Talk:History of the Southern United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
This topic has been extended for another week as the USSCOTW. Please see Wikipedia:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board for discussion.
Thought I'd get us started off...by starting at the very beginning. Forgive me, I don't know how to add the collaboration heading...It is a really big and broad subject we might need to come up with some kind of outline.Kayellen 19:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is really turning out well, y'all have been doing a great job. :) In order to prop the home team, do y'all think there is any way to somehow incorporate the following into the Rev. War section?
- Aroused by the news [of the Lexington battle on May 19 1775], the delegates chose three of their number, on of whom - Hezekiah Balch - was a Presbyterian minister from the region which would become Cabarrus County, to draft a document declaring that they would not longer be subject to a king who had fired upon their countrymen. That document, finished after midnight by candlelight, was read to a large and approving throng from the steps of the log courthouse the next day by Colonel Thomas Polk, leader of the local militia. History knows the document as the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. Scholars debate its terms and authenticity, but North Carolina proudly placed the date of its completion May 20, 1775, on the state flag in 1861.
- The revolutionary fire in the backcountry did not burn out, as Lord Cornwallis was to find to his sorrow in 1780 when he invaded Charlotte from South Carolina. He had been misled into thinking he would find a land of plenty to supply his troops for an invasion of North Carolina. Mecklenburg marksmen used the bright red coats for target practice, and ambushed the food-gathering parties until the nervous British fired at every sound. Cornwallis was to write Sir Henry Clinton that the citizens of Mecklenburg and Rowan County were "more hostile to England than any in America".
[1] --Golbez 16:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Roanoke Island
The Lost Colony and Virginia Dare were in North Carolina. Maurreen 05:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The rest
No one else knows the rest? Mike H 07:11, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Merging title
I was wondering if anyone else had opinions regarding the new title for a post-merge of History of the U.S. Southern states vs History of the U.S. South. I created History of the U.S. Southern states after working on U.S. Southern states, and the history section of that article bore the former. I had one person suggest that the name of the new article ought to be History of the U.S. Southern states to coincide with the original region article. However, since there is a longer history for History of the U.S. South I wanted to get some opinions from contributors here about what the new merged article title should be. Thanks, User:Poroubalous 30 Mar 2005
[edit] Page Move
According to new policy approved by Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. regions this page should be moved to History of the Southern United States, its main article has already been moved to its new title. Thanks. -JCarriker 12:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Since there seem to be no objections I'm going through with the move. -JCarriker 09:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Two articles removed from external links
I just removed two articles from "External links" that didn't seem relevant:
- Haveman, Heather A. "Antebellum literary culture and the evolution of American magazines." Poetics 32 (2004): 5-28.
- Dalrymple, Mary. "Dixie's Dead, Long Live the South." Endeavors, Spring 1997.
The first appears to be about... magazines? It seems interesting from the abstract, but why does it belong here, in the external links of an article on the history of the South? If the material in it is relevant, it ought to be written into the article and cited, not tacked here at the end.
The second appears to be a random collection of popular myths in a literary journal. Not particularly historical. Why was this linked here? Again, if there's anything here that needs to be in the article, it ought to be in the article — though I don't feel this would be the best source to cite for any of this.
In any case, I don't think they belong as external links, which are meant to provide further reading for subjects that are in the article, or subjects that are relevant, but too big to discuss.
These seem to have been added to History of the U.S. Southern states back before the merge, by Poroubalous. Why? If there's a good reason for keeping them, add them back, but please explain why, and give a proper citation (as above) rather than just slapping the link on there. —LonelyPilgrim 13:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see. The first one, on magazines, was cited in the article. In that case, it was mislabeled as an external link; it ought to have been listed as a reference. I shall add it back. The second one I still don't see. —LonelyPilgrim 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
