User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I'll reply to your message here.

For you[edit]

Looking for an appropriate barnstar I instead found this page..

BoNM USA Hires.png The USA Barnstar of National Merit
Louisiana Purchase7 1903 Issue-10c-crop.jpg
For your enduring efforts in creating, building and composing the Territories of the United States on stamps article.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I took a lead from your airmail contribution, and added statehood airmails for Alaska and Hawaii. With Arago links for the original 13 ratifiers to the Constitution and Utah statehood, (Utah does have a territory commemorative), all 50 states and five territories (links) are accounted for. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazing, just a quick glance at Pony Express, and the name "John Hockaday" pops up, --- you can't make up this stuff.
In the Google book, interesting that it was speculated that the restriction on envelope use bearing the old stamps was not adhered to during the "turbulence of the time". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

New category[edit]

We now have a category for U.S. Presidents on stamps which I created the other day. If you see any such stamps in your travels you might want to include them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoating you on war[edit]

I am writing just to bother you a bit and let you know that I like your words here: "a good war is hard to find." Historian (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a peace-at-any-price sort, but I would like a thoughtful, persuasive case for both the justness of a war and how it can be waged justly, before the onset, and periodically during its prosecution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S.Stamp locator[edit]

Here's something that hopefully will assist you in locating existing U.S. (and perhaps other) stamps, fresh off the press. If you know of any other categories to help in this effort bring them to my attention and I will add/edit them into the template.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Great good fun. picked up three horses, three wagons, three airplanes, one train for my sandbox transportation (trains). I aim to add Cherokee Strip commemorative to Horses on stamps category. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New category[edit]

U.S. historical landmarks on stamps -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


New category[edit]

For your e'Library[edit]

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly, some of these out of copyright 19th century accounts of Smith hiding in the bulrushes, etc., are lifted with little or no alternation by 20th century authors. Ambrose was not alone in the method. The colorful prose is worth preserving. I would be more forgiving if credit were given. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

history[edit]

You do excellent work and this includes your attempt to be fully correct with Virginia's Nicknames. However, they were removed because they were already "adequate" -- "adequate" it was stated, not totally shown or even known -- just "adequate".

I wrote, "know that I am not going to write any more articles for Wikipedia. I started or worked on many of them long ago. Too often they get deleted. ..."

"Adequate" is good enough on the nicknames but not so in other articles where all details are desired.

Any history left out is missing history, it is cast-aside history, and that is never "adequate" although it is "adequate" on Wikipedia when material with sources are left out. This is why some nicknames and other histories in other areas are forgotten history to some generations -- it was never known because it was always "adequate". If someone deems history as "adequate" then they are burying some of history as has been done in the past which is why you and others never knew of it. kind regards, Maury (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I placed a note on Talk saying what I was doing, and when the editor deleted my contribution, I put it back, then deleted the now redundant paragraph in State symbols, with another comment at Talk. Now there should be some discussion, and when two or three other editors side with the other fella, I will give in. If the other fella is a bully, I let it go.
I do not like edit wars, it is not why I use Wikipedia as a hobby. When I make a substantial contribution in an article, such as the United States Constitution a couple years ago, I print out a copy for my kids, which I keep in a notebook. Your edits are still written up in the edit history of the articles you contributed to, so you can go back and recover the article as you left it for a print out.
Since my effort, much of my work is preserved in an expanded History of the United States Constitution article so as to shorten the U.S. Constitution article. My work was not wrong, just too historical for the lawyers, and really, the article got too long. Bit by bit, the historical context is removed from the Constitution article over time. But I still have my copy printed out for my family. Among other things, I found four founding fathers to picture on virtually every major debate, showing four aspects in each debate with the captions, and elaborating their contributions in the text. Much of the text was saved in the transfer to the History of the United States Constitution, but most of the pictures were taken out, I guess editors didn't want to look at the losers. But after all Madison won only 30 of the 70 motions he made from the floor. But I ramble.
The point of my hobby is to exercise my mind, recalling, researching, thinking through issues I have not had the time to do earlier, so I win -- even if the material I research is deleted. I had the activity, I have my drafts, I have my copy of the article. At some level, the online encyclopedia collaboratively written cannot ever be everything I want it to be because of its very nature, so I am prepared to let it go. You can always leave copies of your drafts in your sandbox articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

CSA[edit]

You may have seen my further comment on "invasion" by now. I suppose the summary is that I concluded that your interpretation may be technically correct. However, except in some instances, use of "invasion" is now so common, as a substitute for raid or other words or even phrases, even by reputable historians, that it should not be a problem. Unless, of course, it is totally misused or misinterpreted in context. Now I see that a POV pusher has been editing and stating he will restore delete edits, with slight revision, with that misinterpretation given some weight. I feel like I put my foot in my mouth on this. It may have been better simply stayed quiet or even supported the more technically accurate use, or non-use, of the word. I hope it was apparent that I had no strong feelings but simply wanted to contribute to the conversation by showing how McPherson used the word. I should have known by now that something like this would be seized on by a POV pusher. It appears this has come up before but the discussion must have been archived. So I did not realize that the current discussion might be more than a sort of academic discussion on whether use of a word was ok or POV in context. You were more perceptive. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You commented, "Now I see that a POV pusher has been editing and stating he will restore deleted edits, with slight revision," but there are still only five uses of "invasion" in the CSA article. Is this happening elsewhere? I have a somewhat nuanced view of the usage.
NPOV use of "invasion" would apply wherever the actor believed themselves crossing into, or receiving an attack from, a foreign nation. So in the editorial voice or in the Union voice, it should not be used to describe Union operations. The English military historian Keegan in his "American Civil War: a military history", is careful on this point, Lee "invades" Pennsylvania from Lee's viewpoint, Sherman takes the offensive with "operations" into Georgia as Keegan describes it.
The use of "invasion" seems to me permissible when the narrative takes the Confederate voice or viewpoint, for example it would be proper to write, "Confederate initial strategy was defensive to repel anticipated invasion (from the United States, perceived by Confederates as a foreign nation), so Davis called up 100,000 militia; Lincoln responded with a call up of 75,000 to secure federally owned property." Every appearance of "invasion" need not be beaten back, it just needs to be clear that it is the Confederate viewpoint, not the Union's, not the editor's. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to say, regarding your recent contribution to Talk:Confederate States of America ("Houstan's awaited...") that I thought it was a calm, concise and exactly on point response on the question of amnesty. My knowledge of the Civil War is not sufficiently detailed for me to add anything substantive to your remarks on the Talk page, but given my pleasure at seeing your response to TexasReb's neo-confedarism, I thought I should leave a note of my appreciation here. Scipio Edina (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have seen non-neutral POVs on this topic in the past and in other articles such as Confederate States Army. I did not have another current instance in mind. Thank you for your further explanation. I have learned or been reminded of some things from it. Among other things, context and nuance are important.
A writer must be very careful in using words that are not appropriate in context or can be distorted by POV pushers. Also, I suppose one ought not to go so far in the other direction that one only writes with circumlocutions that can be awkward and tedious for fear of provoking someone. We also have to be concerned about trying to write in our own words here, as well. We have several points to keep in mind.
I also want to add my appreciation for your excellent reply to TexasReb. I try to maintain a neutral and factual point of view, as you do. People need to realize that the Lost Cause POV is a distortion. That does not mean the courage and military accomplishments of so many have to be demeaned or understated. Nor does it necessarily mean that the common soldier necessarily fought either to abolish or keep slavery. Yet, the actions and motives of many proponents of secession and leaders of the Confederacy can not be justified by after the fact rationalizations. Allowing such points of view to be stated as if they are correct or even equally accepted by reputable historians is of no benefit to the reader of an encyclopedia. Donner60 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

ACW Names[edit]

A side note to the discussion at the article talk page, based on your username: the Confederate muster rolls collected by veterans' organizations after the war and archived in Virginia courthouses are on pre-printed roll-books, headed "Roster of ___________ in the War in Defense of Virginia". That may be a new one for you. I added it to the article a dozen years ago, and once standards developed, it was edited out (correctly, in my opinion). -Ben (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It is my view, reading over some literature on the subject, especially considering the no-secession votes at first in the Secessionist Convention, that "War in Defense of Virginia" phrasing explains why most Virginians were in grey. It was vain to hope for neutrality, the secessionist fire-eaters misled the state, the term for the war I like best is tragedy. I also like Brother's War as named in Coulter, -- it was so in Virginia as it was in Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland. There were regiments in blue from every state declaring secession, as I recall. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship, Patience[edit]

Your scholarship, clear writing and patience are extraordinary. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
You have a long record of diligent scholarship, editing, writing and patient contributions to sometimes trying discussions. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a dig at you[edit]

Hi,

Just wanted to tell you/reaffirm that my last post on talk was not directed as you, but more of a thread section guidance shot for TexasReb, once-removed. I don't see any point in responding to that individual directly in the future, as nothing is gained by either party in the exchange. He ignores the message at the top of the talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about Confederate States of America," and I have to bite my tongue/walk away from the keyboard not to go at it point-by-point. I figure we will soon be looking at some sort of NPOV review where the his own admissions of POV pushing will settle the matter. Anyway, I'm going to attempt to use a "don't feed the troll" approach and ignore his irrelevant/uncivil postings. His edit summaries are problematic as well... You can respond to him point-by-point if you like, I admire your patience in doing so, but I don't see the point doing so myself, since he is on a self-confessed crusade to sway the uninformed. Warmest regards, Red Harvest (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, the discussion did remind me that the Confederate Congress declared war on individual northern states, so I am rereading some sources trying to find the citation for a contribution to the article. In a way, the extended discussion has so much misdirection, that it could be taken as a checklist for fact checking the article.
For example, as I remember, most of the U.S. revenues in the first half of the 19th century were from sales of western lands, not from tariff collection which declined after Jackson's time (the Congressional deal was, declining tariff for the North to protect new industry, state banks without a national bank for the South to develop locally controlled finance--tariffs came down, but the national bank was not restored, another win for the South), --- so the impression that cotton interests payed taxes on luxury imports of foreign shoes etc. to protect northern shoe industry etc. and so financed 80% of the country will not stand inspection. This in a country where 85% of the population was engaged in agricultural production, North and South. It may be that cotton interests paid 80% of import taxes collected, but I doubt it. The majority of New Orleans imports supplied the Ohio Valley farmers of northern states, for instance, causing the Confederate Congress to declare it an open port for Ohio Valley commerce from Northern states. Most of the early Confederate war supplies came through trade connections with northern Ohio Valley suppliers. That Confederate commerce did substantially end in Spring 1862 after the fall of Island Number Ten, and Grant taking to the field slowed the overland supplies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion got me looking at the weakness of the wiki statements about causes in the ordinances. Most egregious is the AL one. AL skipped the separate declarations and instead put their cause right in the ordinance. This is the opposite of the implication in the original wording. I'm not sure why AL has been treated as if it didn't declare a cause when it seceded. Rather than putting some sort of spin on it, it seems most straightforward and just to quote the sentence. All that is lacking to be more accessible to all readers is an historical definition of what they meant by "domestic institutions."
The share of the tariff argument has always been weak. (This is especially true considering the 1857 tariff had been historically low and the Morrill Tariff could not obtain passage until 1861 after Southern states seceded.) Most of the basis appears to be assuming a section's exports were equivalent to its imports. There were many sections/markets in the U.S. so it is hard to say who bought what and how much more they paid for the goods vs. no tariff. This makes it fertile ground for fabricating an argument from dubious assumptions, while simultaneously making it difficult to refute any argument. If the Southern ports were such massive consumers...why didn't the importers sail directly to them? Why pay unneeded middle men and freight charges when they could have carried finished goods directly to, and cotton from Southern ports? This was already happening in New Orleans due to its great distance from Northern seaports and access to the nation's vast interior. Now, perhaps the reason for preferring northern ports had to do with trade winds or such, but it warrants some explanation.
Of interest to you: In the LA secession convention journal there is an ordinance declaring that transportation up and down the Mississippi will not be obstructed as long as there is no war in progress (I came across that the other day.)
About the western lands/expansion, I was reading a very interesting synopsis in a book recently of the sectional political strife (can't remember where at the moment, I've been doing far too much reading lately). It stated something I had already worked out, but not necessarily read in print: Southern leaders did not want land opened up cheaply to settlement by small holders. They wanted to restrain expansion by the Northern masses and allow large holders to buy up large sections of the most fertile land for plantation ag, as had happened throughout the Deep South. Northern interests were the opposite. I've also been reading a bit on the post-war Confederate Mexican colony effort and one of the issues was that even there Southern speculators bought up the parcels provided by Maximilian, making it hard for later arrivals to even make a start. Red Harvest (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Reverted edition[edit]

Hi, Historian. I understand your argumentation in the reverted edition, but I don`t agree with the minusvaloration of the Spanish contribution to the exploration of the territory of the United States. As the first European explorers of North America and an important portion of the actual USA (south, west and southeast), at least one century before the English, I think they should be more represented in the history section of the article. Sorry for my poor English, I only speak well the language of the first explorers of your country. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. There is a severe limit on the illustrations in the article, that is the only objection I had to the Spanish explorer.
The illustration now in use is of a eastern woodlands Indian tribe negotiating with the French in a way which pictures Indians as assertive. I could find no comparable image among those of the English. I did not want an image of conquering Europeans or massacring Indians because the section is about "interactions".
I agree that Spanish influence should be noted. Spanish law and jurisprudence is still influential in the local state and U.S. Appeals Courts in California and in Louisiana.
My own historical interest in early Spanish settlement lies around St. Augustine and New Orleans. Perhaps we can add some additional text to the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
More information about this would be great! Spanish Florida, where was founded the first european city in the territory of the nowadays USA, is the best start point about this theme. The picture created by Remington which I added also shows the colaboration between the Spanish and the Indians, but I respect the general consensus about the images. Thank you for your constructive reply. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The relevant passage in the article now reads under History.Settlements,
After Columbus' first voyage to the New World in 1492 other explorers and settlement followed into the Floridas and the American Southwest.[66][67] There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast, and later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River. Successful English settlement on the eastern coast of North America began with the Virginia Colony in 1607 at Jamestown and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620.
You can see there is only a summary account made of Spanish early settlement, and even less for the French, before launching into narrative for the English settlement. The sourcing was from Taylor, Alan (2002). American Colonies: The Settling of North America. Penguin Books, New York. ISBN 0-670-87282-2. Earlier copyediting took out reference to the Russian Empire in Alaska Territory.
Did you have another source to draw from that might speak to the European imperial conflicts and early piracy in the Caribbean and along the Atlantic coast? I'm not sure how to convey the New World connectedness in a concise manner so that it would be allowed to expand the section. But all the European empires saw the New World strategically together of a piece, and all sought influence both in the Caribbean and the North American continent in a coordinated strategy that took in both regions. From the Native-American standpoint, they played Europeans against each other among their own Native-American conflicts for over one-hundred years. That is its own story of international diplomacy.
See the more elaborate coverage, map of empires in North America by France, Great Britain and Spain, and illustration of Juan Ponce de Leon at History of the United States#Spanish, Dutch and French colonization. I'm not sure of the best place to add information on Spanish settlement, at United States or, maybe the better venue would be History of the United States, which might admit more detail. You are of course welcome to try out wording here first if you like in either case you choose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Cherbourg[edit]

I saw your comments so added a few flourishes, to help things along. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical assist. My Google translator says Field Marshal translates to Feldmarschall. Will that serve to Germanize the title for Gerd von Rundstedt in the 'Outcomes' section? Previous reviewers suggested Generallleutnant for Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben in the 'Background' section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I find that it helps to look for a precedent on Wiki, Gerd von Rundstedt has Generalfeldmarschall. Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben has General (Germany) with Generalleutnant. Hope this helpsKeith-264 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]