Talk:Congress of the Confederation

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia High‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: not merged. TJRC (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Congress of the Confederation be merged into Second Continental Congress. Despite repeated requests from various editors, no one could provide historical reasons for referring to the later years of the Second Continental Congress with the term "Congress of the Confederation." Editors have already cited sources that declare that neither the membership, nor the purpose, nor the structure, of the Second Continental Congress changed. More to the point, citations have been provided that prove that the governing body under question referred to itself as the "Contintental Congress," not as the "Congress of the Confederation." Where does this term, "Congress of the Confederation" come from? It seems that all of the cited sources -- including records of the congress itself -- indicate that the Continental Congress and "Congress of the Confederation" were one and the same, and that the term "Congress of the Confederation" seems more of a Wikipedia invention than one of any historical merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.130.196 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Congress of the Confederation is listed separately to mean the Congress operating more permanently, as the national government of the entity United States under the Articles of Confederation. It's much like eras of national history, as well as events (here and here), are separated into historical periods as needed, divided by milestones. In this case, the ratification of the Articles as a permanent constitution is a milestone that could justify having a separate article.

Maybe it could be renamed, like "United States in Congress Assembled" as mentioned below. —Abstractematics (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree. History books, et c. still list it as the Second Continental Congress. The same people were still their, the SCC didn't just disband, it still continued on!208.114.41.141 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely incorrect. The Continental Congress operated without any charter. When the Articles of Confederation were ratified, the Second Continental Congress adjourned and then reconvened as the first Congress under the Articles of Confederation. From that point on, the Articles regulated the powers of the Congress and imposed greater restrictions on the Confederation Congress than applied to the Continental Congress. It also provided for one-year terms of office with a limit of three consecutive terms. Under the Artiles, the States chose new delegates every year. Jstephenclark (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This merger proposal has been long closed and was not done. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“American Revolution” v. “American War of Independence”

First line of the Second Paragraph: "The Congress of the Confederation opened in the midst of the American Revolution." American Revolution links to the wikipedia article on the American Revolution. However there is also an article: American War of Independence. The former article discusses the political and philosphical angle of the American Revolution, while the latter focuses on the course of the war and the battles themselves. I suggest the link should instead be to the American War of Independence article. Mainly, because it appears it main point of the sentence is to emphasize that the Congress of the Confederation began during wartime. Any thoughts? --Chops79 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Congress of the Confederation" versus "2nd Continental Congress"

The official printed proceedings of this body [1] call it the "Continental Congress." The section covering 1788-1789 still calls it the "Continental Congress." [2]. The Library of Congress site says "The First Continental Congress met from September 5 to October 26, 1774. The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775, to March 2, 1789." [3]. What is the source for it being called the "Congress of the Confederation?" We usually go with the name something calls itself or the most commonly used name. Thanks. Edison 21:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another user stated " no one could provide historical reasons for referring to the later years of the Second Continental Congress with the term "Congress of the Confederation." Editors have already cited sources that declare that neither the membership, nor the purpose, nor the structure, of the Second Continental Congress changed." We should just use the same name!

Though you should go to the Merger Proposal to talk about this

208.114.41.141 (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Congress of the Confederation" versus "United States in Congress Assembled"

Originally just called congress, the colonies had passed 12 different resolutions naming the Philadelphia gathering and its membership in various different forms:

New Hampshire … General Congress; Massachusetts … meeting of Committees from the several Colonies; Rhode Island … general congress of representatives; Connecticut … Congress of commissioners; New York … Congress at Philadelphia; New Jersey … general Congress of deputies; Pennsylvania … Colony Committees; Maryland … General Congress of deputies from the Colonies; Virginia … General Congress; South Carolina … deputies to a general Congress; Delaware … general continental congress; North Carolina … general Congress.

It was Delaware’s term “Continental Congress” that was officially adopted on October 20, 1774 as the name primarily to distinguish this congress from the many congresses being held throughout the Colonies at that time. On that date the assembling colonies passed the Articles of Association that acknowledged the formation of a Continental Congress of September 5, 1774. This Association would ultimately declare its Independence from Great Britain on July 2, 1776. The Articles of Association began:

“We, his majesty's most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress, held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th day of September, 1774”

This term was used until March 2, 1781, the day after the Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Continental Congress with Maryland, the 13th State's ratification the new constitutional body adopted the name ,United States in Congress Assembled, and it was placed at the head of new Journals (http://www.roi.us/Exhibit%20C.JPG [archive]). On that day the Continental Congress ceased to exist. No where could this author find an entry in the new Journals of the United States in Congress Assembled that the body referred to itself as the Continental Congress. The first US Constitution itself clearly names the governing body in Article II:

" Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

The documentation on this matter is summed up best in "STANLEY KLOS, Plaintiff, Appellant v. HENRY M. PAULSON, JR., in his capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant, Appellee" which can be found here - http://www.roi.us/complaint.htm [archive]. The "Congress of the Confederation" is not the name of the first US Constitutional Government and it should be immediately replaced with the proper name. — Preceding NatsSolk comment added by NatsSolk (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the given source it is apparent that Klos is a WP:Fringe opinion not supported by consensus TEDickey (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Continental Congress template in this article?

Why is the Continental Congress template in this article? It confuses and, therefore, reduces the quality of this article. That's why I'm removing it. --TMH (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It gives the user the context in which it lies (though one might consider improving the template, if there's some additional emphasis needed for this topic) Tedickey (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Livingston House

The chart lists the Walter Livingston House in New York City as the meeting place of the Congress during the latter part of the eighth Congress in 1788 and the sole meeting place of the ninth Congress ending in 1789 (although this was the session which ended with one member present), yet there is no Wikipedia article for the house and no mention of this in the Walter Livingston article. Livingston built a large home in 1774, but it is not in New York city and its article has no mention of the Continental Congress. Any further information or clarity would be useful. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. this interesting site and page has more material. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Old City Hall is incorrect

The image identified as Old City Hall is incorrect. The image is Federal Hall. As Wikipedia's own article on Federal Hall notes, the Old City Hall was renovated according to a L'Enfant design during the fall of 1788 and winter of 1789. The renovation, done for the First Session of the Congress under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution, resulted in a radical change in appearance and a new name: Federal Hall. L'Enfant gave the building an entirely new facade and a new cupola. For side-by-side depictions illustrating the difference see this site. For discussion of the renovation by L'Enfant, see Bowling, The Creation of Washington, D.C., pp. 97-98. The link mentioned above under the Walter Livingston House entry further explains that the Confederation Congress had to meet elsewhere once the renovation began in October 1788. The image of Federal Hall should be replaced with an image of Old City Hall before the renovations. The Confederation Congress never met in the renovated building. Jstephenclark (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and research. Can someone please image load an image of the Old City Hall as described above? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]