Talk:Province of New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments

shouldn't the Province of New York be called New York Colony or should there just be 2 separate articles? Most of the other locales such as Virginia and Maryland are referred to as colonies. For consistency's sake, this should be renamed New York Colony as Virginia is named Virginia Colony and Maryland is named Maryland Colony. Stevenmitchell 03:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on the 13 Colonies, the opposite is true, most of them were named "Province of ...":

...Catiec 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Map of territorial claims

The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map of this province's claims, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Of course a lot of these claims were made/persisted considerably after independence. Let's count. There's the pre-independence borders encompassing southern Ontario, the giant New York Western claim, the Erie Triangle, the Massachusetts claim on Western New York, the whole Vermont dispute, and apparently some Pennsylvania claim on the Southern Tier as seen on this map, which is actually the most influential in American history. And this isn't even mentioning New Jersey. The question I think is, how many maps do we need?--Pharos 15:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Just one, though admittedly it is a bit busy. Article really needs a history section to explain some of them. Kmusser 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; I hope you won't take it as kibitzing to suggest the Quebec line be dotted; as it is, it looks like NY didn't claim southern Vermont. Septentrionalis 05:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I just adjusted where the Vermont line points, should hopefully make that clearer. Kmusser 13:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't checked this page in awhile. I have to say, that's a beautifully informative map. The southern Ontario thing, which is on several historic maps (particularly one from 1774, said to be based on a 1764 proclamation), is still missing though, though I admit I don't really understand this claim too well. The map shows the ordinary borders extended westward on a line till they hit Lake Huron, taking in southern Ontario, but leaving out Michigan. From a little research, it appears, however, that this was some sort of claim on a portion of the Indian Reserve (1763) (see this map), which was not designated for colonial settlement until the Quebec Act of 1774--Pharos 19:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that as soon as I get a chance, looks like New York had a thin theoretical claim to that land between 1763 and 1774, but never tried to enforce it. Kmusser 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Another thought occurs to me: How did New York come to acquire that portion of the Indian Reserve which is today western New York? The Line of Property doesn't seem to have given New York much extra land. Could the western areas have been part of the Indian Reserve up until American independence? Would that area then really be considered part of "New York"? Would the Treaty of Fort Niagara have any relevance?
It's understandable that the claim on this portion of the Indian Reserve was more successful than that on the one in the former New France. However, the Mitchell Map from before the French and Indian War somewhat dubiously shows all Iroquois lands in modern western New York and southern Ontario as "British". Perhaps that is part of the thinking behind the claim on the 1774 map I discussed. There is also no clear border for New York on the Mitchell Map (or for Virginia, for that matter).--Pharos 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
All of New York's western claims were based on their dealings with the Iroquois, not from any grant from the Crown. The logic went that since the Crown allowed New York to negotiate with the Iroquois on the Crown's behalf, then the Crown had granted New York implied soveriegnty over all Iroquois lands. It was considered pretty dubious logic even back then. Kmusser 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Map updated. Kmusser 14:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's very hard to believe there's another map as comprehensive on this topic anywhere.--Pharos 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map of territorial claims

thanks for the work .....but the map is very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.13.207 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stamp Act

I am adding sourced material that shows that there was a division among protesters between the largely middle and upper class Sons of Liberty, who favored peaceful protest (such as constructing Liberty Poles), and the street mobs that frequently were out of control of the Sons n the early protests. This is a theme made clear in the main article on the Stamp Act 1765 and was true throughout much of the decade leading up to the war.

I removed the following unsourced paragraph since it is in conflict with the sourced material that indicates the Sons were not leaders of the street violence:

“The three most prominent leaders of the mob were Isaac Sears, John Lamb, and Alexander McDougall. There is circumstantial evidence that the DeLancey's were the secret men organizing the riots. The majority of the lower and middle classes were attached to DeLancey's political party. This group was variously described at the "Sons of Neptune", "Vox Poluli", and the "Free Sons of New York". Later, this group was organized and named the New York Sons of Liberty (also known as the Liberty Boys).”

In a couple of other points I moved text and added dates to put it in chronological order. I also flagged for citation an apparently POV statement -- it should either be deleted or attributed as opinion to a reliable source.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Sourced Material

I had replaced unsourced material with sourced material that was contradictory and explained my reasons in the above section. BradMajor deleted a large chunk of this and replaced it with the previously removed material. He has added a source, but the source fails to provide a page number. I would suggest he provide a page number and a quote (the material he deleted was a direct quote). If this is a case where reliable sources differ, then the article can be written to include both.

Despite my efforts to explain exactly what I was doing, my material was deleted with no effort to discuss. I hope this isn't repeated. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I've added a second source to the text (with a quote provided) that supports the section deleted by Brad. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on the deletion

I have the Ketchum book that BradMajors referenced (w/o page numbers), but haven’t read it. However I have tried to track his claims down -- it appears that he is misinterpreting the work. It appears that Ketchum is largely in agreement with Nash and Anderson. Examples:

BradMajors -- “ The three most prominent leaders of the mob were Isaac Sears, John Lamb, and Alexander McDougall.”

Ketchum -- On page 137 Ketchum refers to the October 31 meeting of 200 merchants at Burns Coffee House (referred to as Burns Tavern in the article). The meeting was attended by Lamb and Sears who were identified as member of the Sons of Liberty. The meeting established a boycott and proposed setting up committees of correspondence -- it proposed no street action.

Rather than Lamb and Sears leading the mob, Ketchum writes of the crowd outside, made up of “sailors and young men from the docks”, that they “were disappointed to learn that the meeting had been a serious, peaceable one.” It was this mob that started vandalism that night that led to the full riot the next day -- it is clear they WERE NOT acting at the direction of Sears and Lamb.

With respect to McDougall, on page 144 Kechum writes that McDougall probably acted as a peacemaker after the November 1 riots-- he was part of a group that went around to ship captains trying to get them to control the sailors.

BradMajors -- “There is circumstantial evidence that the DeLancey's were the secret men organizing the riots.”

Ketchum -- I can’t find where Ketchum says that. On page 142 what he does say is that he violence of November 1 did not repeat itself and suggested that “someone behind the scenes was manipulating the strings” and “making certain that the situation never got out of control.” At this time James DeLancey Jr. announced that he was a member of the Sons of Liberty. As Anderson noted in my recent addition to the article shows, the Sons did not initiate the rioting but were instrumental afterwards in controlling the mob.

BradMajors -- “The majority of the lower and middle classes were attached to DeLancey's political party. This group was variously described at the "Sons of Neptune", "Vox Poluli", and the "Free Sons of New York". Later, this group was organized and named the New York Sons of Liberty (also known as the Liberty Boys).”

Ketchum -- On page 129 he writes that “the most vocal opponents of the act were the young merchants and members of the middle class” and “they began calling themselves sons of liberty.” There is no mention of a lower class contingent of the Sons of Liberty until much later. This is consistent with the quote from Nash deleted by BradMajors. As stated above, DeLancey was not even identified with the Sons of liberty until after November 1. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of dispute tag

I have explained why I made additions to the article -- all of these additions were sourced and the material removed was unsourced.

An editor came back and gave a vague reference (a book -- no page numbers). I provided actual quotes and page numbers from the book that shows the references do not support the material that was removed. The editor in question has not contested the acuracy of my information, nor has he substantiated his claims -- in act he appears to be ignoring this discussion. With no actual discussion even being attempted, the dispute tag placed appears to be frivolous and I will remove it. If the editor in question, or anyobe else, wants to actually explain what in the fully sourced material is actally in dispute, then it may be appropriae to reinstate the tag. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographic

Currenlty, the article only really deals with a single demographic, not plural demographics. More is needed, particularly beyond race, such as: occupations, population density, etc. The Economics secition is rather lacking as well, and in dire need of informaiton on exports, imports, manufactured goods, as well as some of the demographic information such as professions. Shoreranger (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)