Talk:Peggy Stewart (ship)

Page moves

I removed the HMS designation because it would not be used on a privately owned and operated ship. It was reserved for vessels of the Royal Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llleveque (talk • contribs)

Agreed -- an administrator should move this to Peggy Stewart, which is a redirect here. --Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Stan 04:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a move to Peggy Stewart (ship) would be better. There are 4 actresses known as "Peggy Stewart" at IMDb, the first of them has a very long career (still working?) and may get a wikiarticle (a borderline case when it comes to notability, but I get many hits on her by Googling). And then there's the Peggy Stewart House in the Colonial Annapolis Historic District in Annapolis, Maryland. Anthony Stewart built it, then Thomas Stone lived there. [1]. -- 199.71.174.100 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It can be moved when those articles are created. --Rory096 23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hero or Zero?

The article is a bit fuzzy. If Stewart did what the crowd wanted, why did he have to flee? Was he just a loyalist? If he were a loyalist, why did the burning become "an act of heroism" (strange passive voice)? Was Stewart heroic for avoiding the tax, or heroic for standing up to the crowd? Seems to early for a revisionist outlook; isn't it more likely that the city celebrated the burning itself, and only later came to add the "heroism"? The article perhaps unnecessarily raises these perhaps unanswerable questions. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Stewart fled because although he had complied with the crowd's wishes he was still afraid that he would suffer from further retribution.Cool3 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Stewart was never regarded as a hero, the city celebrated the burning and came to view the angry crowd who caused the burning as heroes.

If "the Peggy Stewart was a brig owned by Anthony Stewart and James Dick, two Annapolis merchants," how is it a "British ship"? British-built? --Wetman 12:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Prior to 1776, Maryland was a part of BritainCool3 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I did think that might have been the misconception behind the statement.--Wetman 00:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by no? No Maryland wasn't a part of the British Empire? If so, that is not a misconception. Maryland was most certainly a British possession. Cool3 02:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above two, and i have to say that the article did not deserve to be listed in the "Did you know" column because now I know less, except that apparently in Maryland it is considered "heroic" to burn ships. This still the case today from time to time? I cannot believe this to be the viewpoint of all Marylanders, or: The article smells bad of NPOV gbrandt 12:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The burning was considered heroic as it was an act of rebellion against the British Tea Act. After the American Revolution, most people came to view any prior resistance against the British such as the Boston Tea Party or Peggy Stewart burning as heroic. Cool3 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for not knowing that HMS was only for the Royal Navy, I thought it was applied to all ships. As for the comments listed in the section "Hero or Zero?", I am sorry for any confusion that I caused. I come at the article from my heavy background in US and Maryland history, so I suppose I failed to explain some aspects of the burning that seemed common sense to me. I hope that I have rectified all of the issues raised, if I haven't please respond and I will fix anything more as soon as possible. Cool3 13:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I already guessed that your POV is how you learned in a Maryland high school about the incident. Now that the article states that the burning is considered an act of heroism by Marylanders (probably all Americans), fine with me. With a German background (retrofit with a freshman year New Jersey high school) i react sensitively to non-objective reports of history. In general, arson && death treats != heroic. gbrandt 00:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not actually change the article very much to eliminate what you see as POV, the statement "citizens of Maryland came to view the burning of the Peggy Stewart as an act of heroism" has remained unchanged. All that changed was the addition of their reasoning for doing so. The article stated all along that the burning was merely viewed as heroic by Marylanders. I for one don't see the burning as heroic. Secondly, I have never in my life set foot in a Maryland high school. Although American, I grew up in Texas and Virginia. My knowledge of Maryland history came from a post-graduate program at the University of Maryland. Yes, perhaps that somehow tainted me, but I see no way in which the original draft was not objective. Unclear in some ways, yes. But, you'll have to elaborate on any way in which it was biased.

You're right it was phrased that way, but without the closer explanation, it seemed (for me) to suggest, that the act in general was heroic. Fine now, we're discussing fine-tuning of the phrasing, as i said i'm sensitive there. And sorry for making unjustified inferences about your education. have fun gbrandt 08:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to have resolved that. I do agree that the statement needed further explanation. Does everythin in the article meet with your approval in terms of POV now? Thanks. 12:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Great article. I would like to emphasize that the burning of the Peggy Stewart was popular in Maryland. It was seen as a snub to King George during the run up to the Revolution and a punishment for American colonists who were loyal to him. The 1896 painting of the burning of the Peggy Stewart hangs in the state capitol. btw, Anthony Stewart was already unpopular in Annapolis for his support of King George. That no doubt helped the mob react so violently to his snub at the non-importation agreement that the colonies had signed. Also, Maryland was a part of the British empire at the time. That's why the British considered the Americans "rebels." ````ECAlert 3/16/07

Tea Tax

Given that the Tea Act abolished the tax on tea, are the statements here certain? The Boston Tea Party was a protest by smugglers that their prices were being undercut by legal tea. Was it the same in Maryland? --Henrygb 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tea Act abolished taxes for the British East India Company, allowing undercutting. The Boston and Maryland protestors were both fighting against what they saw as an illegal monopoly. Second, exactly which statements do you wish do know the certainty of? Cool3 02:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading back over this, I feel the need to elaborate further. At the Boston Tea Party, citizens fought to prevent the East India Company from distributing its tea. After the tea party, anti-British sentiment ran high. This led citizens of Maryland to pass a non-importation agreement on a number of British goods, especially tea. As a result of the agreement, most merchants refused to transport tea to Maryland. However, Anthony Stewart agreed to transport over a ton of tea for Thomas C. Williams and Co., hoping to turn a large profit on the then scarce item. When the tea arrived, had Stewart refused to pay the tax, he probably would not have met with resistance, having thereby rebelled against the British. However, when he paid the tax, having already violated the no-imports agreement, the populace became enraged. Those who wished to burn the tea wanted to punish Stewart for his supposedly "treacherous" behavior by destroying the tea and his ship. Cool3 02:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

2007 rewrite

The article as originally written was less NPOV (and less accurate) than a New York Times article written over 100 years ago. I've rewritten almost the whole thing, with additional references- including that NYT item, and many original sources from 1774-5. David Trochos 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Rework the beginning..

I started reading this article, I realized that I wasn't sure who was doing what in the very first paragraph. Then I looked back a ways, and saw that the older versions addressed this a little more directly. I get that NPOV is a big deal, the first paragraph should have some sort of idea as to who was doing the burning as punishment. Had it made delivery before or after getting burned? Docked, in port or in high seas. Was it burned by state officials, organized militia, unorganized mob? is this a transatlantic vessel, or a brown water cargo ship? This is a huge run on sentence with all sorts of ambiguous meanings.

This information can be found in the article, but the summary should give an outline to someone unfamiliar with US history a clue as to what was going on.

Is there a good reason "The Customs collector at Annapolis" has weird capitalization? What's with the "tax-"

The run-on sentences, make them stop.

"Customs" capitalized again? "River"?

This is getting to be a rant, I don't know enough about what's going on to properly edit this, but I think that this article could use a merciless editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.183.208 (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing with the first paragraph isn't to do with NPOV, so much as minimisation of duplication. The questions you pose are, I think, all answered within the text, and the first paragraph just gives the absolute minimum of information to get you reading on.

As for the capitalisation: "Customs" = Government extortion; "customs" = Trick or Treat etc. "River" because it's being used as part of the proper name of the Thames (if I were writing for a purely British audience I'd probably omit the word altogether). The "tax-" ought probably to be "tax—" and I may change all such occurrences where found if I get time before somebody else does.

Looking at sentence lengths, it's notable that two of the worst offenders both refer to the Boston Tea Party. They run on because they need to get a peripheral issue dealt with, then move the reader on. Others set out chains of causality. But any you want to split, don't be afraid; no formatting commands should be needed, just QWERTY. David Trochos (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)