Talk:Second Continental Congress
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The Declaration's adoption
- The following post was copied to here from Talk:Continental Congress. At the time of writing, the “Continental Congress” article had not yet been split into three articles.
The Declaration of Independence, as the official record kept by Secretary Thomson makes clear, was not signed until August 2nd. It should also be noted that the Congress declared independence of the 2nd of July, not the 4th. The article should probably be changed to reflect this discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.229.252 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- This suggestion has now been incorporated into the article. — DLJessup (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Olive Branch Petition
Maybe the article should mention why Britain refused the petition and repremanded the colonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHeadWolf (talk • contribs) (01:37, 15 December 2006)
[edit] Wiki rules on controversy
By Wiki rules, if there is a controversy among experts the solution is to cover all the main positions, giving citations. We do not delete a position that is fully sourced by scholars. Rjensen 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- We can't begin an encyclopedia article about the Second Continental Congress with the first sentence "The Second Continental Congress was the national government established by the First Continental Congress". That is POV. I defy you to find any encyclopedia article on this topic which begins this way. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- why is it POV to say the Congress was the national government? It acted exactly like a national government and was so treated by France, Netherlands, and by each of the states, which took its orders. Rjensen 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because it is an opinion...not a fact. This isn't a PhD dissertation or a journal article where we are trying to prove it was or was not a national government. We have to be NPOV here. It acted in some ways like a national government, and in some ways it was nothing like a national government. And, of course, it certainly wasn't considered as such by Britain. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- In actuality using the period of 1775 to 1781 as the 2nd Contintental Congress is inaccurate. This Congress disbanded and was re-elected several times during this period creating a 3rd, 4th and even 5th Continental Congresses. What you really have is a 1st and second Continental Congress of the United Colonies that lasted until July 1, 1776. Then you have the Continental Congress of the United States from July 2, 1776 until February 28, 1781. Then there is the United States in Congress Assembled from March 1, 1781 until 1789. What do you think? --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because it is an opinion...not a fact. This isn't a PhD dissertation or a journal article where we are trying to prove it was or was not a national government. We have to be NPOV here. It acted in some ways like a national government, and in some ways it was nothing like a national government. And, of course, it certainly wasn't considered as such by Britain. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- why is it POV to say the Congress was the national government? It acted exactly like a national government and was so treated by France, Netherlands, and by each of the states, which took its orders. Rjensen 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Legal Authority to Govern
I added the qualifier "explicit" to the clause "Although it had no legal authority to govern", which keeps being deleted. I don't think this is a controversal statement. The cited Bancroft reference backs this up:
- " ...Whom did they represent?...They formed no confederacy; they were not an executive government; they were not even a legislative body... there was not a foot of land on which they had the right to execute their decisions; and they had not one civil officer to carry out their commands, nor the power to appoint one...They had been elected...by tumultuary assemblies, or bodies which had no recognized legal existance; they were intrusted with no powers but those of counsel..." --JW1805 (Talk) 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Where meeting
Should the article state clearly where the Congress met? There is mention of fleeing Philadelphia; were they meeting there and did they meet someplace else after fleeing? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

