, and delegate Members of Congress represent the District of Columbia and the five major US territories.[8]
The United States also observes tribal sovereignty of the Native American nations. Though reservations are within state borders, the reservation is a sovereign entity. While the United States recognizes this sovereignty, other countries may not.[9]
File:Cd109 nationalColbert.jpg File:US states by date of statehood3.gif File:Bia-map-indian-reservations-usa.png
Leading presidential candidate 2012 by state blank.svg File:US map - states and capitals.png
US.EEZ Pacific centered NOAA map.png US Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ): states, territories and possessions in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [1]
In the Confederate States of America there is an extensive section on “Causes of secession”. That material might be combined with the extensive material on this current page for a new article “Causes of secession in the American Civil War” The section in this article might reduce the subsections to paragraphs, nineteen to six, with the narrative intact aligned with existing references, and reordered as follows.
Slavery. From the anti-slavery perspective, the issue was primarily about whether the system of slavery was an anachronistic evil that was incompatible with Republicanism in the United States. The strategy of the anti-slavery forces was containment — to stop the expansion and thus put slavery on a path to gradual extinction.[15] The slave-holding interests in the South denounced this strategy as infringing upon their Constitutional rights.[16] Slavery was illegal in the North. It was fading in the border states and in Southern cities, but was expanding in the highly profitable cotton districts of the South and Southwest.
Considering the relative weight given to causes of the Civil War by contemporary actors, historians such as Chandra Manning argue that both Union and Confederate fighting soldiers believed that slavery caused the Civil War. Union men mainly believed the war was to emancipate the slaves. Confederates fought to protect southern society, and slavery as an integral part of it.[43]
Sectionalism. Sectionalism refers to the different economies, social structure, customs and political values of the North and South.[48][49] It increased steadily between 1800 and 1860 as the North, which phased slavery out of existence, industrialized, urbanized and built prosperous farms, while the deep South concentrated on plantation agriculture based on slave labor, together with subsistence farming for the poor whites. In the 1840s and 50s, the issue of accepting slavery (in the guise of rejecting slave-owning bishops and missionaries) split the nation's largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches) into separate Northern and Southern denominations.[57]
Protectionism. Historically, southern slave-holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to sell cotton and purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Northern states, which had heavily invested in their still-nascent manufacturing, could not compete with the full-fledged industries of Europe in offering high prices for cotton imported from the South and low prices for manufactured exports in return. Thus, northern manufacturing interests supported tariffs and protectionism while southern planters demanded free trade.[59]
The Democrats in Congress, controlled by Southerners, wrote the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates so that the 1857 rates were the lowest since 1816. The Whigs and Republicans complained because they favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth, and Republicans called for an increase in tariffs in the 1860 election. The increases were finally enacted in 1861 after Southerners resigned their seats in Congress.[60][61]
States rights. The South argued that each state had the right to secede–leave the Union–at any time, that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Northerners (including President Buchanan) rejected that notion as opposed to the will of the Founding Fathers who said they were setting up a perpetual union.[46]
Footnotes. consensus arising from a mediation and ratified by an RfC [7].
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions.[fn 1][fn 2]
Legislation can vary in its enumeration of the scope of the “United States” in three ways as a) 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa Public Law 107-296.Definitions (16)(a) and as b) 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands and Guam 8 U.S. Code § 1101.Definitions (38), and as c) 50 states and DC 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9).
From Sunray's screen shot with some modifications. The RfC should be to more than the one one community of Politics, government and law, it should include editors from Geography community and the United States community. I'm not sure how to include Keithbob's proposal to limit mediator participant comments or replies.
Mediation update Requests for mediation/United States
United States District/Territory | Geographically, US national jurisdiction | US Citizens/Nationals | Estimated population | In Congress (Member of Congress) | Local self governance | US Constitution supreme law | US District Court | Presidential vote |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District of Columbia | Done | Done 1801 US citizenship | 658,000 | Done 1971: Norton | Done 1975 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC | Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment |
American Samoa | Done | Done 1904 US nationals | 57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population) | Done 1981; Amata | Done 1978 | Done Territorial Constitution | Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi | citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court |
Guam | Done | Done 1950 US citizenship | 159,000 | Done 1973; Bordallo | Done 1972 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU | while resident in a state |
Northern Mariana Islands | Done | Done 1986 US citizenship | 77,000 | Done 2009; Sablan | Done 1978 | Done Territorial Constitution | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP | while resident in a state |
Puerto Rico | Done | Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat) | 3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population) | Done 1901; Pierluisi | Done 1948 | Done Territorial Constitution | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR | while resident in a state |
US Virgin Islands | Done | Done 1927 US citizenship | 106,000 | Done 1973; Plaskett | Done 1970 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI | while resident in a state |
uninhabited possessions | Done | Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll | n/a | n/a | n/a | Done fundamental provisions | various | n/a |
Scope | USG sources | Scholars | USG sources | Scholars | Almanac | Encyclopedia |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US federal republic geographic extent | Pres. Proclamation [8], Pres. Exec Order [9], GAO (1997) [10], State Dept. Common Core [11], Homeland Act [12] | Tarr [13], Katz [14], Van Dyke [15] | FEMA [16], US Customs [17], Immigration serv. [18], Education [19], Soc. Sec. [20] | Sparrow [21], Haider-Markel [22], Fry [23] | Fact Book [24] | Britannica [25] |
50 states (18 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (1) | Done (1) |
50 states & DC (17 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (1) | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources) | Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland | Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US | Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law | Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system” | 1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | 5 USG sources omit possessions | 3 omit possessions | 1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
Mediation sources deliberation | The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law, proclamation and international reports.
The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction [26], US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee [27] |
---|
RfC: Do you agree with the following a) lead sentence and accompanying note for the United States article and b) for a note for the info box area. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes above and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States.
RfC box: An editor has requested comments from others for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government and law. Geography. United States.
Amended lede sentence in the introduction.
Infobox.
Please indicate whether you support oppose the above a) lede and note and b) info box area footnote. Comments and questions are welcome in the section below.
Initial Statements of 200 words
Comments and questions
---Comment on RfC wording. The RfC should be to more than the one one community of Politics, government and law, it should include editors from Geography community and the United States community. I'm not sure how to include Keithbob's proposal to limit mediator participant comments or replies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
194
I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census [28]) should be included in the US country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense for the general reader in an international context (politically, not in a narrow internal judicial meaning for the Commerce Clause). The US government includes them all by definition [29] and as “contiguous zone” [30], “geographical sense” [31] and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.) [32], and three scholars use “encompasses” [33], “composed of” [34] and “a part of” [35] the US.
II. DC and the five major territories are found in wide ranging applications by USG sources [36][37], [38] [39][40], and by scholars as “included” [41], officially a part of” [42] and in the “US federal system” [43]. Since the Insular Cases Congress has enacted law making insular territories “officially” [44] “included” [45] “within” [46] the US federal system. Federal District Court, unchallenged for seven years, held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p. 26 [47]), see constitutional scholar confirmation (2009 p. 1175 [48]).
III. Narrow citations of legal minutia regarding application of the Commerce Clause for internal tariffs and IRS taxes are irrelevant to a discussion of the geographical extent. Conforming this page to reliable sources does not require updating all others, other articles can be updated as editors find omissions.
TFD “Support” for the proposed mediation on 7 June 2015 [49] once seemed to me a sign of agreement that the US federal republic is geographically and politically (not judicially for the Commerce Clause) composed of 50 states, a federal district, 5 territories and various possessions. It seems I misunderstood. I apologize for my misunderstanding, and await the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census [50]) should be included in the "United States" country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense which is useful to the general reader in an international context. Five US government sources include them all by definition [51] and as “contiguous zone” [52], “geographical sense” [53] and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.) [54], and three scholars use “encompasses” [55], “composed of” [56] and “a part of” [57] the US.
Additionally, the District of Columbia and five major territories are included in five USG sources by definition [58][59], enumeration [60][61], and referenced equal to a “state” for purposes of law [62], and by three scholars as “included” [63], officially a part of” [64] and in the “US federal system” [65]. Only unsourced editor assertion suggests US territories are “external” to the US today.
II. While the Insular Cases a century ago once withheld from then “alien races” — citizenship, civilian courts, self-governance and representation in Congress — as guards against “danger to the republic” --, Congress (also supreme law of the land (Article VI [66])), has since enacted a sequence of law which makes the insular territories “officially” [67] “included” [68] “within” [69] the US federal system as a constitutional matter.
The insular territories remain foreign in a domestic sense, domestic in a foreign sense, for an internal tariffs on commodities such as sugar. An internal tariff is irrelevant here. Federal District Court, unchallenged now for seven years, held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p. 26 [70]), and this is subsequently noted in the scholarship of constitutional law by Lawson and Sloan (p. 1175 [71]). No counter-sources reference current law, although editor OR has misapplied case law from one hundred years ago.
I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census [72]) should be included in the "United States" country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense which is useful to the general reader in an international context. Five US government sources include them all by definition [73] and as “contiguous zone” [74], “geographical sense” [75] and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.) [76], and three scholars use “encompasses” [77], “composed of” [78] and “a part of” [79] the US. Only editor OR imagines these are "external" to the US in the modern era. Conforming this page to reliable sources does not require updating all others, although the Federal District map now appears at United States district court showing territories following their earlier omission, and other articles can be updated to reflect sources including US territories as editors find others.
II. DC and the five major territories are also included: five additional USG sources by definition [80][81], enumeration [82][83], and equal to a “state” for purposes of law [84], and by three scholars as “included” [85], officially a part of” [86] and in the “US federal system” [87]. While the Insular Cases once withheld citizenship and self-governance, Congress has since enacted a sequence of law making the insular territories “officially” [88] “included” [89] “within” [90] the US federal system as a constitutional matter. Federal District Court, unchallenged for seven years, held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p. 26 [91]), see Lawson and Sloan (p. 1175 [92]). Now merely an internal tariff, Insular Cases are misapplied case law in this instance.
Mediation participant comments (nine)
|
---|
Bkonrad (older=wiser) Alanscottwalker Golbez RightCowLeftCoast Robert McClenon The Four Deuces (TFD) The Gnome TheVirginiaHistorian Wzrd1 |
United States District/Territory | Geographically, US national jurisdiction | US Citizens/Nationals | Estimated population | In Congress (Member of Congress) | Local self governance | US Constitution supreme law | US District Court | Presidential vote |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District of Columbia | Done | Done 1801 US citizenship | 658,000 | Done 1971: Norton | Done 1975 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC | Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment |
American Samoa | Done | Done 1904 US nationals | 57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population) | Done 1981; Amata | Done 1978 | Done Territorial Constitution | Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi | citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court |
Guam | Done | Done 1950 US citizenship | 159,000 | Done 1973; Bordallo | Done 1972 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU | while resident in a state |
Northern Mariana Islands | Done | Done 1986 US citizenship | 77,000 | Done 2009; Sablan | Done 1978 | Done Territorial Constitution | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP | while resident in a state |
Puerto Rico | Done | Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat) | 3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population) | Done 1901; Pierluisi | Done 1948 | Done Territorial Constitution | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR | while resident in a state |
US Virgin Islands | Done | Done 1927 US citizenship | 106,000 | Done 1973; Plaskett | Done 1970 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI | while resident in a state |
uninhabited possessions | Done | Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll | n/a | n/a | n/a | Done fundamental provisions | various | n/a |
Sources | See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. viewed April 6, 2016. Six scholars in law journals, university press monographs and Congressional Quarterly attest to the 21st century US geographic sense, national jurisdiction and constitutional framework including territories: G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [93]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [94]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [95]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232,
[96]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [97]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [98]). |
---|
United States District/Territory | Geographically, US national jurisdiction | US Citizens/Nationals | Estimated population | In Congress (Member of Congress) | Local self governance | US Constitution supreme law | US District Court | Presidential vote |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District of Columbia | Done | Done 1801 US citizenship | 658,000 | Done 1971: Norton | Done 1975 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC | Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment |
American Samoa | Done | Done 1904 US nationals | 57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population) | Done 1981; Amata | Done 1978 | Done Territorial Constitution | Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi | citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court |
Guam | Done | Done 1950 US citizenship | 159,000 | Done 1973; Bordallo | Done 1972 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU | while resident in a state |
Northern Mariana Islands | Done | Done 1986 US citizenship | 77,000 | Done 2009; Sablan | Done 1978 | Done Territorial Constitution | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP | while resident in a state |
Puerto Rico | Done | Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat) | 3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population) | Done 1901; Pierluisi | Done 1948 | Done Territorial Constitution | Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR | while resident in a state |
US Virgin Islands | Done | Done 1927 US citizenship | 106,000 | Done 1973; Plaskett | Done 1970 | Done Congressional Organic Act | Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI | while resident in a state |
uninhabited possessions | Done | Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll | n/a | n/a | n/a | Done fundamental provisions | various | n/a |
Sources | ]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [99]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [100]). |
---|
Scope | USG sources | Scholars | USG sources | Scholars | Almanac | Encyclopedia |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US federal republic geographic extent | Pres. Proclamation [101], Pres. Exec Order [102], GAO (1997) [103], State Dept. Common Core [104], Homeland Act [105] | Tarr [106], Katz [107], Van Dyke [108] | FEMA [109], US Customs [110], Immigration serv. [111], Education [112], Soc. Sec. [113] | Sparrow [114], Haider-Markel [115], Fry [116] | Fact Book [117] | Britannica [118] |
50 states (18 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (1) | Done (1) |
50 states & DC (17 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (1) | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources) | Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland | Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US | Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law | Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system” | 1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | 5 USG sources omit possessions | 3 omit possessions | 1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
Mediation deliberation | The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed in international forums, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law.
The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A). Sources describing the constitutional status of Insular Case “alien races” a century ago were not found applicable to modern territories today with “native-born” Americans obtaining their citizenship, self-governance, civilian courts and territorial Members of Congress by today's law. |
---|
Scope | USG sources | Scholars | USG sources | Scholars | Almanac | Encyclopedia |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
US federal republic geographic extent | Pres. Proclamation [119], Pres. Exec Order [120], GAO (1997) [121], State Dept. Common Core [122], Homeland Act [123] | Tarr [124], Katz [125], Van Dyke [126] | FEMA [127], US Customs [128], Immigration serv. [129], Education [130], Soc. Sec. [131] | Sparrow [132], Haider-Markel [133], Fry [134] | Fact Book [135] | Britannica [136] |
50 states (18 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (1) | Done (1) |
50 states & DC (17 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (5) | Done (3) | Done (1) | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources) | Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland | Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US | Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law | Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system” | 1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources) | Done (5) | Done (3) | 5 USG sources omit possessions | 3 omit possessions | 1 omits insular terr & poss | 1 omits DC & terr & poss |
Mediation sources deliberation | The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law.
The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction [137], US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee [138] |
---|
how we shall resolve contradictions in the sources, the answer should lie in reliance on scholarship rather than editor original research into primary sources. See wp:psts under wp:No original research.
Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. Policy: -- "DO NOT analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Example. U.S. government reports territories as “unincorporated” related to the Commerce Clause and others, therefore conclude territories are "not a part of" the United States in any sense, WITHOUT any supporting secondary sources.
A secondary source provides an author's … interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts taken from primary sources. Policy: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Example. Although U.S. government reports territories as judicially “unincorporated” for tax purposes, and "a part of" it for homeland security, citizenship travel and other administrative purposes, SIX scholars in reliable sources conclude that the federal United States includes the five major territories or more.
Jimbo Wales Statement of principles 3. "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [note listing territories and possessions].
The current U.S.G. view of itself as reported to the U.N. Human Rights Committee is, "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." Item 22 [139], December 30, 2011, viewed April 6, 2015. Therefore, the lead sentence in this article should follow this U.S. “Common Core Document” example including 50 states, a federal district, territories and possessions as constitutionally “within the political framework” of the U.S. (item 27 [140]).
This is backed up by six scholars in law journals, university press monographs and Congressional Quarterly, G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [141]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [142]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [143]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232, [144]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [145]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [146]).
Is there any objection to using this U.S.G. source to copyedit the lead sentence?
A conclusion supported by six scholars. What was once judicially withheld is now superseded by unchallenged legislation.
Six scholar publications in law journals, university press monographs, and Congressional Quarterly all attest to the five major territories are a part of the United States in the modern, post WWII era. G. Alan Tarr (2005) The U.S. "now encompasses” DC and island territories. (p. 382 [149]). Ellis Katz (2006), "The American federation is composed of … a federal district … five major territories, ... and ... tribes. (p.296 [150]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), the five major territories are “a part of the United States” (p. 1 [151]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “At present, the US includes” five major territories and DC. (p. 231-232, [152]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), territories "are officially a part of U.S. territory,” (p. 649 [153]). Earl H. Fry (2009), the “U.S. federal system” includes the five major territories (p. 297 [154]).
Definition. The United States is a federal republic which represents its people in Congress in a scheme of representation by place.
--OR--
[160] Golbez removing Seqqis including territories (scroll down to lower frame) 2015
[161] Golbez removing TheVirginiaHistorian including territories. 2013
[162] Golbez removing RightCowLeftCoast including territories 2013 ”correcting per my revelation on the Talk page”
[163] Collect including territories v. TFD removal. 2013
[164] TFD removing TheVirginiaHistorian including territories. 2013
[165] Dispute resolution in March 2013 came down to familiar names and phrasing. --- 2.18 Two US lead options with most endorsements
Can you live with… The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly called the United States (US or U.S.) and colloquially as America, is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. — yes: TFD, Golbez, older≠wiser first choice (Bkonrad), CMD.
Can you live with… The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America, The territories have differing degrees of autonomy. — yes. TheVirginiaHistorian, older≠wiser second choice (Bkonrad), Collect, Gwillhickers, Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast.
Six scholar publications in law journals, university press monographs, and Congressional Quarterly all attest to the five major territories are a part of the United States in the modern, post WWII era.
G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [167]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [168]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [169]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232, [170]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [171]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [172]).
G. Alan Tarr (2005) The U.S. "now encompasses” DC and island territories. (p. 382 [173]). Ellis Katz (2006), "The American federation is composed of … a federal district … five major territories, ... and ... tribes. (p.296 [174]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), the five major territories are “a part of the United States” (p. 1 [175]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “At present, the US includes” five major territories and DC. (p. 231-232, [176]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), territories "are officially a part of U.S. territory,” (p. 649 [177]). Earl H. Fry (2009), the “U.S. federal system” includes the five major territories (p. 297 [178]).
Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008) at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 [179]). Yet,
G. Alan Tarr (2005) at Rutgers University, “The United States now encompasses” DC and island territories (e.g., Guam and Puerto Rico), and … tribes ...”. (p.382 [180]). Ellis Katz (2006) notes that "The American federation is composed of … a federal district … five major territories, ... and ... tribes. (p.296 [181]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992) at University of Hawaii, includes the five major territories as “a part of the United States” (p. 1 [182]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005) at University of Texas-Austin, notes, “At present, the US includes” them and DC. (p. 231-232, [183]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008) at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 [184]). Earl H. Fry (2009) at Brigham Young University describes the “U.S. federal system” from U.S. Virgin Islands in the east to Guam in the west including the five major territories, … their delegates to Congress have the same status as DC. … complicated by … tribal governments. (p. 297 [185]).
I am getting sustained pushback to sourced information I would like to add to the encyclopedia. References to “50 states and DC” which omit the territories are almanacs in Spring 2013 discussion and databases in Fall 2014 discussion. I ask for sources to justify the leap from "unincorporated territories" for internal tax regime in primary documents to territories as "not a part of the United States in any sense", --- but none are forthcoming. I am accused of wp:cherry picking and wp:original research, debate tricks and twisting references, disruption and sea-lioning by experienced Wikipedia editors. What am I missing?
1. Sources
I can find no scholar who looks at the primary sourced "unincorporated territories" for an internal discriminatory tax regime and then concludes they are "not a part of the United States" for every sense in the modern era. In fact, the opposite seems to be true in the case of Puerto Rico. A federal district court has ruled unchallenged for seven years that Congress evolved a political incorporation by statute of Puerto Rico "in fact" p. 26 [216], and scholars Lawson and Sloan in the Boston Law Review note Puerto Rico is the paradigm of an "incorporated" territory as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art p. 1175 [217].
2. Article United States introductory sentence.
3. Content. The U.S. is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, and five major territories. -- as sourced with scholarly reliable sources above. Two scholarly sources omitting territories also omit DC, which is not acceptable among the editor consensus. Since 1988 the constitutional privileges and immunities clause has applied to the territories p. 28 [218], and like DC the five major territories have a delegate Member of Congress for participation in the national councils of the federal republic in the American tradition for territories p. 297 [219].
4. Counter argument.
Congress has gutted the judicial “unincorporation” of the five major territories. In the post-WWII modern era, the “alien” islander populations of 1901, once held by the Insular Cases to be “dangerous” to the American republic, have attained what was once judicially withheld by superseding Congressional action, including citizenship, elective self-governance and delegate Members of Congress.
While territories remain “unincorporated” for a remnant of internal tariffs and domestic taxes, the State Department reports that the U.S. constitutional "political framework" currently includes non-state sub-units including DC and five major territories, they are within the "national jurisdiction" and its "geographical area". Scholars attest they are a part of the U.S., using the phrases “encompasses”, "composed of”, “a part of”, and “includes” in law journals, university press monographs and the Congressional Quarterly.
The territories have exercised their “internal” self-determination within the United States guaranteed by international law to form political union by plebiscites in the modern era. Despite a limited domestic sense of “unincorporation”, they have attained equal citizenship without regard to religion or race, elective self-governance, and representation in the national councils.
No original research wp:psts policy forbids original editor interpretation of primary material. Anachronistic use of sources describing the “unincorporation” effect one hundred years ago are not appropriate for evaluation of territories today. The scholarship of modern territories describes citizenship, elective self-governance and delegate Members of Congress in what the territorial constitutions call political "union".
U.S. related databases should be taken from current sources with the most comprehensive aggregating of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government. There is no uniform reporting system for U.S. databases, WP should not arbitrarily impose one. Some non-U.S.G. political scientists exclude DC and the 5 major territories, as does Encyclopædia Britannica [220]. But the discussion is related to sourced inclusion of DC and the five major territories reflecting available databases, including them in sovereignty and area; "50 states, DC and Puerto Rico" for NAFTA and customs; "50 states and DC" for population, then footnoting alternate aggregates.
To date, online almanacs (2013) and an unsourced database footnote (2014) have been advanced to support excluding 4 million U.S. citizens from the article as "a part of the United States". We should use secondary sources per wp:psts. Supporting documentation includes scholars and U.S. executive orders, statutes, adjudication, administration — but no modern counter sources exclude the five major territories, only editor references to "unincorporation" for an internal tax regime. The U.S. government considers the five major territories as within "the contiguous zone of the United States" [221], the WP country article should also. —
The RfC closed with “no consensus” but a lot of common ground was established during discussion for three months in spring 2013 and for three months in fall 2014.
Common core document is information of a general nature about the country which is relevant to all the treaties, such as information on land and population, on the political structure, on the general legal framework within which human rights are protected in the State, and on non-discrimination, equality and effective remedies. It constitutes the common initial part of all the State reports to the treaty bodies. [229]
U.S. Department of State. “common core document of the United States of America” report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Dec 30, 2011. [230]
1. Description of the constitutional structure and the political and legal framework
22. The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.
27. A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The governmental frameworks in these areas are largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of their residents. Other governmental levels.
80. The governmental frameworks in areas not within the 50 states, such as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, are largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of the residents.
The territories should be included as a part of the U.S. federal republic in the lead sentence. The racism of the Insular cases withholding citizenship and elective self-government is ended. They have an ambiguous status, economically "unincorporated" for some federal taxes and tariffs, but "they are officially a part of U.S. territory, and their residents have U.S. citizenship or are U.S. nationals" (p. 649 [231]). They are self-governing
But supposing we can source the “ambiguous constitutional status of the overseas territories”? Donald P. Haider-Markel, “Political Encyclopedia of U.S. States and Regions”, (2008)“Overseas Territories” p. 649 [232]. “The United States overseas territories — the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, [American] Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico — …These conflicting attitudes ...are reflected in the ambiguous constitutional status of the overseas territories: they are officially a part of U.S. territory, and their residents have U.S. citizenship or are U.S. nationals (as in American Samoa), but they remain 'unincorporated territories', lacking the full constitutional protection and political citizenship afforded to the states.”
U.S. related databases should be taken from the most current sources reflecting the most comprehensive aggregating of United States citizens by the U.S. government. There is no uniform reporting system for U.S. government databases, WP should not arbitrarily impose one. These are reported in descending order as a) 50 states, DC, and the five major territories (sovereignty, area figures); b) 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico (NAFTA, customs figures); or c) 50 states and DC (population, housing figures). Figures which are not current, wherever they may appear, should be updated with more current, more comprehensive figures as better information becomes available. As of August, 2010, the “State and other areas” Total for the United States is 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau [233], which includes 50 states, DC and the five major territories as sourced.
The U.S. is sovereign over 50 states, DC and the five major territories of Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa, with U.S. citizens and nationals as permanent residents permanently loyal to the U.S., p. 1, 9 [234]. According to the U.S. Government in the 21st century, they are within "the contiguous zone of the United States" [235], "the US now consists of" the five major territories. p. 7, 77, 101 [236], and they are "parts of the United States" [237]. Scholars say they are "part of the United States" [238], and "At present, the US includes” them. p. 231-232 [239]. These have chosen to be a part of the United States by external self-determination (3-5% for independence in various referendums 1950-2012), and they exercise internal self-determination within political union with the U.S. without regard to creed, color or race, p. 1-2 [240], by local governance of organic acts and constitutions, territorial representation in Congress and preservation of local customs. p. 148. [241].
Supporting documentation to include the five major territories, executive orders, statutes, adjudication for the entire nation are dismissed as being narrowly related to homeland security, citizenship, environmental protection, energy, and transportation, — but no modern counter sources are directly provided to exclude them. Insular Cases are cited by editors without supporting scholarship for the 21st century to exclude 21st century U.S. citizens. They advance the judicial doctrine of territorial incorporation promulgated for an internal tax regime in 1901 which is still good law for taxes. A 1922 Supreme Court case ruling on a 1917 organic act for Puerto Rico was superseded in 1952; the Puerto Rican Constitution declares "our union with the United States" [242], and approved by Congress, p. 10 [243]. Additional constitutional provisions have been extended by both federal courts and Congress since then [244]. This has been evolving legislation p. 28 [245]. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane conclude, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when the Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” p. 1175 [246]. Puerto Rico alone is 91% of the five major territories and its population of U.S. citizens is larger than 20 smaller states.
Discussion on this topic began in Spring 2013 for three months, and again in Fall of 2014 for three months. The DR resolution in 2013 was a 2-to-1majority (minority of three) for including the territories in the introductory sentence: the U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories represented in Congress. [n] DC and five territories have territorial delegates representing them in Congress. — To date, online almanacs (2013) and an unsourced database footnote (2014) have been advanced to support excluding 4 million U.S. citizens from the article as "a part of the United States". — We can do better, we should use secondary sources per wp:psts, and report all U.S. citizens represented in Congress as a part of the federal republic, “throughout the territory of the United States” [247] and “throughout our country” [248], without regard to creed, race or color as the U.S. reports itself to the U.N. [249]. U.S. Census database for total "state and other" area [250] allows us to begin that process for this article.
Thank you for your previous support to include BOTH the five major territories as a part of the United States internationally in a geographical sense, AND to report the "50 states and DC" separately in area and population to conform to other databases, footnoting one or the other. Puerto Rico alone among the five major territories is larger in population than 20 smaller states. They are commonly reported together for area and population, they should not be dismissed as “minor” considerations of either area or population in the United States Infobox.
The century-old judicial doctrine of “incorporation” to exclude the Commerce Clause from territories before their citizenship by Congress is for the purposes of an internal domestic tax. It does not relate to territorial extent of the US or its common nationality with the five major territories today as mutually enacted by Congress through organic acts and local referendums.
The five major territories are sourced in the 21st century as a part of the United States by scholars Jon M. Van Dyke [266] and Bartholomew Sparrow p. 231-232 [267] and Homeland Security, ""U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) …" [268].
And from scholar Carlo Focarelli, "As specified in Article 2 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention: ‘The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law’, its member states not being independent … Statehood is not affected by ... the form of government of the state ... p. 160-161 [269]. From legal scholars Lawson and Sloane, Puerto Rico, 91% of the Insular territory population is “incorporated” as 21st century jurists understand that term of art. p. 1175, [270].
As we learn in “Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion” (2005) by Levinson and Sparrow eds., --- In the U.S. after 1805, most U.S. territories have had a four-stage life-cycle of 1. Possessions. Military governors...; 2. Unincorporated territory. Presidentially appointed governors ...; 3. Incorporated territory. Locally elected governor of U.S. citizens, elected legislature, Article III federal courts, and a Member of Congress with debate privileges; 4. Statehood.
Source. 48 U.S. Code § 737 - Privileges and immunities” [272] The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.”
Source. In Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 252 (1901) [273] "The Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the United States to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. The net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated." "Indeed, the whole body of the U.S. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character. Notice must be taken that incorporation of a territory takes place through the incorporation of its inhabitants, not of the territory per se.” The inhabitants of the territory are made U.S. citizens to politically incorporate them, while the territories per se remain “unincorporated” for an internal tax regime, part of the United States “federal character".
Source. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, [274] “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” There are no counter sources for the 21st century.
1) Government self-definition. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas."
2) Congressional enacted inclusion. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
3) Presidential authorized inclusion. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.
4) Judicial inclusion. This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175]
From Downes v. Bidwell 1901 [275], Political incorporation is made by Congress with extension of the privileges and immunities of the Constitution “in effect produces the incorporation of that territory.” which Congress has done as of 1988, see 1991 GAO report p. 28 [276].
Why does this article name a different land area from the CIA World Factbook? (the number is not footnoted) 72.48.166.220 (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
1) Government self-definition. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas."
2) Congressional enacted inclusion. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
3) Presidential authorized inclusion. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.
4) Judicial inclusion. This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175]
5) Scholarly inclusion. Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). To date, there is no reliable counter source but editor's original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
There are sources to say they meet the criteria, and none to say they do not.
Puerto Rico, the largest and most populated of the five major territories (58% their area, 91% their population) is included in the United States, by Presidential Executive Order, by statute "as a state", by federal judiciary, and by legal scholars explaining the "incorporation" judicial term of art.
Insular Cases no longer apply to U.S. citizenship, it has been extended to Puerto Rico and the others of the five major U.S. territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Secondary sources per WP:PSTS should govern editor original research into primary sources. The State Department and two scholarly sources, Jon M Van Dyke and Bartholomew Sparrow, include DC and the five major territories as a part of the Untied States. Legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report Puerto Rico now “incorporated” as the 21st century federal judiciary uses that term of art. The article should reflect the United States as a “sole person” internationally as it is intended for international readers in the Infobox area and population, and that includes the five major territories. Puerto Rico alone among the five major territories has a population larger than 20 smaller states. The 50 states and DC alone should be footnoted for cross reference to other databases reported in the article.
What does the U.S. State Department say? "U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card" [291].
In reports to the United Nations, the U.S. has included the five major territories: Consistent with the definition of “State” in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, all references to States within the NIPP (National Infrastructure Protection Plan) are applicable to the territories and include by reference any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States (Homeland Security Act) [292]
In the Homeland Security Act, (14) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States. (16)(A) The term ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States [293].
Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)
Low to moderate level of vandalism
[view • purge • update]
3.58 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 20:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Here is the existing Wikimedia Commons “Map of Virginia Counties and Independent Cities”. Is that what is under consideration?
read the book reviews--sign up for wp:JSTOR to access them.
Although the Infobox identifies the opposing sides as U.S. and Britain versus Nazi Germany showing the Nazi flag, the flag identifying General Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben, who was not a Nazi, is now changed from a German Cross
to a Nazi flag , with the explanation, from Brigade Piron, "Flags are designed to make reading the infobox easier: using un-introduced symbols doesn't add anything..” — I think that I copied this convention from another article. Which convention should prevail for professional German officers who were not political Nazis?
After the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, Jefferson needed the mostly unknown part of the continent explored and mapped for expanding westward settlement and trade. It was important to establish a U.S. claim before competing Europeans, and perhaps to find the long-sought-for Northwest passage.[1] Knowledge of the western continent was limited to what had been learned from trappers, traders and explorers.[2] Influenced by exploration accounts by Le Page du Pratz on Louisiana (1763) and Captain James Cook to the Pacific (1784),[3] Jefferson along with the American Philosophical Society persuaded Congress in 1804 to fund an expedition to explore and map the newly acquired territory to the Pacific Ocean.[4]
President Jefferson appointed Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to lead the Corps of Discovery, to explore and document scientific and geographic knowledge.[5] Lewis had extensive military woodlands experience and proved an apt student of the sciences of mapping, botany, natural history, mineralogy, and astronomy/navigation.[2] Lewis and Clark recruited their company of 45 men and spent a winter preparing near St. Louis.[6] Guided by Sacagawea and various Native-American tribes along the way, the expedition traced the Columbia River and reached the Pacific Ocean by November 1805. They returned to St. Louis September 23, 1806, having lost only one man to disease. The expedition obtained a wealth of scientific and geographic knowledge, including knowledge of the many Indian tribes.[7]
In addition to the Corps of Discovery, Jefferson organized three other western exploration expeditions including the William Dunbar and George Hunter expedition on the Ouachita River (1804–1805), the Thomas Freeman and Peter Custis expedition (1806) on the Red River, and the Zebulon Pike expedition (1806–1807) into the Rocky Mountains and the Southwest.[8] All of the exploration expeditions sent out under Jefferson's presidency produced valuable information about the American frontier and wilderness.[8]
/ˈɡɛtiːzbɜːrɡ/ Audio file "en-us-Gettysburg.ogg" not found[9]
The proposed section removal to another article, — everything in "A revolution in disunion" before the subsection "Inauguration and response” — leads us to consider what summary introduction might replace it. I propose three paragraphs, in outline, I. separation and secessionists, II. causes of sectional division, and III. secession declarations.
I. The Confederate States of America was created by secessionists in Southern slave states who refused to remain in a nation that they believed was turning them into second–class citizens. The "Black Republicans" as they were named by Southerners, and their northern allies were feared to soon become a majority in the United States House, Senate, and Presidency. Craven (1953) p. 350. Southerners feared Lincoln and his party “would attempt to remake Southerners in the image of the North”. Coulter (1950) p. 13. But the division of the country was already almost complete except for the government framework. Southerners in the great majority churches, Methodists and Baptists, had already divided, the last political unifier crumbled with the Democratic party in 1860. Coulter (1950) p.18. The only thing remaining was for secessionists to divide the nation by fifteen states along slave-holding lines without consent of Congress. (Coulter 1950) This, though Congress is required to direct constitutional procedures of amendment in the national establishment from the beginning, as required by Art. VI of the Articles, "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled.”, and again in the U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 10, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.”
II. Southern historian E. Merton Coulter suggested that protection of slavery was the "mighty force" which underpinned secession. “But more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself…the fear of what would ultimately happen…the danger of the South becoming another San Domingo,” or at least loss of non-slaveholder racial status and social standing, were slaves ever to be emancipated. Coulter (1950) p. 8-10. During the campaign for president in 1860, some secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln (who opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories) be elected, most notably William L. Yancey. Yancey toured the North calling for secession in the event of Lincoln's election. Freehling, (1990) p. 398. A Lincoln victory presented Southern secessionists with a momentous choice in their eyes, even before his inauguration, it was "The Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union.” Craven, (1953) p. 366. Secession leaders expected all fifteen slaveholding states to secede; South Carolina adopted a flag with fifteen stars in it. Coulter (1950) p.3. And that secession would never lead to war, because no Yankee could be made into a soldier. Coulter (1950) p.14. In the event, most Southerners believed that their national citizenship came through state citizenship, so even those who had been Unionists until secession resolves gave up their opposition. Coulter (1950) p. 17
III. The South Carolina Program promising union of the slave-holding states before Lincoln’s inauguration was backed by fifty-two commissioners from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana. They pressed state legislatures in every slave-holding state to resolve immediate secession. Thomas (1979) p.43. Every one of the first seven states forming the Confederacy had authorized a sovereign convention before South Carolina’s secession. Just before the South Carolina convention, a large number of Southern Congressional delegations signed a manifesto in Washington, declaring the argument over union was exhausted, that “the sole and primary aim of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union”. Coulter (1950) p. 2. Following the Confederate Constitutional Convention, Fort Sumter became an emotional symbol, both for Federal authority and for Confederate “integrity, existence, and independence”. Coulter (1950) p. 38. Most Americans hesitating at war had their loyalties clarified at the firing on Fort Sumter. But especially important in the balance for the states which had not yet seceded was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 militia from the governor of each state. For most Southerners, even for most of the Upper South Unionists, the choice for secession had been made easier. Secession resolutions from Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina followed. Coulter (1950) p. 39.
DRAFT 2 -- add Potter, to consider what summary introduction might replace it. I propose in outline, I. separation and secessionists, II. causes of sectional division, and III. secession declarations.
I. The Confederate States of America was created by secessionists in Southern slave states who refused to remain in a nation that they believed was turning them into second–class citizens by stripping away their Constutitional right--a "state's right"-- to owning slaves. Southerners feared Lincoln and his party “would attempt to remake Southerners in the image of the North”. Coulter (1950) p. 13. The "Black Republicans" as they were named by Southerners, and their northern allies, were feared to soon become a majority in the United States House, Senate, and Presidency. Craven (1953) p. 350. But the division of the country was already almost complete except for the government framework. Southerners in the great majority churches, Methodists and Baptists, had already divided, and the last political unifier crumbled with the Democratic party in 1860. Coulter (1950) p.18. The Southern Commercial Convention which had begun annual meetings in the 1850s, was transformed from economic and commercial agendas to extreme southern rights proclamations by editors and politicians. Potter, p. 396-397. The only thing remaining was for secessionists to divide the nation along slave-holding lines without consent of Congress.
Despite protests that slaves were contented and loyal, “the white South could never for a moment rid itself of the fear of insurrection”. In the face of over 200 reports of slave “revolts” in the American South, they built a social system designed a system to prevent it, including militias and nightly patrols. Potter, p. 452 The southern reaction to the anti-slavery movement was not so much a fear of what Congress or the northern public might be persuaded to, it was a fear of what abolitionists might persuade slaves to do. Potter, p. 454 Southern historian E. Merton Coulter suggested that protection of slavery and its expansion was the "mighty force" which underpinned secession. “But more powerful than slavery was the Negro himself…the fear of what would ultimately happen…the danger of the South becoming another San Domingo,” or at least loss of non-slaveholder racial status and social standing, were slaves ever to be emancipated. Coulter (1950) p. 8-10. During the 1850s the “spirit of southernism” continued to grow, and even those southerners who were themselves Unionists were prepared to defend other southerners who wanted to leave. Potter, p. 462.
II. During the campaign for president in 1860, radical secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln be elected. Freehling, (1990) p. 398. Even before his inauguration, a Lincoln victory presented Southern secessionists with a momentous choice in their eyes, it was "The Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union.” Craven, (1953) p. 366. Secession leaders expected all fifteen slaveholding states to secede. Coulter (1950) p.3. And that secession would never lead to war, because no Yankee could be made into a soldier. Coulter (1950) p.14. The question became whether the slaveholding society would be safer inside the Union or outside in a new Confederacy. As long as the North and South were fairly equal in economic and political power and slavery had been immune from serious attack, there could be reasonable harmony, but the sections were no longer evenly balanced. Since the Mexican War, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota and Oregon had entered the Union as free states. Potter, p. 474-476.
The legitimacy of the Union in the South was impacted immediately after the John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry of October 1859, a year before presidential election. Northern abolitionists had financed an attempt at servile insurrection. An enemy, proclaimed by the Atlanta “Confederacy”, was anyone “who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral and political blessing”. But if Southerners believed themselves to be a friendless minority within the democracy of the Union, they had solidarity internally. Potter p. 382-383. The Democratic party had been increasingly dominated in Congress by "militant southerners who dealt freely in threats of disunion,” and these now split the national Democratic party. Potter, p. 414-416. In the presidential election, Lincoln won an electoral majority in the North, while Breckinridge won the second place in the South by splitting the 55% majority opposing him throughout the slave states. In political structure, a thirty-year era of bi-sectional parties came to an end. The process of national polarization was nearly complete. Potter, p. 442, 447.
III. When Southern fears of a northern ascendancy came at last, with a Republican Speaker of the House and election of a Republican president, they were not yet united in southern nationalism to either secession or to advancing an alternative republic. “But they were united by a sense of terrible danger”, united in a determination to defend slavery against moralistic attacks of abolitionism and to gain recognition as status as decent, respectable human beings holding an inferior race in perpetual slavery. Potter, p.478 The southerner had learned to accept an interpretation at variance from that held in the North, a conception of states each as politically autonomous from the nation, and so obtaining political state sovereignty and a right to singular secession, or alternatively a reading of the Declaration of Independence which did not require “a long train of abuses”, but merely the anticipated threat. Even southern Unionists agreed in secession as a theoretical right. And Southerners for the most part believed that “no state should be forced to remain in the Union”. Potter, p. 479, 482-484 In the event, most Southerners believed that their national citizenship came through state citizenship, so even those who had been Unionists until secession resolves gave up their opposition as the crisis unfolded. Coulter (1950) p. 17
The South Carolina Program promising union of the slave-holding states before Lincoln’s inauguration was backed by fifty-two commissioners from South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana. They pressed state legislatures in every slave-holding state to resolve immediate secession. Thomas (1979) p.43. Every one of the first seven states forming the Confederacy had authorized a sovereign convention before South Carolina’s secession. Just before the South Carolina convention, a large number of Southern Congressional delegations signed a manifesto in Washington, declaring the argument over union was exhausted, that “the sole and primary aim of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union”. Coulter (1950) p. 2. Following the enactment of the Provisional Confederate States Constitution by the first seven states, Fort Sumter became an emotional symbol, both for Federal authority and for Confederate “integrity, existence, and independence”. Coulter (1950) p. 38. Most Americans hesitating at war had their loyalties clarified at the firing on Fort Sumter. But especially important for the states which had not yet seceded was Lincoln’s call for 75,000 militia from the governor of each state. For most Southerners, even for most of the Upper South Unionists, the choice for secession had been made easier. Secession resolutions from Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina followed. Coulter (1950) p. 39.
[294] [295] Robert F. Hayes, Jr. One Nation, Indivisible?: A Study of Secession and the Constitution. Pg 263 - 269
By the end of his career, Jefferson was critical of his home state for violating “the principle of equal political rights”, meaning the social right of universal white male suffrage.[10] But he arrived at that position by stages. Initially during the Revolutionary era, Jefferson accepted Blackstone’s dictum that property ownership led to the independent will required in a virtuous republic, he voted for revolutionary property qualifications in Virginia from 40 years prior. But he sought to further expand the suffrage by land distribution to the poor initially.[11] An alternative to make the electorate more closely reflect “the people” residing in the state was found following 1776 by expanding the franchise from landed gentry to those owning either their own houses or their own tools and paying taxes on them.[12]
After leaving Washington's cabinet as Secretary of State, by mid-October 1795 Jefferson’s thoughts turned on the electoral bases of Republican and anti-Republican (Federalist) political coalitions. The “Republican” classification of the United States for which he would advocate included 1. "the entire body of landholders" everywhere, and 2. "the body of laborers” without land, whether agricultural or mechanical.[13] Beginning with Jefferson’s electioneering for the “revolution of 1800”, his democratic efforts were based on egalitarian appeals.[14]
Following Jefferson's loss to Adams in 1796 by two Electoral College votes, Republicans united behind Jefferson as Vice President, president of the Senate. He personally became “the rallying point, the headquarters, the everything” of the opposition, the certain Republican candidate for president. The election practices of 1796 expanding democracy in Pennsylvania were extended nationwide. In Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey, statewide organizations were begun, with local committees and correspondence networks set up. County committees framed local Republican tickets, and promoted partisan Republican newspapers. The Manhattan organization in New York was acquired with Jefferson’s selection of Burr as running mate.[15] Jefferson in his later years referred to the 1800 election as the “revolution of 1800”, “as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of '76 was in its form”, one “not effected indeed by the sword…but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people.”[16]
Jefferson privately promoted Republican candidates to run for local state offices.[17] He sought an aristocracy of merit, not birth. For instance, for his second presidential term, he chose as his vice presidential candidate a New Yorker, George Clinton, the child of Irish immigrants. Unlike the Federalist take on Clinton, Jefferson "allowed for social and political mobility among whites.”[18] Voter participation grew in Jefferson’s two terms, exploding to “unimaginable levels” compared to the Federalist Era, with doubling turnouts.[19] John Quincy Adams noted following Jefferson’s 1804 election, “The power of the Administration rests upon the support of a much stronger majority of the people throughout the Union than the former Administrations ever possessed.”[20]
Jefferson continued his campaign to expand the electorate in his retirement correspondence. In response to a pamphlet advocating a Virginia Constitutional Convention, he went further than the radical convention promoters. Still wishing to keep in the background, he sought a “general suffrage” of all taxpayers and militia-men, as well as equal representation by voter population in the state legislature, not skewed to favor slave-holding regions of the state. He also favored a reform of Virginia's country courthouse system to more nearly resemble that of the more democratic townships of New England.[21]
Perhaps the most common nickname for Virginia is “The Old Dominion”. It originated in colonial days. Following the Interregnum of Oliver Cromwell, the restored King Charles II of England considered the Virginians “the best of his distant children”. As a consequence, he elevated Virginia to the position of dominion along with England, Scotland, Ireland and France.[22] The oldest of the English settlements in America, they adopted the name “The Old Dominion”, or “The Ancient Dominion”.[23] King Charles I's supporters in the English Civil War were called Cavaliers. “The Cavalier State” nickname is derived from those who left England and came to Virginia during that period. The Cavalier is the mascot symbol of the University of Virginia.[23]
Virginia is also known as the “Mother of Presidents” because so many of the early presidents of the United States were native Virginians. The list includes Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. Then later presidents include William Henry Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and in the twentieth century, Wilson. Because of the number of statesmen produced by Virginia, it is also called “Mother of statesmen”, harking back to Revolutionary leaders such as Patrick Henry, George Wythe and John Randolph.[23] The “Mother of States”, Virginia was the first of the states to be settled and there have been a large number of states were formed from Virginia territory ceded to the national government during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and even a part of Minnesota were all a part of the original Virginia territory at the time of the Revolution. Kentucky and West Virginia were later made from Virginia as a state.[23]
The Confederate States of America section shows the Neo-Confederate flag, the so-called Third National Flag, “Blood-stained banner” , “since 1865”, which has no reliable source to say it was ever flown in the historic Confederacy.
David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, Mississippi Historical Society online, observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, Confederate General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.”
The historic Confederacy 1861-1865 which has disappeared had a flag displayed everywhere in the Confederacy at the time. It was the First National Flag the “Stars and Bars" , not to be confused with the square "St. Andrew’s Cross" battle flag. Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, on page 118 notes that the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”, and that is what should be displayed here.
From Gordon S. Wood, “The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787” (1972). The nationalistic sentiments in 1776, a “feeling of oneness among thirteen disparate states” assumed institutional form in Congress, which exercised an extraordinary degree of political, military, and economic power over the colonists. It was “centrally responsible for the colonies’ assumption of new governments and the final break from England.” (p.355-356) Delegates such as James Wilson, Benjamin Rush and John Adams held that in matters referred to Congress, 'we are not so many states, we are one state'. (p.357) What was remarkable was the degree of union that was achieved. The substantial powers granted to Congress in Article 9 “made the league of states as cohesive and strong as any similar sort of republican confederation is history — stronger in fact than some Americans had expected.” (p.359)
American history through commemorative stamps 1969. by Henry S. Bloomgarden,
Commemorative Stamps of the U.S.A.: an illustrated history of our country 1954, by Fred Renfeld.
Railroad history on American postage stamps 2004, by Anthony J. Bianculli.
An American history album: the story of the United States told through stamps 2008. by Michael Worek, Jordan Worek.
The great Texas stamp collection 2012 by Charles W. Deaton.
Bianculli, Anthony J., Railroad history on American postage stamps 2004.
Bloomgarden, Henry S., American history through commemorative stamps 1969.
Deaton, Charles W., The great Texas stamp collection 2012.
Renfeld, Fred. Commemorative Stamps of the U.S.A.: an illustrated history of our country 1954.
Woreck, Michael and Jordan Worek. An American history album: the story of the United States told through stamps 2008.
After consultation with MASEM, three solutions or combinations present themselves.
A. Save for the External Link section we typically don't use inline external links on article pages (but this does depend on situation). But the easiest solution here is to convert the link into an inline citation which retains the line within the citation and there's no restriction against inline cites.
B. An editorial note at the end of each section might do it, with description ending in a note, and the note including citation and link to the image page at National Postal Museum.
Note: Stamps which are restricted by USPS fair use copyright may be seen at Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum online. Click on the footnote number to see the link at the end of the footnote for each stamp.
Note: Stamps which are restricted by USPS fair use copyright may be seen at Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum online. See the link in the footnote at end of each description.
C. Another alternative to avoid the EL in the body is to have a list/formatted section in the "External Links" section, that would start off "Stamp pages at the NPM:" and then list each link with the stamp in question within that section, so it is clear its not just a reference and easier to follow.
Not only is Washington pictured in regular issues, he is commemorated in central events at the Founding, the "Father of his country". Washington’s victory over British General Cornwallis was commemorated with a 2-cent stamp on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Yorktown on October 19, 1931.[24] The 150th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution with George Washington as presiding officer was celebrated with a 3-cent issue on September 17, 1937, was adapted from the painting by Julius Brutus Stearns.[25] Washington’s inauguration as President under the new Constitution at Federal Hall in New York City was celebrated on its 150th anniversary on April 30, 1789.[26]
How do you invent a category, 'Jamestown Exposition Issue' at Wikimedia Commons? Could it also be a subcategory under History of the United States on Stamps? or under Stamps of the United States? If so, how does one routinely initiate a subcategory so that the search feature lists the ten stamps I uploaded in the National Parks 1934 issue?
place links in footnotes
Fair usage for stamps
Description:
Author: Government Printing Office, Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
Article: Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps
Source: Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum.
Portion used: Entire stamp.
Author: Government Printing Office, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Copyright owned by United States Postal Service® --- and when available, the name of the stamp designer (e.g.Charles R. Chickering)
Purpose of use: Entire stamp used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image.
Low resolution: Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original.
Replaceable? Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. There is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.
Other information: © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.
At Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately#Resources It explains stamp image usage for USPS stamps,
also at Template:Stamp rationale.
All you need for the Source is U.S. Post Office, or USPS as the case may be, and the place you located the stamp image (e.g. Scanned stamp from private collection, Arago, etc.). For Author, you can cite Gov. Printing Office, or the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and when available, the name of the stamp designer (e.g.Charles R. Chickering). Re: The templae, i don't bother with it, I simply go to the main page or any article page, and click on Upload file, located under Tools in the side bar at the left. As I pointed out before, when you get to Step 3, simply select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use and everything you need is right there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 8:51 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Description |
Stamp description goes here . |
---|---|
Source |
source website or "scanned by" goes here |
Portion used |
Entire stamp. |
Low resolution? |
Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original. |
Other information |
Copyright owned by postal authority goes here. |
Article |
Article name goes here |
---|---|
Purpose of use |
Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image. |
Replaceable? |
Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. |
This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps
qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. |
Description |
Stamp description goes here . |
---|---|
Source |
Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum. |
Portion used |
Entire stamp. |
Low resolution? |
Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original. |
Other information |
Copyright owned by United States Postal Service®, © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.. |
Article | |
---|---|
Purpose of use |
Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image. |
Replaceable? |
Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist. |
This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps
qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. |
Description |
(({1))}. |
---|---|
Source |
(({3))} |
Portion used |
Entire stamp. |
Low resolution? |
Sufficient resolution for illustration, but considerably lower resolution than original. |
Other information |
Copyright owned by the issuing postal authority. |
|Replaceability = Protected by copyright, therefore a free use alternative won't exist.
There is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.
This image is of a postage stamp. The copyright for it may be held by the issuing authority, and there may be other restrictions on its reproduction. It is believed that the use of postage stamps
qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. |
.
draft to mainspace
draft to mainspace
draft to mainspace
draft to mainspace
Over three months of October to December 1937, the U.S. Postal Department issued four 3-cent stamps commemorating Insular Territories: Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. The first was to honor the Territory of Hawaii acquired in 1898. It showed the statue of King Kamehameha I, uniter of the Hawaiian Islands, at the Iolani Palace in Honolulu. The second honored Alaska which was purchased in 1867. The stamp pictured snow-covered Mount McKinley with a farm and a village to symbolize modern development in the territory.[27] Alaska and Hawaii territories were admitted as states in 1960.
The third stamp honored Puerto Rico featuring 'La Fortaleza', the Spanish Governor's Palace. Puerto Rico was ceded by Spain in an 1898 treaty ending the Spanish American War. Though some thought the stamp was limited to Puerto Rico, it was valid throughout the U.S. and its territories. The final stamp was in honor of the U. S. Virgin Islands, which was purchased from Denmark in 1917. The stamp displays a view of Charlotte Amalie, capital city of the territory.[28]
draft to mainspace
use of the Smithsonian National Postal Museum as a source. It's among the best -- I the famous Lincoln memorial stamp yet, issued one year exactly after Lincoln's death.
Note: Links to states take the reader to the "[state] in the American Civil War" series of articles in Wikipedia.
American Civil War
draft to mainspace
Further information: American Revolutionary War, Declaration of Independence, and American Revolution |
The American Revolution was the first successful colonial war of independence against a European power. Americans had developed an ideology of "republicanism" that held government rested on the will of the people in their local legislatures. They demanded their rights as Englishmen, “no taxation without representation”. The British insisted on administering the empire through Parliament, and the conflict escalated into the American Revolutionary War.[74] The Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, on July 4, 1776, proclaiming that "all men are created equal", and endowed with unalienable rights. That date is now celebrated annually as America's Independence Day. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation established a weak government that operated until 1789.[76]
Britain recognized the independence of the United States following their defeat at Yorktown.[77] In the peace treaty of 1783, Britain recognized American sovereignty over most territory east of the Mississippi River. Nationalists led the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in writing the United States Constitution, and it was ratified in state conventions in 1788. The federal government was reorganized into three branches in 1789. The Bill of Rights, forbidding federal restriction of personal freedoms and guaranteeing a range of legal protections, was adopted in 1791.[78]
Although the federal government criminalized the international slave trade in 1808,[79] after 1820, cultivation of the highly profitable cotton crop exploded in the Deep South, and along with it the slave population.[82] The Second Great Awakening, beginning about 1800, converted millions to evangelical Protestantism. In the North it energized multiple social reform movements, including abolitionism, [83] in the South Methodists and Baptists proselytized among slave populations.[Heinemann 2007 p. 197] Americans' eagerness to expand westward prompted a long series of Indian Wars.[84] The Louisiana Purchase of French-claimed territory in 1803 almost doubled the nation's size.[85] The War of 1812, declared against Britain over various grievances and fought to a draw, strengthened U.S. nationalism.[86] A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819.[87]
From 1820 to 1850, Jacksonian democracy, began a set of reforms which included wider male suffrage, and led to the rise of the Second Party System of Democrats and Whigs as the dominant parties from 1828 to 1854. The Trail of Tears in the 1830s exemplified the Indian removal policy that moved Indians into the west to their own reservations. The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845, during a period of expansionist Manifest Destiny.[88] The 1846 Oregon Treaty with Britain led to U.S. control of the present-day American Northwest.[89] The U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War resulted in the 1848 Mexican Cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest.[90]
The California Gold Rush of 1848–49 spurred western migration and additional states.[91] After the American Civil War, New railways made relocation easier for settlers and increased conflicts with Native Americans.[92] Over a half-century, the loss of the buffalo was an existential blow to many Plains Indians cultures.[93] In 1869, President Ulysses S. Grant's Peace policy reversed the previous costly policy of "wars of extermination" to civilize and give Indians eventual United State citizenship.[94]
Main article: Louisiana Purchase |
In 1803, in the midst of the Napoleonic wars between France and Britain, Thomas Jefferson authorized the Louisiana Purchase, a major land acquisition from France that doubled the size of the United States. Having lost the revenue potential of Haiti while escalating his wars against the rest of Europe, Napoleon gave up on an empire in North America and used the purchase money to help finance France's war campaign on its home front.[100][99]
Jefferson had sent James Monroe and Robert R. Livingston to Paris in 1802 to try to buy the city of New Orleans and adjacent coastal areas, with the assistance of French nobleman, Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours. Napoleon offered to sell the entire Territory for a price of $15 million, which Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin financed easily. The purchase was without explicit Constitutional authority, but most contemporaries thought that this opportunity was exceptional and could not be missed.[102] The Purchase proved to be one of the largest fertile tracts of land on the planet, and it marked the end of French imperial ambitions in North America which were potentially in conflict with American expansion west.[103]
Some historians, such as Ron Chernow note Jefferson’s inconsistency, “Jefferson, the strict constructionist, committed a breathtaking act of executive power that far exceeded anything anticipated in the Constitution.”[104] Other historians dispute this with the following reasoning: Countries change their borders by conquest, or by treaty. The Constitution specifically grants the president the power to negotiate treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2), and Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison gave assurances that the Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. The Senate quickly ratified the treaty, and the House, immediately authorized funding.[105][106][107][108] On December 20, 1803 the French flag was lowered in New Orleans and the U.S. flag raised, symbolizing the transfer of the Louisiana territory from France to the United States.[109][110]
Historians differ in their assessments as to who was the principal player in the purchase; among Napoleon, Jefferson, his secretary of state James Madison, and his negotiator James Monroe. Peterson agrees with Alexander Hamilton in attributing it to "dumb luck".[111] The historian George Herring noted the Purchase "is often and rightly regarded as a diplomatic windfall—the result of accident, luck, and the whim of Napoleon Bonaparte."[113] Though France was removed as a threat to the United States, Jefferson refused to recognize the new republic of Haiti, the second in the Western Hemisphere, and imposed an arms and trade embargo against it.[101] The entire territory was not finally secured until England and Mexico gave up their claims to northern and southern portions, respectively, during the presidency of James Polk (1845–1849).
While the 1803 Louisiana Purchase was a great achievement of the Jefferson administration, domestically it was complicated by the establishment of pre-existing French slaveholders from modern Illinois to Missouri to Louisiana. Faced with the option to confiscate the slaves of French nationals, Jefferson chose to answer English and Spanish objections to the sale by quickly incorporating resident settlers politically into U.S. territories. Jefferson's failure to tamper with preexisting conditions led to criticism for his having allowed slavery to continue in the newly acquired territory, and the adoption of the Code Napoleon in the New Orleans Territory that would become the state of Louisiana.
An alternative flag which is repeatedly disruptive of Jefferson Davis page and other Confederate personalities is the “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” as identified by the CSA, Inc. Placing this flag on historical articles is pushing that organization’s POV. In the case of the Jefferson Davis article, Lieutcoluseng and ProudIrishAspie tag team the disruption without discussion at Talk where I have posted researched sources for the “stars and bars” flag. ProudIrishAspie has received three ANI blocks for posting infobox flag disruption.
Jeff Davis served under the "First National Flag", the history article at WP should picture the flag of his time, the “First national flag with 13 stars”, File:CSA FLAG 28.11.1861-1.5.1863.svg. The Stars-and-Bars are used in scholarship of reliable sources, building museums and battlefield parks as representing the Confederacy, 1861-1865. (Coulter, p. 116),
The “Blood Stained Banner”, the flag of the Confederacy “since 1865” was passed as Richmond was being lost, it was never fabricated, never a part of the historical Confederacy. David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the BSB was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB.
In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865 viewed June 13, 2012, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the Stars-and-Bars was used “all over the Confederacy”.
The Tearoom suggested an RfC because at the instant of the Featured Article award for the article, the BSB was showing. I have been blocked once elsewhere for 3R trying to maintain the results of a DR in the face of more experienced tag-team editors. When I challenged it, the administrator simply counted the complainants links, without reading the context. How should I proceed to bring resourced information to the encyclopedia without an edit war?
|
We know from the Encyclopædia Britannica that the United States is 50 states. The USG defines itself as a sole person in international affairs. A "state" is defined by law in numerous places as in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), and as applied by the US State Department in international affairs. The US includes 50 states with DC, PR, GU, VI and Marianas (MP). Executive Orders bearing on transportation and defense include American Samoa, the last outlying possession of the US. Scholars include the Pacific and Caribbean territories in the United States.
A federal republic has a representative scheme of its citizens in its national legislature. The national legislature of the US is Congress representing states and territories of its citizens according to its constitutional traditions. In the modern United States, 50 states with a federal district and five territories are represented in Congress.
This is disputed on several counts. It is said that law defining six territories cannot stand
US Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, Consular Affairs Volume 7, section 1100. Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)). INA 101(a)(38) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
b. On November 3, 1986, Public Law 94-241, “approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”, (Section 506(c)),took effect. From that point on, the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States for the purposes of INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) and INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408).
Immigration and Nationality Act: 101 definitions. (29) The term "outlying possessions of the United States" means American Samoa and Swains Island. (36) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, 23 the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands . (38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands .
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375
You offer no sources to support "The six US territories are not a part of the American federal republic". Can you dispute any source with a directly stated reliable source that is not of your own original research? The following is not original research,
1) At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Marianas." The incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy is a judicial term of art to justify discrimination among internal tax regimes of the US. The term excludes no place, Congress alone is to decide territorial status. Internal taxation variability is not of interest to the general reader.
2) ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.
3) Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.
4) This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175] Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). To date, there is no reliable counter source.
I paraphrase Scott Straus in on the Committee on Conscience, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and a professor of political science at U. of Wisconsin, Madison. Indentifying genocide and related forms of mass atrocity – an effort to develop a conceptual standard “to identify the class of events that the atrocity prevention community wishes to prevent.” (p. 25) Some define a mass killing atrocity as 1,000 civilian deaths in a year ... Others define a mass atrocity as 5,000 civilian deaths, still others refer to a class of legal crimes such as crimes against humanity and war crimes (p. 1).
Genocide is a form of extensive, group-selective violence whose purpose is the destruction of that group in a territory under the control of a perpetrator. Extensive violence, is deliberate violence of a large scale, sustained over time and across space; it is organized and systematic, spread out geographically, and the perpetrator has the capacity to inflict such levels of violence (p. 4-5). In short, to assess extent in areas under a perpetrator’s control, outside observers can look at deliberateness, at scale (are substantial numbers being targeted?), at systematicity (organization, coordination, patterned regularity), at time (repetition and sustainment, which are implied by systematicity), at geography (widespread breadth), and at capacity--ability, involvement by institutions (p. 10).
Genocide has a logic of group destruction apart from the political violence which conforms to a coercive logic: political violence is designed to change the behavior of specific audiences. Repressive violence—is largely intended to signal to would-be protestors that such a fate would befall them if they were to do the same (Kalyvas 2006). Terrorist violence is similarly not designed to destroy groups; it is designed to generate fear, to attack symbols, and the like—it has a communicative function (Richardson 2006). Most political violence also envisages compromise and negotiation as an end point. Group destruction implies a different causal logic, namely, that from the perpetrator’s perspective the targeted group cannot be negotiated with, tamed, or repressed (p. 10-11).
Definitions are problematic. How much group destruction, a numeric threshold, state as a necessary perpetrator, distinguishing war from genocide, relating genocide to the Holocaust (p. 15-17). Writer/editors have conflicting objectives:1. Moral or ethical objective: genocide is normative, something very bad. 2. As a legal concept, it must meet evidentiary proof in a court of law. 3. The narrative may be merely an empirical identification of a type of violence with the properties of genocide (p. 17).
Alternatives: Mass atrocity is emerging as the dominant alternative, broader standard than genocide. Along with crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes to describe violence against civilians (p. 19). Within mass atrocity against civilians is mass killing and mass violence. Christian Gerlach defines mass violence as “widespread physical violence against noncombatants, that is, outside of immediate fighting between military or paramilitary personnel. Mass violence includes killings, but also forced removal or expulsion, enforced hunger or undersupply, forced labor, collective rape, strategic bombing, and excessive imprisonment”.
In contrast to mass killing, mass violence includes a range of kinds of violence. Unlike genocide, mass violence is not necessarily group-selective (p. 21-22). Apart from the Indian Wars, we should use “mass violence” to describe the violence perpetrated by local regulators and state militias, Army commands and sutlers, and Interior Department agents and commissaries, against Native American civilians over the centuries of US history.
There is a controversy arising over use in the Infobox of the First National Flag versus the Third National Flag, "Blood Stained Banner" at Confederate States of America where the consensus is to use the First National Flag. In articles about Virginians, the First National Flag is used at Robert E. Lee, but it is challenged, and the BSB is used at J.E.B. Stuart. The BSB is coincidentally adopted by the Confederate States of America, Inc., a WP:FRINGE organization which seeks to persuade voters to elect state representatives who will vote for state secession in the 21st century.
Is there a way to adopt a consistent usage across Virginia articles concerning the Confederacy? Confederates served under one banner, so history articles at WP should picture the flag of its time, the "First national flag with 13 stars", 1861-1865. Jefferson Davis was the last Confederate citizen, the only man not included in the general amnesty. Heritage Auction offered the original First National Flag flown by Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir “since 1865” – that is 1867-1908 until his death.
David Sansing, professor emeritus of history at the University of Mississippi at “Mississippi History Now”, online Mississippi Historical Society observes in his Brief history of Confederate flags, that the “Bood stained banner” was “unlikely” to have flown over “any Confederate troops or civilian agencies”. He quoted the author of “Confederate Military History”, General Bradley T. Johnson, “I never saw this flag, nor have I seen a man who did see it.” -- the BSB. In contrast, Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”.
The alternate image description for the Blood-Stained-Banner suggests the BSB is in use “since 1865”, yet in Jefferson Davis' Short History of the Confederate States of America, p. 503 it is said that the Confederacy “disappeared” since 1865, in the words of Jefferson Davis. Use of this flag is supported by editors who quote primary source of the Confederate Congressional Journal, but it was adopted by a rump session without a quorum, it was never fabricated and no one ever saw it in 1865. It should not be used to represent the historical Confederacy or anyone serving it 1861-1865. Advocates of the BSB have offered no scholarly sources to support their position.
Is there a way to adopt a consistent flag usage in articles of history of the Confederacy across military articles concerning the Virginians Confederacy?
SORTITION: "The suffrage by lot is natural to democracy, as that by choice is to aristocracy". |
This user is a project manager |
((Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = left | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = 45px | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = Gantt przyklad 2.png | info = This user is a project manager | float = center ))
|
|
Idea proposal: Profession: "Project Manager" (alternate). Any of these three images using .png, .svg or .jpg would serve Userbox "project manager" for many contexts besides the stapler image now available. Can someone help me code the Userbox to apply one of them?
Attempts:
This user is a project manager |
((Userbox | border-c = #999 | border-s = 1 | id-c = left | id-s = 14 | id-fc = black | info-c = 45 | info-s = 8 | info-fc = black | id = [[File:Gantt przyklad 2.png]] | info = This user is a project manager | float = center ))
|
|
Thanks in advance.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment
In the 2008 Consejo v. Rullan case, “Contrary to other territories, Puerto Rico historically has formed part of the customs and immigration territory of the US.”[p. 21]. “[Congress’] sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present hs in fact incorporated the territory.” The territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.” [p. 26,28]
[diff:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confederate_States_of_America&diff=next&oldid=489016406 1]
work in progress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Confederate_States_of_America/Archive_10#Map_update
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC
In contrast to your unsourced POV, we have: “State” includes [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands (MP). [p. 22-23]. This definition is reiterated throughout US Code. That is definitive. Executive Order, includes all five organized inhabited territories, that is definitive. The Census Department defines "native-born American" as "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, or those born abroad of at least one U.S. citizen parent. U.S. Island Areas include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. That is definitive. A political science scholar says, Sparrow says p.232, territories are a part of a federal nation-state; today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific, a federal district and 50 states.
Is the US Government competent to legally define its international geographic extent; should WP recognize that extent as the US defines it, noting international challenges? Sought article text: “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” [note] The United Nations monitors Guam, American Samoa and US Virgin Islands as non-self governing territories of former colonial peoples, 18 Dec 2012. Viewed June 3, 2013.
Primary sources. By the Montvideo Convention, Articles 1 and 2, the US is a "sole person" in its federal republic as represented in Congress: 50 states, DC and 5 territories of citizens. There are three other "States in free association". By Congressional statute, "Aliens and nationality", “Definitions. 29. American Samoa (AS) is an "outlying possession". 36. State includes [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands (MP). [p. 22-23]. This definition is reiterated throughout US Code.
Secondary USG. US Foreign Affairs Manual says the term ‘US’ geographically includes four territories (PR, GM, VI, MP), and 'outlying possession' (AS) [p. 18,22]. Insular Affairs, Application of the US Constitution reports all with self-government. [p. 8] “Native-born Americans” are citizens (PR, GM, MP, VI) or nationals and citizens (AS). Territory residents enjoy rights of citizenship, due process and equal protections. [p. 33, 35] The Executive interprets 'US', to include five territories."Native-born American" include those born in five US territories. Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, [five] territories."
Scholarly sources. Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175] Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232).
Sought language in the US article is, “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” In this case we look at the US as an internationally recognized nation-state, which is disputed. By the 1933 Montvideo Convention, Art.2, “The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.” States in free association become independent in 20 years if treaty is not renewed for Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and Micronesia. But that the federal state of the US is a "sole person" in its 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories of citizens represented in Congress, is disputed.
Legal scholars (Lawson and Sloane 2009) show Puerto Rico enjoys UN criteria for democratic process, fundamental rights, self-governance and participation in national councils to comply with 1960 UN resolution 1541, allowing for “integration with an independent state” [p. 1134], disputed by reference to pre-1960 primary documents without scholarly interpretation, -- though, once again -- only 3% Puerto Ricans voted ‘independence’ in the Nov 2012 referendum with 80% turnout.
US citizens in the US territories are represented in the US House, --- by US constitutional practice for 220 years, once there is a path to citizenship and 100,000 Americans --- DC (elected mayor) and territories (elected governors) are listed in the Representatives directory by US place represented, equally with the states.
The opposition in part uses the Insular Cases 100 years ago, which allowed Congress to annex territory of aliens without US constitutional protections, who would be made citizens by Congress, just as "at the ratification of the Constitution" (Northwest Territories), --- the test set forth in the Downes case for political incorporation into the US --- by Congress. Territories were not to have the Uniformity Clause applied for revenue purpose as they were not states. But Editors opposed say revenue provisions bar inhabitants from the US federal republic in the matter of citizenship, --- whom Congress has made citizens with self-government and Members of Congress in the federal republic.
American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492.
Simplest application of |
this template |
As a newbie, I haven't figured out how to make the hot links to (diff) yet. Below are the 28 elements of the edit war on the United States page between A - include territories and B - exclude territories. A = TVH, Gwillhickers, Collect and others. B = Golbez and TFD and others. Every source requirement demanded has been met: government, history, political science and law, primary executive, legislative and judicial, specific acts of legislation and Members of Congress for each territory. "Just quote one president". Okay, John F. Kennedy San Juan, PR, 1961. “…I am in my country… and I am glad to be in America this afternoon. “ Barack Obama San Juan PR, 2011. “I include Puerto Rico… every day, [Puerto Ricans] help write the American story... [also] in our country’s uniform...” But reasonable editors say Obama cannot mean ‘our country’ is a part of the US. And so it goes.
Since 28 October 2012, I have attempted to place a sourced description of the US geographically, nationally, politically and constitutionally in the introduction of the United States article. Golbez reverted, three times --- I subsequently tried Wikipedia approaches --- community talks for geography and political science, third party and mediation --- "Wikipedia does little harm when it is wrong". As the discussion wore into March 2013, at dispute resolution, an accommodation was reached -- eight finding consensus language, three editors including TFD placing the edit war accusation, refused to admit US territories, regardless of the accommodating language. Gwhillickers brought the DRN language to the article on March 19, Golbez placed the final wording.
On April 3, Golbez determined he had made the article, he could unmake it, "I should not have implemented it." On April 20, Golbez found an unsourced revelation to exclude US territories from the US, and so he did. I reverted it because he has no sources, has found no comparable group of eight (Buzity for including territories, has dropped out of the discussion). It may be as simple as refusing to acknowledge the US is not 'we the states' but 'we the people' -- he says below, the nation has no sovereignty, "the country IS the states". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
|
|
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
What is the meaning of U.S. as a place, for use by a general reader?
There are no counter sources offered to exclude native-born Americans, --- U.S. citizens within the geographical extent of the U.S. --- from the lede of the U.S. article at WP. If there were, they would be a footnote to refer to arcane distinctions not relevant to the general reader.
Territorial incorporation takes place "through inhabitants, not the territory per se," with Congressional extension of Equal Protection Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. That incorporation places them integrally within the geographic boundaries of the US. Two lengthy source quotes follow from "The territories of the US (general)" at 'academic room', Harvard Innovation Lab, each supported by two government sources.
"The Supreme Court of the US is unanimous in its interpretation that the extension of the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution of the US to the inhabitants of a territory in effect produces the incorporation of that territory. The ... territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the US and cannot, from then on, be separated. Indeed, the whole body of the US Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character."
Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."
"More so, the needful rules and regulations of the territorial clause must yield to the Constitution and the inherent constraints imposed on it in dealing with the privileges and immunities of the inhabitants of the incorporated territory. Notice must be taken that incorporation of a territory takes place through the incorporation of its inhabitants, not of the territory per se. As such, those inhabitants receive the full impact of the US Constitution, except for those provisions that deal specifically with the federal character of the Union."
US Insular Areas Application of the US Constitution 1997, p. 35, 9. "Among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are due process and equal protection. Both rights apply to the five larger insular areas. --- p. 9, "[US nationals] are not aliens and consequently cannot be excluded or deported." It is irrelevant to reference judicial findings that people in territorial places were once aliens when inhabitants there are no longer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
U.S. President Executive Order 13423, January 24, 2007, “United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." And in the American Community Survey Reports, "Foreign born population in the U.S.", 2010, p. 1, the Census Department defines "native-born American" as "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, or those born abroad of at least one U.S. citizen parent. U.S. Island Areas include Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Viewed April 29, 2013.
see also discussion at U. Chicago Law Review, Virnarajah.
Include or exclude u.s. citizens
How do we get MEDIATION on a page by someone familiar with WP policy? I have tried Requests for Comment, Third Opinion and selecting from the editor assistance list over a two-months discussion. The United States article says it "includes 50 states and DC". But a scholar looking at U.S. expansion from 1803, says, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p. 232). And now collaborating with Buzity, we have at U.S. Government Printing Office, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, and the territories ...” (Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, 2007. p. 77.)
Golbez agreed to “include territories”, but then reverted them, citing wikilink to the Insular Cases. He has since promised to revert any further edit. Buzity and I found law journal articles, court cases, statutory law, executive orders superseding Insular Cases. U.N. resolutions cited for "include territories" have secondary sources. I have a summary at "Include territories” summary for mediation, and at WP policies for “include territories”. Golbez added a citation using a tertiary source, but WP policy would prefer secondary sources. We are warned that we are only two, we can be banned from the article and talk page, we are illogical and we cannot change anything unless we agree to change everything in all related articles, none of which rings true. Thanks in advance.
Every two years, U.S. citizens of the territories popularly elect “Members of Congress”, titled respectively, Congressman and Congresswoman. They “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.” They participate in debate, are assigned offices, money for staff, and appoint constituents from their territories to the four military academies.[30]
Like the delegate from District of Columbia, they do not vote in a role call vote, but they vote on all legislation before Congress as equals in their standing committees, they are included in their party count for each committee, and on conference committees, they are equals with senators. Depending on the congress, they may also vote in the House Committee of the Whole.[31]
Territorial legislators seated today are (1) Commonwealth of Northern Mariana’s Sablan, (2) Guam’s Bordallo, (3) Samoa’s Faleomavaega, (4) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Pierluisi, and (5) Virgin Islands’ Christensen.[32]
Welcome to the United States A Guide for New Immigrants Pages 77, 83 and 101., U.S. Census Community survey reports. The term -- native born American . Title 13 of the U.S. Code states that each of the censuses it authorizes “shall include...", United States - United Kingdom Maritime Boundaries in the Caribbean - U.S. Department of State.
Every representative of a territory in Congress votes on all legislation before Congress (1) in standing committee, (2) on an equal footing with other House and Senate members in Conference Committee, and in the House Committee of the Whole in the 103d Congress, according to the GAO Report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p. 26-28).
Application of the U.S. Constitution November 1997, (p. 26-28)., after 1960, the term “United States” also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term “citizen of the United States” includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
Title 13 of the U.S. Code states that each of the censuses it authorizes “shall include...", United States - United Kingdom Maritime Boundaries in the Caribbean - U.S. Department of State. Cornell University Library - GIS Data and Maps -- United States GIS Data & Maps -- United States-, Federal tax law related to U.S. territories.,
U.S. Census Community survey reports. The term -- native born American -- refers to "anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area, ... [including] Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”., Congress defines the official geographical extent of the U.S. at State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) 7-Consular Affairs, p. 2-3, referencing an Act of Congress: INA, State Department Consular Affairs Manual, refers to INA statute, U.S. Statistical Abstract. viewed October 31, 2012. “Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and consequently included in the native population. “ (p. 6) Section 29, “Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”, p. 815. “This section presents summary economic and social statistics for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.”, U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1121,2,3,4,5 - Sec.1- Current Law for each. viewed October 31, 2012. “As of 1952, according to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. five dependencies listed as part of the geographical definition of the ‘United States’ in Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act."
No source, only a challenge to rename and relink support for a U.S. government printing office publication, “Welcome to the United States” 2007, p. 77. “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”
No source in the exclude the territories, only a challenge to rename and relink support for a U.S. government printing office publication. Wikipedia has on the one side, seven scholars published in reliable academic publications: Charles S. Chapel, Amitai Etzioni, Gustavo A. Gelpí, Julian Go, Sean D. Murphy, Juan R. Torruella, Bartholomew H. Sparrow. On the other we have one editor's assurance that a terciary CIA Factbook of sentence fragments can be interpreted without textual reference to supersede them all by his opinion.
“The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia (a special area that is the home of the federal government), the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” “Welcome to the United States” 2007, p. 77. "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, p. 232).
U.S. Presidents issue executive orders, once called executive memoranda, to direct officers and agencies of the executive branch with the full force of law. They may take authority directly from the Constitution, but typically they are made pursuant to Acts of Congress, including those which specifically delegate discretionary power to the President.
The Insular Cases of 1901-1904 were a temporary judicial holding to give Congress leave to govern conquered peoples without "Anglo-Saxon traditions.
The United States of America is not just composed of State Jurisdictions. It also has Non-State jurisdictions that are part of the country. While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship for the Dominican Republic, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. But Puerto Rico is a part of the United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Act. "Plaintiff returned to Puerto Rico ... and wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, to return and reside in the United States." Alberto O. LOZADA COLON, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al., Defendants
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are part of the United States.
U.S. Dept. of State -- Foreign Affairs Manual Vol. 7- Consular Affairs., This is how it is used in the 21st century: “Incorporated and unincorporated” as referenced in the 1980s court case at Insular cases applies to regulation of U.S. monies by Congress in regions with an average of 50% of U.S. incomes. In those places, the Court has used various prior doctrines to support Congress under its power-of-the-purse -- including enacted lower military housing allowance, less child support, lower unemployment. It also allows lower federal tax rates. Source: Federal tax law related to U.S. territories.
In State Department Consular Affairs Manual, Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S page 3, references Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), that “the term 'United States, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”
Territories and Insular Possessions. 48 U.S.C. Puerto Rico Virgin Islands Guam American Samoa Northern Marianas
Black’s Dictionary defines Organic Act as “an act of congress conferring powers of government upon a territory.” In re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 10 Sup. Ct. 700, 34 L. Ed. 219.
“The United States is not a nation of states, and never has been” notes political geographer and historian Bartholomew Sparrow.[33] By Act of Congress, the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means “the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States.” Since political union with the Northern Marianas in 1986, they too are treated as a part of the U.S.[34] An Executive Order in 2007 includes Samoa as U.S. “geographical extent” as well, and that is reflected in U.S. State Department documents.[35]
The five U.S. territories have voting rights, protections under U.S. courts, pay some U.S. taxes and are represented in the U.S. Congress by delegates who can appoint constituents to the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard academies. Approximately 4 million islanders are generally U.S. citizens, about 180,000 U.S. nationals live in Samoa. Under current law among the territories, “only persons born in American Samoa and Swains Island are non-citizen U.S. nationals”. Samoans are under the protection of the U.S., with freedom of U.S. travel without visas, and U.S. citizens do not lose citizenship by permanent residence there.[36]
United States territories have democratic self-government, in local three-branch governments, found respectively in Pago Pago, American Samoa, Hagatna, Territory of Guam, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, San Juan, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Charlotte Amalie, United States Virgin Islands.[37] Nine uninhabited places administered by the Interior Department are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island.[38]
In U.S. legal matters, USC § 3002 – Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States, the District ... Puerto Rico, ... Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States. Example. 28 USC § 1251 - Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: (2) All controversies between the United States and a State.
Existing France first-sentence | Proposed U.S. first-sentence |
---|---|
“France, … officially the French Republic, is a unitary semi-presidential republic located mostly in Europe [Metropolitan France, mainland and Corsica] - [note: five removed departments] with several overseas regions and territories.” | “The United States of America … is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine islands. |
ACW Slavery copyedit for conciseness, encyclopedic style.
Old version | New version |
---|---|
In 1860, the last national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines. Anti-slavery Northerners mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. | In 1860, the last national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines. Anti-slavery Northerners mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. |
In 1857, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. It held that slavery in the territories was to be allowed as a property right to any settler, even where the majority opposed slavery. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision said that slaves were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". Taney then overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel. He stated, "[T]he Act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning [slaves] in the territory of the United States north of the line therein is not warranted by the Constitution and is therefore void."[24] | In 1857, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. Slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney’s decision said that slaves were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect”. The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.[n.] |
Republicans denounced the Dred Scott decision and promised to overturn it; Lincoln warned that the next Dred Scott decision could threaten Northern states with slavery.[25] In an attempt to blunt that reaction and reunite the Democratic party, presidential hopeful Stephen A. Douglas developed the Freeport Doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. He argued Congress could not decide either for or against slavery before a territory was settled, and that the anti-slavery majority in Kansas could thwart slavery by refusing to pass police laws protecting property in slaves. Lincoln led the new Republican Party in developing their platform calling slavery a national evil, and insisting Congress end slavery expansion into the territories.[26] Most of the political battles in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery, since most assumed that if slavery could not expand, it would wither and die. Lincoln believed that slavery would die a natural death if contained[27] | Republicans denounced the Dred Scott decision and promised to overturn it; Abraham Lincoln warned that the next “Dred Scott” decision could threaten the Northern states with slavery. The Republican party platform called slavery a national evil, and Lincoln thought it would die a natural death if contained.[n.] Stephen A. Douglas developed the Freeport Doctrine to appeal to North and South. Congress could not decide either for or against slavery before a territory ws settled. The anti-slavery majority in Kansas could stop slavery with its own local laws if the police laws did not protect slavery. Most 1850 political battles followed the arguments of Lincoln and Douglas, focusing on the issue of slavery expansion in the territories.[n.] |
But political debate was cut short throughout the South with Northern abolitionist John Brown's 1859 raid at Harpers Ferry Armory in an attempt to incite slave insurrections. | But political debate was cut short throughout the South with Northern abolitionist John Brown's 1859 raid at Harpers Ferry Armory in an attempt to incite slave insurrections. |
Old version | New version |
---|---|
[box.2.a]
|
[box.2.b]
|
Old version | New version |
---|---|
[box.4.a]
|
[box.4.b] :-- |
|align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;border-radius: 0.33em;"|[box.4.a]
|align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;border-radius: 0.33em;"|[box.4.b] :--
Old version | New version |
---|---|
[box.3.a]
|
[box.3.b]
|
Old version | New version |
---|---|
[box.5.a]
|
[box.5.b]
|
Old version | New version |
---|---|
[box.6.a]
“States’ rights” was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[n.] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, “[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power.” [n.] [n.] |
[box.6.b.1]
|
Old version | New version |
---|---|
[box1.a] By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64] | [box1.b] By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64] |
[box2.a] The first of these “conservative” theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the historical designation of free and slave apportionments in territories should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[65] | [box2.b] The first conservative view argued for a pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff, by a return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[n.] |
[box3.a] The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance – that slavery could be excluded altogether in a territory at the discretion of Congress [66][67] – with one caveat: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment must apply. In other words, Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it.[64] The Wilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846.[65] | [box3.b] But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case (1857), which denied blacks any constitutional rights, a competing view came to the fore. From the time of the Northwest Ordinance, the Congress could exclude slavery, but never establish it, because of “due process” required in the Fifth Amendment. This was the reasoning behind the earlier northern-backed Wilmot Proviso (1847) and the Republican Party platform of Abraham Lincoln (1860) against expansion of slavery into the territories.[n.] |
[box4.a] Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[64] | [box4.b] -- |
[box5.a] Douglas proclaimed the doctrine of territorial or “popular” sovereignty, which declared that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery – a purely local matter.[64] Congress, having created the territory, was barred, according to Douglas, from exercising any authority in domestic matters. To do so would violate historic traditions of self-government, implicit in the US Constitution.[68] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine. | [box5.b] Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections. “Popular Sovereignty” held that settlers from North and South in a territory had the same rights as the sovereign people in their home state, to establish or prohibit slavery as a purely local matter. Once Congress organized a territory, it was barred from legislating on local issues, as a matter of self-government implicit in the Constitution. This doctrine was in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the 1860 “National Democrat” candidate Stephen A. Douglas defended it in the earlier Lincoln-Douglas debates.[n.] |
[box6.a]The fourth in this quartet is the theory of state sovereignty (“states’ rights”),[68] also known as the “Calhoun doctrine”[69] after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesman John C. Calhoun.[70] Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the Federal Union under the US Constitution – and not merely as an argument for secession.[71][72] The basic premise was that all authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state. The role of the federal government was merely to enable the implementation of state laws when residents of the states entered the territories.[73] The Calhoun doctrine asserted that the federal government in the territories was only the agent of the several sovereign states, and hence incapable of forbidding the bringing into any territory of anything that was legal property in any state. State sovereignty, in other words, gave the laws of the slaveholding states extra-jurisdictional effect.[74]
“States’ rights” was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[75] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, “[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power.” [76][77] |
[box6.b]Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union.[n.] The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government.[n.] The federal government was merely an agent of the sovereign states.[n.] It could only implement state laws in the territories, and all authority regarding local matters of slavery resided in each state.[n.] The federal government was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before.[n.] This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election and southern Democrat Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi.[n.] |
[box7.a]By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78] | [box7.b]By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78] |
(1) The first conservative view said pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff and return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[39]
(2) But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case denying a black man’s rights in a territory, a second view came to the fore. From the time of the Northwest Ordinance, the Congress could exclude slavery, but never establish it, because of “due process” required in the Fifth Amendment. This was the reasoning behind the northern-backed Wilmot Proviso and the Republican Party platform of Abraham Lincoln against expansion of slavery into the territories.[40]
(3) Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections. “Popular Sovereignty” held that settlers from North and South in a territory had the same rights as the sovereign people in their home state, to establish or prohibit slavery as a purely local matter. Once Congress organized a territory, it was barred from legislating on local issues, as a matter of self-government implicit in the Constitution. This doctrine was in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the 1860 “National Democrat” candidate Stephen A. Douglas defended it in the earlier Lincoln-Douglas debates.[41]
(4) Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union.[42] The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government.[43] The federal government was merely an agent of the sovereign states.[44] It could only implement state laws in the territories, and all authority regarding local matters of slavery resided in each state.[45] The federal government was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before.[46] This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election and southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississipp.[47]
ACW Territorial Crisis copyedit for conciseness, uniform treatment, one-browser-frame length per WP guidelines.
Old version | New version |
---|---|
By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64] | By 1860, four doctrines had emerged to answer the question of federal control in the territories, and they all claimed to be sanctioned by the Constitution, implicitly or explicitly.[63] Two of the “conservative” doctrines emphasized the written text and historical precedents of the founding document (specifically, the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise), while the other two doctrines developed arguments that transcended the Constitution.[64] |
The first of these “conservative” theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the historical designation of free and slave apportionments in territories should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[65] | (1) The first conservative view said pull back from the edge of the secessionist cliff and their Southern Conventions. Return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[n.] |
The second doctrine of Congressional preeminence, championed by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party, insisted that the Constitution did not bind legislators to a policy of balance – that slavery could be excluded altogether in a territory at the discretion of Congress [66][67] – with one caveat: the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment must apply. In other words, Congress could restrict human bondage, but never establish it.[64] The Wilmot Proviso announced this position in 1846.[65] | (2) But in reaction to the Dred Scott Case denying a black man’s rights in a territory, a second view came to the fore. From the time of the Northwest Ordinance, the Congress could exclude slavery, but never establish it, because of “due process” required in the Fifth Amendment. This was the reasoning behind the Republican Party platform of Abraham Lincoln against expansion of slavery into the territories, and the Wilmot Proviso.[n.] |
Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[64] | Of the two doctrines that rejected federal authority, one was articulated by northern Democrat of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, and the other by southern Democrats Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi and Vice-President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky.[64] |
Douglas proclaimed the doctrine of territorial or “popular” sovereignty, which declared that the settlers in a territory had the same rights as states in the Union to establish or disestablish slavery – a purely local matter.[64] Congress, having created the territory, was barred, according to Douglas, from exercising any authority in domestic matters. To do so would violate historic traditions of self-government, implicit in the US Constitution.[68] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 legislated this doctrine. | (3) Some looked for a democratic solution to appeal to all sections. “Popular Sovereignty” held that settlers from North and South in a territory had the same rights as the sovereign people in their home state, to establish or prohibit slavery as a purely local matter. Once Congress organized a territory, it was barred from legislating on any local issue, as a matter of self-government implicit in the Constitution. This was the import of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and the “National Democrat” 1860 candidate Stephen A. Douglas which he defended in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.[n.] |
The fourth in this quartet is the theory of state sovereignty (“states’ rights”),[68] also known as the “Calhoun doctrine”[69] after the South Carolinian political theorist and statesman John C. Calhoun.[70] Rejecting the arguments for federal authority or self-government, state sovereignty would empower states to promote the expansion of slavery as part of the Federal Union under the US Constitution – and not merely as an argument for secession.[71][72] The basic premise was that all authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state. The role of the federal government was merely to enable the implementation of state laws when residents of the states entered the territories.[73] The Calhoun doctrine asserted that the federal government in the territories was only the agent of the several sovereign states, and hence incapable of forbidding the bringing into any territory of anything that was legal property in any state. State sovereignty, in other words, gave the laws of the slaveholding states extra-jurisdictional effect.[74]
“States’ rights” was an ideology formulated and applied as a means of advancing slave state interests through federal authority.[75] As historian Thomas L Krannawitter points out, “[T]he Southern demand for federal slave protection represented a demand for an unprecedented expansion of federal power.” [76][77] |
(4) Some looked to a states-rights solution to preserve the Union. The “Calhoun Doctrine” rejected arguments for both federal authority and self-government. The federal government was merely an agent of the sovereign states. It could only implement state laws in the territories, because all authority regarding matters of slavery in the territories resided in each state. The federal government was incapable of forbidding legal property from any state in any territory, but it could enforce slavery in territories with a power it never claimed before. This was the view of the break-away “Constitutional Democrats” of John C. Breckinridge in the 1860 presidential election.[n.] |
By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78] | By 1860, these four doctrines comprised the major ideologies presented to the American public on the matters of slavery, the territories and the US Constitution.[78] |
Six editors have participated in a process to insert a concise mention of the War-of-1812 in the introduction of 'United States'. ONE editor has not joined discussion or entered collaboration but reverts three times. Please note any errors or omissions below this post.
As the first seven states began organizing a Confederacy in Montgomery, the entire US army numbered 16,000, however Northern governors had begun to mobilize their militias.[48] The Confederate Congress authorized the new nation up to 100,000 troops sent by governors as early as February. After Fort Sumter, Lincoln called out 75,000 three-month volunteers, by May Jefferson Davis was pushing for 100,000 men under arms for one year or the duration, and that was answered in kind by the U.S. Congress.[49] Please see Talk:CW and language
Old version | New version |
---|---|
unchanged | unchanged |
paragraph changed | paragraph changed |
Delist GA | Keep GA |
---|---|
No-vote. Debate over article ‘causes’. causes recently made longer, shorter before. | |
Fails 3.b focus. Four sections into fork articles: Slavery, Territorial Crisis, Emancipation, Victory and Aftermath. |
Sections need significant summarizing. Move verified content to appropriate articles. |
Battles in “broadest outline” require broadening. Relating to states, systematic bias |
Not excessively long for subject. |
Summary style, readable length. Still places needs summary style. |
An interesting naval industry evolved which brought little profit in itself, but it was still a remarkable aspect of the Civil War. Throughout the conflict mail was distributed, including a mail conduit via West Indies Nassau and Bermuda by blockade runners.[50]
Old version | New version |
---|---|
unchanged | unchanged |
paragraph changed | paragraph changed |
Old version | New version |
---|---|
The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28. He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the CSA.[n.] | The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28. He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty." Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the CSA.[n.] |
-1.a→ After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede. Lee turned down an April 18 offer by presidential aide Francis P. Blair to command the defense of Washington D.C. as a major general, as he feared that the job might require him to invade the South.[n.] | -1.b→ Lee was recalled to Washington to meet with Virginia-born Francis P. Blair, son of Lincoln’s cabinet Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, who had opposed violence to admit Kansas as a slave state.[n.] Offered command of the defense of Washington on 18 April, Lee refused on the spot, seeing that Lincoln's volunteer army would move against organized resistance. Lee immediately reported to Virginia-born Winfield Scott, general of the army.[n.] |
-2.a→When Lee asked Scott, who was also a Virginian, if he could stay home and not participate in the war, the general replied "I have no place in my army for equivocal men."[n.] | -2.b→ Scott recommended that Lee resign before receiving orders to active field duty, "I have no place in my army for equivocal men."[n.] Resignation would hurt old army comrades -- of thirteen colonels then serving from southern states, Lee was only one of three to resign. And his family was sharply divided.[n.] |
-3.a→ Lee resigned from the Army on April 20 and took up command of the Virginia state forces on April 23.[n.] | -3.b→ Two days later, Lee resigned on 20 April. Governor Letchner sent representatives to meet with Lee and Scott concerning Virginia service. General Scott refused but the next day Lee rode to Richmond by train where he was formerly offered the command of Virginia’s defense with the rank of major general on April 23.[n.] |
-4.a→ Mary Custis was the only one among those close to Lee who favored secession, and wife Mary Anna especially favored the Union, so his decision astounded them. While Lee's immediate family followed him to the Confederacy others, such as cousins and fellow officers Samuel Phillips and younger brother John Fitzgerald]] remained loyal to the Union, as did 40% of all Virginian officers.[n.] | -4.b→ Among Lee’s own family, “the majority of his generation" favored the Union side, wife Mary Anna especially, and younger brother John Fitzgerald Lee, wartime U.S. army judge advocate, and Admiral Samuel Phillips Lee of the Union blockade. At Arlington House, Lee wrote letters explaining his decision to General Scott and family. Mary Custis and Lee’s immediate family followed him into the Confederacy, but other Lees and 40% of all Virginia officers remained loyal to the Union.[n.] |
-5.a→ While historians have usually called his decision inevitable ("the answer he was born to make", wrote one; another called it a "no-brainer") given the ties to family and state, | -5.b→ While historians have usually called his decision inevitable. One wrote that withdrawing his oath and resigning his U.S. army career was "the answer he was born to make". Another called active rebel service in a civil war, a "no-brainer" given his ties to family and state.[n.] |
recent research shows that the choice was a difficult one that Lee made alone, without pressure from friends or family. [n.] | recent research shows that the choice was a difficult one that Lee made alone, without pressure from friends or family. [n.] |
House servant pic./cap. vs. field hand pic./cap. |
---|
Introduction -- PROPOSED first paragraph -- Key: [ -1.a→ first item, OLD version] [ -1.b→ first item, NEW version] | |
---|---|
Old version | New version |
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. | The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district, |
-1.a→ | -1.b→ five territories and nine uninhabited islands. |
The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., | The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C. |
-2.a→ the capital district, | -2.b→ |
lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. | lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. |
-3.a→ The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent, with Canada to the east and Russia to the west across the Bering Strait. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. | -3.b→ The state of Alaska lies on the continent west of Canada, Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific. The five territories are located in the Western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea. |
At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 314 million people, the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries. | At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 314 million people, the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries. |
(-) Torres, found at Insular cases. Congress can pay less child support in territory with half the incomes of the poorest state;
|
Old version | New version |
---|---|
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. | The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states, a federal district, |
five territories and nine uninhabited islands. | |
The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., | The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C. |
the capital district, | |
lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. | lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. |
The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent, with Canada to the east and Russia to the west across the Bering Strait. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. | The state of Alaska lies on the continent west of Canada, Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific. The five territories are located in the Western Pacific and Caribbean Sea. |
The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 314 million people, the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries. | The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 314 million people, the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries. |
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent, with Canada to the east and Russia to the west across the Bering Strait. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 314 million people, the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.[51]
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent, with Canada to the east and Russia to the west across the Bering Strait. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2) and with over 314 million people, the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.[51]
▪ How you first came across the article ▪ What you think the dispute is about ▪ How you think the dispute would best be resolved How you would like the dispute resolution noticeboard volunteers to help At Help:Diff
Old version | New version |
---|---|
unchanged | unchanged |
paragraph changed | paragraph changed |
paragraph removed | |
paragraph added | |
removed text | added text |
Screw-driven steamers
Extended content
|
---|
|
Side-wheel steamers
In each case, Confederate loss of river control resulted in loss of strategic position for the Confederate armies. In March Polk withdrew from Columbus KY to fortifications in and around Island Number Ten, the tenth island in the Mississippi River south of the Ohio River. Pope cut a canal around the Mississippi at flood stage, and Foote’s gunboats USS Carondelet and Pittsburgh supported his crossing to secure the surrender of the Island Number 10 garrison at the same time as Shiloh. Union and Confederates had each lost 10,000 there, but 6,000 additional Confederates were captured at Island Number 10.[73]
As Halleck advanced into Tennessee, Corinth was abandoned by Confederates, then Fort Pillow. In June five Union ironclad gunships engaged eleven Confederate “cotton-clads”, defeated them and occupied Memphis TN. Confederate guerrilla activity along the interior rivers remained “especially troublesome” to Union shipping and troop transport.[74] After initiating mortar bombardment April 16, Farragut ran past Confederate defenses at New Orleans and destroyed opposing naval forces April 22–24. Forts mutinied and troops abandoned their battery positions under naval bombardment, allowing Butler to occupy New Orleans without resistance on the first of May.[75]
In the east, McClellan planned to avoid the attrition of Grant’s later Overland Campaign by a riverine envelopment of Richmond. Under the threat of the Confederate ironclad CSS Virginia stationed at Norfolk on the James River, he transferred landing operations to the undeveloped York River in April. Norfolk was occupied on Lincoln’s personal initiative and Virginia subsequently destroyed in May, but McClellan failed to support the Union gunboat advance to Drewry’s Bluff. His Richmond approach was turned back in the Seven Days Battle beginning June 25. Union gunboats began direct support of the retreating army on June 31. Lee reported July 5 that he could not advance in the face of naval bombardment, and he did not deploy nearby. In August McClellan took river transport from Harrison’s Landing, returning to Washington without incident.[76]
Following the loss of New Orleans over the course of the next year, Confederate positions at Vicksburg were fortified. Poor coordination between Farragut and Butler led to Union withdrawal from Baton Rouge limiting Mississippi River passage to gunboats and convoyed shipping.[77] The joint Army-Navy siege Vicksburg reduced the city by July 4, the day Lee withdrew from Gettysburg.[78] Grant’s assessment in “Battles and Leaders” was that “The navy, under Porter, was all that it could be … Without its assistance the campaign could not have been successfully made with twice the number of men engaged. It could not have been made at all, with any number of men, without such assistance.” [79] After July 4, 1863 until April 1865, while sporadic guerrilla harassment and torpedo-mine destruction continued along the interior rivers, the Union Navy kept an increasing river commerce open and supply to advancing armies was uninterrupted.[80]
Cornelius Vanderbilt will later expand his interest in mail delivery by fast ocean-going steamer to become the most famous railroad tycoon in the Gilded Age, delivering mail by express train.
First Charleston Harbor.jpg|Gunline of nine Union ironclads blockading Charleston SC April 1863
New Orleans h76369k.jpg|thumb|New Orleans April 1862. CSS Manassas dispersed blockaders as Virginia had. Gunboats sortied supported by rams and forts. Seven Union gunboats and four sloops forced passage to capture New Orleans.
US Navy 030515-N-0000X-001 SS Vanderbilt (1862-1873) in a period engraving by G. Parsons as published in Harper^rsquo,s Weekly, 1862.jpg |Union cruiser chasers alone could not prevent an end to U.S. flag shipping[81]
File:HMS Onslow.jpg|
File:HMSBangor.jpg|
File:Pheasant (MSF 61).jpg|
Wikipedia:Feedback request service WP:FRS
This is a flag template. ((flagicon|Bulgaria|1946))
What Confederate flag best represents the Confederate States of America 1861-1865 for the Infobox?
End RFC TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
.
The American Civil War (1861–1865), often referred to as The Civil War in the United States, was a civil war fought over the secession of the Confederate States. The 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln as President led to resolutions of secession in seven southern slave states and the formation of the Confederate States of America ("the Confederacy") before his inauguration. Additional secessionist resolutions recognized by the Confederacy led to recruitment of rebel regiments (thousands) in six additional states which were seated in its Congress for the duration of the war. Both sides were granted “belligerent status” in the international community during the conflict.
In the midst of maneuvering on both sides, Confederate President Jefferson Davis called for 100,000 militia to defend the new nation and directed hostilities to begin on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Lincoln called for 75,000 to restore Federal property. "The Union" of the national government was divided between “Loyal” Federals and a minority peace faction called “Copperheads”. The thirteen states represented in the Confederate Congress were divided between “Secessionists” and a minority “Unionists”. The “Civilized Tribes” of Indian Territory were very nearly evenly divided in their support at first. While Latin American nations and European colonies and suppliers were involved, none officially negotiated with the Conederate government. none intervened on its behalf.[83] Despite early feelers, no country in the world recognized the Confederacy.[84]
To man their mass armies, the belligerents on both sides turned to their first national conscription laws. In April 1862 Confederates drafted 18 to 45 year-olds. A year later, the Union began drafts of 20 to 45 year olds.[85] Following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation slaves escaping into Federal lines were freed and recruited into the Union war effort. Ending slavery became a Union war goal.[86] It remains the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.[87] Historian John Huddleston estimates the death toll at ten percent of all Northern males 20–45 years old, and 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40.[88]
The American Civil War was one of the earliest true industrial wars sustained continuously for four years over a huge expanse with extensive use of railroads, the telegraph, steamships, mines and mass-produced weapons. The Union Blockade substantially ended water-borne commerce in the South. The practice of total war, as waged by Sherman in Georgia, and the trench warfare around Petersburg foreshadowed World War I in Europe. The North's advantage in manpower, rail and river transport, weaponry and material overwhelmed the South. Confederate governments were dispersed and its armies surrendered. Slavery was outlawed everywhere in the nation; other social, political, economic and racial issues that had led to civil war were imperfectly addressed in the Reconstruction Era that followed.
Bestor, 1964, p. 20-21
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Bestor, 1964, p. 21, 23
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Bestor, 1964, p. 21
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Walske4
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Wyllie3
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Frajola2
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).wise163
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).diplomacy
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).proclamation
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).google
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).37th major events are named with links to articles.
]]
|
text-1
text-2
text-3
text-4
text-5
text-1
text-2
text-3
text-4
text-5
text-1
text-2
text-3
text-4
text-5
text-1
text-2
text-3
text-4
text-5
Executive Department -- office, name and term -- | ||
---|---|---|
Office | Name | Term |
President | Jefferson Davis | 1861–1865 |
Vice President | Alexander Stephens | 1861–1865 |
Secretary of State | Robert Toombs | 1861 |
Robert M.T. Hunter | 1861–1862 | |
Judah P. Benjamin | 1862–1865 | |
Secretary of the Treasury | Christopher Memminger | 1861–1864 |
George Trenholm | 1864–1865 | |
John H. Reagan | 1865 | |
Secretary of War | Leroy Pope Walker | 1861 |
Judah P. Benjamin | 1861–1862 | |
George W. Randolph | 1862 | |
James Seddon | 1862–1865 | |
John C. Breckinridge | 1865 | |
Secretary of the Navy | Stephen Mallory | 1861–1865 |
Postmaster General | John H. Reagan | 1861–1865 |
Attorney General | Judah P. Benjamin | 1861 |
Thomas Bragg | 1861–1862 | |
Thomas H. Watts | 1862–1863 | |
George Davis | 1864–1865 |
text-1
text-2
João VI de Portugal (in Portuguese), Wikcionário portugal
text-3
text-4
text-5
The Marshall Court - thirty-five years, fourteen Justices - | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
text-1 text-2 text-3 text-4 text-5 Convention signers, refusers, absent[edit]text-1 text-2 text-3 text-4 text-5 quote box[edit]
text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 10 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 1 text 10 Strategy[edit]The victories of 1861 were followed by a series of defeats east and west in early 1862. The Federal intent was to (1) secure the Mississippi River, (2) seize or close Confederate ports and (3) march on Richmond. By the end of the Provisional Congress, February 17, 1862, much of northwest Virginia was controlled by the Union.[8] The Second Amendment guarantees the right of adult men to keep their own weapons apart from state-run arsenals.[a] Once the new Constitution began government, states petitioned Congress to propose amendments including militia protections. [b] Over time, this amendment has been confirmed by the courts to protect individual rights and used to overturn state legislation regulating hand guns. Applying the Second Amendment restriction only to the Federal government persisted for much of the nation's early history. It was sustained in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) to support disarming African-Americans holding arms in self-defense from Klansmen. Citizens must "look for their protection … from the state, rather than the national, government." Federal protection of gun ownership by an individual's against the state’s right to disarm citizens came in Presser v. Illinois (1886). All citizens “capable of bearing arms” were members of the federal militia. A state cannot "disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government". [c] In 1939, the Supreme Court returned to a consideration of militia. In U.S. v. Miller, the Court addressed Federal prohibition of short-barreled shotguns, ruling that they could be prohibited because they were not part of the U.S. military reserve armament.[d] It did not address the tradition of an unorganized militia. [e] Once again viewing federal relationships, the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) determined that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is protected by the Second Amendment. It is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, so it applies to the states. U.S. square area[edit]The U.S. Census Bureau reports “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. km. This includes the states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The article should report the area internationally recognized as belonging to the United States.
The dispute resolution in March 2013 reached a consensus by eight to three to include U.S. territories. The following five reliable sources avoid the pitfalls of original research. 1) Government self-definition. At Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p. 7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas." 2) Congressional enacted inclusion. ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p. 23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality. 3) Presidential authorized inclusion. Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories. 4) Judicial inclusion. This is not original research: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p. 1175] 5) Scholarly inclusion. Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p. 232). To date, there is no reliable counter source but editor's original research.
|
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or ((efn))
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha))
template or ((notelist))
template (see the help page).