Talk:History of Virginia

Untitled

Welcome to the Talk page for the History of Virginia article.

Military District

Could this be added, Virginia Military District. Newbie222 6 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

It makes more sense for the Virginia Military District to be discussed in an article about Ohio, as it had so little part of Virginia's real history.--Parkwells (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted?

Is this image copyrighted? [1]Falphin 7 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

• Probably; it's an older image but you really couldn't say it was made before 1923. I'm pretty sure products of the Virginia state government are copyrighted.--Pharos 8 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

Introduction

Would it be appropiate to add an introductory paragraph or two to this article? ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Extremely, urgently, and very much so. The beginning of the article looks horrible, especially given the "TOCleft". My knowledge of Virginia is miserable, but if it comes to it, I'll cut and paste a chunk out of the main Virginia article for the purpose. (Better plans very much solicited.) Alai 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of African American Contributions

After all the work done in African American and social history, it's disappointing to see so little recognition here - from the colonial period through the 20th century, there is little notice given of African American contributions to the state, their culture, and why they needed a civil rights movement in the mid-20th century. Much work needs to be done to supplement the article.--Parkwells 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bruton Parish Church and Williamsburg

There appears to be too much in this section; a separate article would be better. --Parkwells (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC

There are separate articles on Bruton Parish and Williamsburg- these sections need to be rewritten here from the POV of what is important to the state's history - less detail. --Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The text in the "Established Church" section should either be pushed onto a separate article or be broadened to relate better to the rest of the article. There could be a few options for a separate article, such as Established Church in Virginia, History of the Established Church in Virginia, or part of a new broader article such as Christianity in Virginia or even Religion in Virginia.--Patrick «» 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Article quality

This article in its current state is so bad that it scares me. I am terrified at the man power and hours it would take to make this article presentable. Large swathes are repeated from other articles. Other areas are redundant. There is little organization. A total of 20 poorly formated references for over 90kb of text. The lead is nine paragraphs long. I wish this could be a useful portal to other topics, but right now its just a sink hole for random uncited information. Compare with the History of Minnesota, a featured article. I don't know if it is worth flagging sections, let alone marking phrases that need citation, due to the massive amount of rewriting likely necessary.--Patrick Ѻ 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Working on shortening early sections

Working on reducing Bruton Parish Church to appropriate role, also on Williamsburg, early church, etc. SLowly.--Parkwells (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans

An anonymous IP recently changed the length of time Native Americans have inhabited the area from 3,000 years to 16,000, but with no citation. I'm not an expert who can determine which number is right, so I've reverted the edit until someone links to a credible source. justinfr (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln declares war on the south

An editor has inserted that Lincoln called for troops, and Virginia therefore seceded. This was in all good time as the convention was called in November and Virginia seceded in early February 1861. However, in those days, the new president didn't take office until March. It seems to me that a WP:RELY footnote is needed since this "fact" is not generally known. The Fort Sumter unpleasantness, regarded as a cassus belli by the North, didn't occur until April.Student7 (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Virginia did NOT secede in February--it postponed a decision. It seceded on April 17 two days after Lincoln called for troops following Sumter. see dates</ref>

Okay. But while Virginia may have acted with more deliberation than the other southern states, it is hard to see total rationality in their decision either since they were not, at the time, being threatened. Robert E. Lee was, up until then, the leading candidate to lead the union forces. It could have been a short war with a lot less unpleasantness had Virginia not seceded and Lee run the war. Student7 (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship

The article currently has 54+ footnotes (some are multiple). On 34 pages. This is okay but is certainly not well-referenced. It was once acceptable to throw stuff in a baseline article just to get something out there and claim it was in some "external" reference, but unfootnoted. I suggest that time has passed for this article. IMO, people inserting new material should not do that "top of their head" fashion, expecting people including foreigners and schoolchildren, to "go along" with whatever is claimed. Editors should cite printed or web material. This is particularly true for superlatives: "best", "least", "most", "highest", etc. These should not be left to the reader's imagination that "it must be true", the 11 o'clock news has said so repeatedly. An encyclopedia should be held to a higher standard than "heard on the street." Student7 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume this is largely directed towards my edit stating that Virginia was a "major" center of the early internet industry. I agree superlatives should be cited and I was not inserting a superlative: "a major" is not a superlative statement. I disagree with you characterization of the statement as "heard on the street" or "top of my head." I have several citations, and I'm simply using the statement to lead into a section on the role that Virginia played into the technology industry. I think this is consistent with Wikipedia's policy on original research (WP:NOREX). Considering the cited facts I listed in the article (AOL, the largest ISP, was based in Virginia, and Virginia formed part of the internet backbone hub with a substantial portion of traffic going through Dulles), I think it's fair to say that Virginia was "a major" (I never tried to say "the major") technology center. Not every statement needs to have a direct citation in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list of cited facts. You have to have some additional writing to help with flow. If you think I'm violating original research here, then I suggest we take this through an arbitration process. I think time would be better spent actually improving this article and others than bickering about policy details. Considering the statement "a major" is fairly weak, general, and not ideological, I don't know why this is an issue. I would just drop the text, except I don't think this will be a good article if you strip out every sentence that isn't directly cited. Listing factoids from references does not make a good article. --Bkwillwm (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an article cannot be written with bullets.

I watch articles on places abroad. It is common for an article on Podunk, Trashcanian, to claim importance equal in extravagant language only to New York City or Silicon Valley. Editors of articles on some foreign places are somewhat constrained by having rather poor resources to quote. The US is not as referenced-impoverished. I would hope that when editors make extravagant claims about US places, that they can be backed up with facts and not apparently WP:OR. I would like to be able to point to good examples of scholarship instead of getting more of the same, except merely better worded since it is usually the editor's first language, not his second or third. Student7 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually trying to tune down the claims. Virginia promoters like to claim northern Virginia as the "Silicon Valley of the east." In the beginning of the internet era Virginia was home to many headquarters for the tech and communications industries including AOL, MCI Inc., and Nextel. I think it's fair to say that it was "a major center" for these industries. Making this statement requires a little bit of synthesis, but I think just enough to go beyond bullet points. Considering it was the headquarters for these companies and the surrounding area hosted half of the nation's ISPs, I think it's fair to call it "a major center," and I don't see this as an extravagant claim. I have another source I could use that lists the Dulles Corridor along side Silicon Valley and Seattle as a tech cluster. The source never says "major," but its implied. This is what I'm really trying to get at: Citations should clearly be used, but being forced to find a literal citation for every statement makes it hard to write an article that flows. I think merely saying "a major center" is pretty innocuous and not extravagant. It's clear from the text that the key point is the number of companies based in the area and the statement "a major center" just frames this information.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying the logic of your WP:SYNTHESIS, but suggesting rather for obvious claims, that the reader might be better left to make that determination in lieu of an actual outside reference. Understating claims seems a lot more productive, even promotive, than risking the possibility of overstating them. My experience is to be put off by other editors claiming they have the "best" college or "most educational curricula" or "most museums" or whatever. It's just so much easier and productive just to list them and to sit back and enjoy the accolades of the overawed audience. Why make any claim? Why not let the reader arrive at that conclusion him/herself. Particularly since a strong reference is apparently lacking. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

William & Mary move to earlier

I think it would make sense to move the section on "William & Mary". While related to religion in the colony, its significance is broader, and the paragraph seems to more clearly relate to the move of the capital to Williamsburg (see influence of students), and that it could be re-noted in the religion section. Is there any opposition or agreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Riley (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

General expansion, improvement

When I discovered this article page, I found that the early history and social history was rather well covered (save for the Civil Rights movement). However, post-Revolutionary economic and industrial history is greatly lacking, as well as representation of broad trends in the Shenandoah, Appalachia, Southside, and Central Virginia. I am going to attempt to boost that, and general coverage of post-Civil War/Reconstruction/Readjustment history, so parts may appear staccato and sparse for the time being, with several areas marked "expansion needed." There are also significant areas of comments where the changes are being construction. I hope this project does not offend, and that people will be willing to help with or support this. Please let me know if there are any problems.Morgan Riley (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently noticed that the section on the Annexation moratorium was deleted. While I was not involved in writing it, I disagree with the assessment that it was minor (it is arguably one of the more significant issues in Virginia politics and constitutionalism in the late 20th century to the present), while at the same time I agreeing that it was unsourced. If and when I can find the sources to support the propositions in there, I propose returning it.Morgan Riley (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

the problem with the annexation is that it is not a statewide issue and the state histories don't bother mentioning it. They talk about politics and economics, and topics like education and regional tensions. Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not statewide general histories (I have little in my personal library, and will have to look further), but most urban histories (my specialization) in Virginia do mention it with significance, some to great extent. In particular in the areas of Richmond, Northern Virginia, and Hampton Roads, which therefore being a trend of the largest metro areas would by itself be sufficient for merit, yet it is an issue that has affected all cities (see decision to dissolve into counties). See also CITY OF RICHMOND V. UNITED STATES, 422 U. S. 358 (1975), where the issue of annexation, with regards to racial questions, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and led the way to the annexation moratorium (there exist other court cases at the federal circuit and state levels, e.g. Citizens Committee v. Lynchburg, et. al., 528 F.2d 816 (1975)). Again, I respectfully suggest that when sufficient sources are gathered (I am mid-process), that it be included, though not necessarily at great length, as it is related to state constitutional issues, urbanization, race relations, and municipal politics as controlled at a state level, in a way that is peculiar and relevant to Virginia as a whole, which go to the issues you raised above. Insofar as mere mention is important, a short subsection summarizing the issue (or inclusion in the Civil Rights section), with a "main article" hatnote to Political subdivisions of Virginia might be more appropriate than full treatment. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Riley (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seemed important enough to be somewhere. Virginia is unusual, the "last large state" from the south and west to have a strong county system, yet with unusual features not found anywhere else. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

yes it belongs somewhere--as in the Richmond & Hampton Roads articles. But we have much more important topics to cover first for this article--eg the economy, politics, society since 1960. Rjensen (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How about in the Politics of Virginia or Government of Virginia? (Don't want to confuse things but "Politics.." has a bit of "Elections.." in it. Like many US articles on the topic, not a "clean" article for Politics, per se). Student7 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Student7 is right: it fits very well in Government of Virginia. (it's a nonpartisan issue so Politics doesn't quite work) Rjensen (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the annexation moratorium. I also agree on the importance of the building out the coverage of economic history as a priority. Not only post-1960 (for which more citations and something other than NoVa/Hampton Roads are needed, e.g. decline of tobacco as top cash crop, economic diversification), but indeed much of the economic history post-Reconstruction has been weak. So far, I've been adding basic major infrastructural improvements, ideally these will be supplemented by the industries that relied, flourish, and were based on said infra and their effects on the state (e.g. coal mining). I've been trying to contextualized events in Virginia with broader trends in American history. Proposals for some ideas are included in comments in the relevant sections. So that's the plan. Thoughts? Morgan Riley (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

TOC problems

If the reader gets through the lead, which is a bit long IMO, s/he is faced with an overly large TOC. Don't think s/he's going to read much past that. Really need to shorten it somehow, which may not be trivial. Two columns? Can't really truncate too much. Fork material/reorganize? Needs something.

a few people will read all of it but most will be looking for a specific subtopic, and the TOC will be very helpful to them. Rjensen (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be possible or advisable to spin off the section on religion into a separate article "Religion in Colonial Virginia" or "Religion in 17th and 18th century Virginia", using a condensed summary here and linking to that article. That would reduce it significantly. Thoughts? Morgan Riley (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

historians argue that religion was central to colonial Virginia. If it's spun off people will not realize that and will be misled. If people are not interested in a section they are allowed to skip it. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a possible solution is to reduce the number of subheadings in that section (given as many only have a single paragraph). That said, the level of some detail may be too much for the overview of the entirety of Virginia history, and indeed might obscure its importance (namely, the entire subsection on Bruton Parish). That said, length is an issue that may be legitimately worth discussing, particularly with regards to what is still missing in the article, even if it is found to have no easy solution (see WP:Length). I'll work on reorganizing the headings, but wait on the removal of the Bruton Parish section so that its inclusion can have a chance to be defended/discussed. Morgan Riley (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the section by reducing the number of headings and making the subject matter flow (though have not removed any content); the question remains as to whether to reduce/remove the section of Bruton Parish, for which I am in favor. Reasons are thus: though it was a central parish, such can be conveyed in a single sentence or two-- its inclusion gives an unusual emphasis of geographic narrowness for this article. Morgan Riley (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Bruton Parish section is unnecessary; I trimmed some other minor details too, removing about 550 words. Rjensen (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I shrunk the TOC a tad by moving the period-sorted references to one notch lower (thus ignored by the TOC) Morgan Riley (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Spinoffs?

One suggestion above was to fork the religious subsections. I'm not sure this is totally a negative. If it is spun off, it can be more easily referenced/linked from other articles. (I don't have candidates). It would have to be summarized here. I think the latter is the main problem. I'm not convinced that its importance would be diminished by forking, or that it is considered "expendable" because it is forked. Student7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Farewell, Vaoverland

I have taken the solemn act of removing the maintenance tag for User:Vaoverland, due to the unfortunate news of his passing. Thank you for all your hard work, sir, and may you rest well! Morgan Riley (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, many thanks friend!-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 14:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sexual advantage of slaves

The lead (not sure why it has to be in lead BTW) says that slave owners took advantage of slave women, which is true. Household slaves. But it gets much worse than that. Overseers (on larger plantations) were told (I have no reference here) to ensure that "the slave women stayed pregnant", to ensure a large population, some of which might be sold off. Some of the overseers undoubtedly "helped out." Not a nice situation. A lot less "friendly" situation than household slaves, which was probably bad enough. (Mary Chesnut refers to the household slave situation incidentally) Student7 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Have worked on the Lede. Need references to assertions such as above re: overseers. They took sexual advantage of slave women by their position of power, without economic incentives. Not only domestic slaves suffered sexual harassment and abuse. Virginia's mixed-race slave population is best known by the example of Thomas Jefferson and his nearly 40-year relationship with his mixed-race slave Sally Hemings, a half-sister to his wife by his father-in-law and his slave concubine, and their four surviving children. They were 7/8 white and qualified as white under VA law of the time, although they were born into slavery. Jefferson freed them all the children when they came of age.Parkwells (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone of article/needs more sources

Needs more neutral tone in Civil War and Reconstruction sections. In addition, given how much has been written about VA, there is an over-reliance on one source for most of the Reconstruction content. More contemporary sources need to be used.Parkwells (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction rewrite

I reworked the introduction to four paragraphs in an encyclopedic summary style per WP:LEAD. Generally, I tried to preserve each point of previous editors. the biggest change is less detail, more summary phrasing. I tried to give major dates for developments every 50 years or so. We are talking 400 years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos - that really needed doing.--Kubigula (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! It was longer than many articles! Morgan Riley (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Name origin

The article states : "The name Virginia came from information gathered by the Raleigh-sponsored English explorations along what is now the North Carolina coast. Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe reported that a regional "king" named Wingina ruled a land of Wingandacoa. Queen Elizabeth modified the name to "Virginia". Though the word is latinate, it stands as the oldest English language place-name in the United States." However, elsewhere on this site, under "List of U.S. state name etymologies", we have : ""Country of the Virgin", after Elizabeth I of England, who was known as the "Virgin Queen" because she never married." The latter is, I think, more commonly accepted. Gwladys24 (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The former is verifiable based on actual documentation of the historic correspondence between Raleigh, Elizabeth, and other involved parties at the time. The latter is the watered-down, common perception as taught to schoolchildren for years. I would say "common mis-perception", except that technically, it's not wrong: both stories are correct. Elizabeth got the report that the native name was "Wingandoacoa" (which later turned out to be a misunderstanding), and she herself modified it to "Virginia", presumably in honour of herself as the "Virgin Queen". There is no contradiction. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a contradiction, I pointed out that two differing explanations are given in two different places on wikipedia. If your explanation is more complete & accurate then the other two should also be complete &, of course, consistent. Gwladys24 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo?

"Some ministers solved their problems by encouraged parishioners .." Probably should be "Some ministers solved their problems by encouraging parishioners .."

Virginia history on stamps

I created a new section, 'Virginia history on stamps'. There are three readily available on Wikimedia commons. The 'state flags of the united states' series is not yet uploaded there, which I believe has the image of the Colonial Capitol at Williamsburg on the Virginia stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Should The 1619 Jamestown Polish Craftsmen Strike Be Mentioned - Or Not?

FWIW - Seems a recent edit was reverted in the History of Virginia article without an edit summary or explanation by Rjensen - the reversion may (or may not) be *entirely* justified - my position at the moment is flexible - the reverted edit was as following:

Copied from the History of Virginia article (updated w/ Pula refs)
October 9, 2014

On June 30, 1619, Jan Bogdan and other Slovak and Polish artisans conducted the first labor strike (first "in American history") for democratic rights ("No Vote, No Work") in Jamestown. The British Crown overturned the legislation in the Virginia House of Burgesses in its first meeting and granted the workers equal voting rights on July 21, 1619. Afterwards, the labor strike was ended and the artisans resumed their work.

References

Comments welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

we've been over this. No historians of Virginia consider this tiny episode to be important enough to cover, and is used here only as a matter of exaggerated ethnic pride in a tiny group of which very little is known. Rjensen (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a precursor to tolerance of religious diversity in the colonial administration which had John Locke as a board member in come capacity. Catholics tolerated Protestants in Maryland, here Catholics are given equal votes even though they are not of the Protestant congregation of Anglicans…one step more democratic than in the Pilgrim town meetings.

Seems to me it is not just a matter of Polish pride, but an example of building a tradition of religious tolerance in Virginia. The episode brings to mind the practice of allowing colonial Presbyterians and Methodists to become Anglican vestry members in western settlements so that the communities with a church parish could qualify to become incorporated as counties with Assembly representation. I’m for inclusion of the passage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - an academically responsible JSTOR ref (w/ many footnotes) supportive of many of the historical details re the Jamestown Polish craftsmen is at the following =>

Hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pula argues that Polish historians wrote articles in Polish for a Polish audience about "firsts" in America. They had zero other work on Virginia and never studied the colony. Pula does not claim any Virginia historians ever considered the handful of men important in Virginia history, which is the topic of this article. So try again: WHY is the episode important in Virginia history? Answer: because one otherwise very unknown person has the same surname as an editor. Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen - Thanks for your comments - Yes, as before, the name Jan Bogdan, one of the Jamestown craftsmen, caught my attention of course - but, as presented in a recent relevant discussion w/ another editor, "I have no particular investment in the edit(s) ... this area is not a particular interest of mine at the moment ... it's *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edits of course" - esp if the edits are not found to be worthy - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Alas, it sounds as if a wonderful piece of the development of religious toleration in Virginia fails the WP test because a secondary source has not picked up on the larger analysis possible. If Rjensen says mainstream historians have not included the development in their coverage of the larger subject, I must defer. So it fails the test of WP:DUE weight.

Of course the larger lesson of religious tolerance is not learned by Gov. Berkley when he expels the Quakers for not actively supporting him in Bacon's Rebellion, they were pacifists, so Berkley exiled the Quakers to Baltimore, where they promoted commerce with Quakers in Philadelphia, then Baltimore surpassed Norfolk as the major port on the Chesapeake Bay. A remnant of the Quakers remained in Southampton County on the North Carolina border, true to their abolitionist principles, they would purchase slaves, free them and provide them homesteads for family farming. Same Southampton County as Nat Turner's slave revolt. But those considerations would be in the maritime history or Antebellum boxes...maybe additional fields of history for contributions to this article in time, with reliable secondary sources to establish due weight. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The episode is arguably a significant "first" in the history of American labor, and in the history of democracy in British North America. I think it deserves a short, balanced article on its own, based on the Pula paper cited by Drbogdan, with a one-sentence mention and wikilink in this article. Unfortunately for Drbogdan, most of the sources he cites are discredited, directly or indirectly, by the Pula paper; but Pula confirms the broad outlines of the story from reliable primary sources. See also Philip L. Barbour, "The Identity of the First Poles in America", The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jan., 1964), pp. 77-92, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1923357 (accessible with free JSTOR account).

Unfortunately for @TheVirginiaHistorian, the episode is unlikely to reflect on the state of religious toleration in early Virginia. There is no evidence that the Poles in question were Roman Catholics, and there is considerable evidence to rebut any presumption that they were. See Pula at 483-84. [I forgot to sign the foregoing on 9 October 2014. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)]

Drbogdan's recent addition of the Barbour article to his list of references makes me wonder whether or not he read it. It does not support the assertions he attaches it to as a reference. Specifically, for one thing, Barbour finds that we do not and cannot, from reliable sources, know the names of the Polish and German (or possibly Dutch, but not Slovak) artisans in question. For another, Barbour dismisses as nonsense the contention that those artisans conducted anything resembling a labor strike for civil rights. (Pula disagrees on that score, but Barbour is clear and emphatic, so it's absurd for Drbogdan to cite him in support of his account of the strike.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this - seems I unintentionally misunderstood the text - and have rm the Barbour ref from my listing above - thanks again - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Without in any way contravening my concurrence with Rjensen, that we need a mainstream reliable source to verify due weight to the event,

Unfortunately for @Jdcrutch:, I was correct in my surmise, at the one page preview of the Polish Review "Fact v. Fiction", page 477, the Pula article says that the Polish settlers at Jamestown “brought Catholicism to the New World to initiate a tradition of religious pluralism, [and] ‘helped create the embryo of future American democracy’.” (emphasis added). How does Pula contradict himself “at 483-84", that the Poles were not Catholic, that they were not eventually allowed corporate participation in selecting representatives?

I do remember that fears of support of Philip II by Catholics might lead to spying for Spain, and those fears led to require an "oath of supremacy" of all Virginia colonists to the Monarch of England as the head of the Anglican Church. But that does not alter the fact that at some point the Catholic Polish glassmakers were banned from voting, and then they were admitted. Can someone report what the article says behind the jstor veil "at 483-84"? — just as a matter of personal interest now that I've been pinged. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: The Pula article is accessible for free on JSTOR. All one has to do is register for a free account. The passages from the article's first page which TVH quotes are in Pula's summary of Arthur Waldo's account, which the rest of the article shows to be highly unreliable, if not a deliberate fraud. Here is what Pula says at 483-84 about Waldo's claims regarding religious liberty at Jamestown:

Waldo also assumes, without presenting any primary evidence, that the Poles in Jamestown were Roman Catholics, thus providing the basis for later authors’ claims that the Poles launched religious toleration in America. Waldo justifies his conclusion by stating that the number of Protestants in Poland was "insignificant" and those who were Protestant were members of the "intellectual" class. His argument is that since the Poles in Jamestown were from the artisan class they must have been Catholics. [Fn. om.] This fallacious logic ignores several pertinent facts. The first of these is that later in the same work Waldo states that the Poles in Jamestown included members of the "intellectual" class, thus contradicting his earlier statement that the Poles [fn. om.] must be Catholic because they were artisans. More importantly, Waldo's assertion about the Poles' religion does not accord with the context of the times. In 1584, Richard Hakluyt cautioned that "In choice of all artesanes for the voyage, this general rule is good to be observed, that no man be chosen that is known to be a Papiste, for the special inclination they have of favour to the King of Spain." [Fn. om.] Later, Lord De la Warre promulgated his "Articles, Laws and Orders, Divine, Politique, and Martial for the Government of Virginia", requiring, among other regulations, that inhabitants swear an "Oath of Supremacy" to be eligible to go to Virginia, a move specifically designed to exclude Catholics. [Fn. om.] Waldo claims the Poles were excluded from this requirement since they were Catholics, but he offers no evidence for this assertion. In fact, from all we do know of the historical context it is most likely that the Poles were Protestants or they would not have been allowed into the infant English colony.

Although there is no evidence that the Poles were Roman Catholic or that they were glassmakers, Pula does confirm from reliable sources,

. . . that the Poles objected to what was probably inequitable political treatment and that in consequence of this it was agreed that they would be considered free and enfranchised, that they would teach their skills to others among the colony, and that the Poles then returned to work.

Pula at 493. This can reasonably be interpreted as a strike for political rights, but is not evidence of religious toleration in the colony. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Were the Poles at Jamestown a) Protestants from Catholic Poland seeking an unpersecuted life in the new world like the Pilgrims -- the implied take away from Pula?, or Catholics happy to submit to any religious requirement for the chance of fortune like a Protestant U.S. citizen moving to Mexican Tejas, then adopting Catholicism pro forma for the land grant?

Apparently the Poles were valued as glassblowers making utensils and trinkets for trade (Matthew Page Andrews, Virginius Dabney) and that allowed for including them to vote, after the Virginia Assembly first excluded them on some grounds not applicable to Protestant settlers. But the negotiation may not have been as a labor action, and it is interesting that the settlement majority was against the Poles voting, overturned by the Crown. I like your take that it should be viewed as diverse political rights, not evidence of religious toleration on the face of it.

Recall that for the first half of the 1600s, Christian slaves were emancipated in Virginia at seven years, those of Angolan Catholic and Spanish Caribbean heritage, taking up residence for the most part on the Eastern Shore. --- That implies that the discrimination may have been against the Poles for some other reason, apart from their religious background, perhaps because they had not completed 7-10 years indenture to the Virginia Company. All interesting parts to the puzzle. Thanks. We need to hear from a mainstream reliable source before including this in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Andrews and Dabney works TheVirginiaHistorian cites, but I suspect they follow Waldo, whom Pula utterly discredits. Pula surveys the available primary sources (which do not include the apparently-fraudulent "Memoirs of a Mercantilist" relied on by Drbogdan's sources), and he concludes that there is no reliable evidence that the Poles at Jamestown were glassmakers. Rather, they are repeatedly referred to as producers of pitch, tar, potash, and soap ash. Barbour, I believe, draws the same conclusion. The glassmakers appear to have been Germans (referred to as "Dutchmen", but probably not Netherlanders) and a German-speaking Switzer, not Poles.

I suspect the Poles were initially denied political rights simply because they were not English. Virginia was an extension of England, and the Poles were aliens. Even Englishmen might be denied political rights in the New England colonies a few years later, until they were made "free of the colony" and of the town in which they lived. It's no surprise to me that Poles and (presumably) Germans were not automatically granted the rights of Englishmen. Ultimately, they were able to obtain political rights, not by appeals to justice or principle, but by withholding their labor, on which the colony was to some degree dependent.

As for mainstream, reliable sources, I think Pula and Barbour unquestionably qualify. The Polish Review is a peer-edited, scholarly publication of long standing, not an amateur outlet for Polish-American boosters. Pula's article is rigorous and amply footnoted. James S. Pula is a professional historian with his own Wikipedia article. The William & Mary Quarterly is one of the leading American historical journals, and I don't think its reliability is open to question. I have not tracked down Philip L. Barbour's credentials, but a quick Google search shows him to have been a recognized historian, and the editor of the complete works of Capt. John Smith. His papers are in the Swem Library at the College of William & Mary.

I would not support the inclusion in this article of Drbogdan's version of the history of the Poles at Jamestown, as it claims far more than the reliable sources support, and relies almost entirely on amateur sources which depend ultimately on the Waldo fraud. (Drbogdan's attempt to bolster his account with a reference to Pula's paper is self-defeating, and suggests that Drbogdan has misread, or not read, that paper.) I would, however, support a brief, temperate, and balanced article on the Jamestown Poles, based on Pula's summary of the primary sources; and perhaps a sentence in this article with wikilink to it. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW - I may be out of my depth (and present interests) w/ some of this material, but it seems there may be some worthy material being discussed that may be worth adding and some other material that may have been added that may not be worth keeping - please understand that, for my part, I am *not at all* opposed to *any* needed upd/rv/mv/del/ce/etc of *any* of this material - we may owe it to Wikipedia readers to try and get the material as well grounded as possible of course - at the very least for me, a learning experience re some new and (imo) very interesting materials (& methodologies) - thanks greatly for that of course - I may try and help w/ this but, understandably, may be somewhat limited in what I'm able to present - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Filopietism is the biggest enemy of scholarship on early Virginia. For a century+ it was excessive posturing regarding the FFV -- and now it's excessive posturing with a handful of people singled out by Slavic nationalists solely because of their need to glorify their ancestors. This is tiresome and ridiculous and very bad history by people who have no real interest in Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems we may be on the exact same page w/ this - I *entirely* agree w/ you - I also prefer good history based on good scholarship than not - and, unless there is worthy relevant scholarship, am also *not* in favor of promoting any particular agenda, including nationalism and/or filopietism of any sort - yes, I also agree, some editors may be able to present better history than others - a very good history of Virginia, based on the very best scholarship, would be *very* interesting I would think - it's *entirely* ok w/ me to improve the History of Virginia article (and related) of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Horse Racing

Thanks to @Rjensen: for his recent addition to this article. An institution as vital as horse racing to the society of old Virginia definitely needs to be discussed in the article. I'm uncertain, however, about a couple of sentences.

The first is this: "The slaves were allowed to watch and help with the horses as well." Although I haven't checked the source, and this may be exactly what it says, the sentence seems inadequate for a couple of reasons. On the one hand, the paragraph mentions gambling by planters and "ordinary farmers", but this description of the slaves' participation in horse racing omits any reference to gambling by them. I can't cite a specific source off-hand, but surely instances of gambling among slaves are well attested throughout the period of slaveholding. And while cash is certainly not necessary for gambling, it's universally acknowledged that American slaves routinely possessed cash from various sources (including tips, wages for extra work, presents, and the sale of goods produced during "free" time). I know of no reason to believe that Virginia was exceptional in either respect. One would accordingly presume that slaves also bet on Virginian horse races, either with freemen or separately. In this context, the absence of any mention of gambling by slaves suggests a tacit assertion of some kind. It seems to me that the assertion, if there is one, ought to be made explicit, if the evidence will support it, or else the suggestion of it eliminated.

On the other hand, the sentence seems to me greatly to devalue and diminish the role of slaves in the breeding, care, training, and racing of horses during the period. I confess that I have no specific knowledge on this topic, but I am aware that slaves frequently engaged in highly skilled occupations (often to the chagrin of free tradesmen); and that after Emancipation, even during Segregation, when black people were routinely denied access to prestigious work that they had been encouraged to pursue as slaves, African-Americans continued to play important, if subordinate, roles in the equestrian world. I would be very much surprised to learn that black Virginians under slavery had not routinely served as blacksmiths, farriers, grooms, and drivers (all skilled occupations, requiring considerable craft and knowledge of the horse), and, less commonly, as breeders, trainers, jockeys, and even horse-doctors. To assert that "slaves were allowed to watch and help with the horses as well," implies (unintentionally on Rjensen's part, I'm confident) that these workers were not seriously engaged in the rearing and racing of horses, but were merely "allowed" to "help", as little children are allowed to "help" with household chores that are really beyond their capacity. If I'm right, the article should pay proper respect to the slaves' role in this important social institution. If I'm wrong, it should make explicit the slaves' exclusion from any meaningful participation in horse racing, without the present (unintentional) appearance of condescension.

The other sentence I have doubts about is,

Horse racing was especially important, for knitting the gentry together and demonstrate to the world their superior social status through expensive breeding, sales, boasting and gambling, and especially the races themselves.

This sentence seems a bit garbled (perhaps partly because of typographical errors), and the idea it seeks to express (as I gather) requires more development if it's not to depend on unspoken preconceptions about the subject. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and I will try to work them in. Gambling I think was a central activity --an honor-based ceremony. My impression is that in horse racing at the track whites only gambled with whites & blacks with blacks. We need a RS to make the case rather than an editor's impression. for much later evidence re interracial secret dice games (not horse racing in public) see Jeff Forret (2006). Race Relations at the Margins: Slaves and Poor Whites in the Antebellum Southern Countryside. p. 57. The rich whites who owned the slaves told them what to do, and trained them in skills then sold them as skilled artisans, so I think "allowed" is accurate. As for the summary statement: I was trying to summarize several long items (Breen, Struna) in one sentence, & that is indeed a challenge so I hope someone can improve it. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rjensen: has made significant revisions to the section under discussion, with which I largely agree, although I suspect the following sentence doesn't clearly say what he means it to: "Everyone --including servants and slaves--could and did hunt, so there was no social distinction to be had." I gather Rjensen means that in Virginia a man couldn't assert high status through hunting, as he could in England; but the sentence seems to suggest that, because anybody could hunt, there was no social distinction in hunting—i.e., that all hunters were equal in the field, which, of course, was not remotely the case. I'm sure that's not what he meant to say. The next sentence, indeed, offers one example of explicit class distinction in an organized hunt.

The entire section needs more development and better citation to sources. As it stands, it's rather an odd collection of topics, with not much said about any, and little to connect them. I appreciate Rjensen's work in that direction, and trust he'll do more as time allows. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

On hunting status, I was relying on Struna. How do you read her? The section is fully cited & there is a theme in terms of the meaning & display of status in Virginia. Prowess in hunting gave a poor man more status--people praised his spectacular shot--while being a poor hunter hurt a rich gentleman's status, as I read Struna. Rjensen (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisions, 25 February 2016; more needed

I've made some fairly extensive changes, mostly to the early sections of the article. I trust most are self-explanatory and will be acceptable to others. I combined two separate subsections concerning conflict between English and Indians. I changed references to "Native Americans", usually to "natives", because of the political implications of the former. The New World at the time was indeed broadly referred to by Europeans as "America", and I'm sure its native peoples were occasionally referred to generically as "Americans"; but there was no country known as America, let alone a political entity called by that name. The term "Native Americans" refers to the conquered remnant of the original population of what is now the United States, and is inextricably tied up with their modern status and condition, especially in the Twentieth Century, when the term was first widely adopted. As far as the English were concerned, the country was called Virginia, and the indigenes were either "Indians" or Paspaheghs, Monacans, Powhatans, Nansemonds, etc. The citation of sources in all the sections I revised is quite inadequate in general. I checked a couple of the references to Web sites and found that the links were dead. I deleted one and tagged the other.

Similar revisions should be made to the corresponding parts of Colony of Virginia, which I'll do if I get time.

As is true of many, if not most, Wikipedia articles, probably because of the piecemeal way they're usually written and revised, this article lacks internal flow and consistency. Sections and sub-sections are not parallel, and contents often don't match headings. Content is often repetitive. Topics are strangely juxtaposed. It would be a great service if somebody with more time than I have would reorganize and reconcile the article from stem to stern. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 17:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Prehistory

@MPS: has restored (and since revised) a sentence that I had deleted, concerning a claim that there is archaeological evidence of settlement at Pocahontas Island about 6500 B.C.E., which appears to conflict with the statement preceding it, that Rountree and others have established three thousand years of settlement in Tidewater. There need not be an actual conflict, if the two sources were using two different sets of data; and, after all, it's fairly likely that there were human beings in the area more than ten thousand years ago (the Virginia Department of Historic Resources says over 17,000); but the Pocahontas Island claim just doesn't seem to have reliable documentation. The source given for it is an historical highway marker, which I don't regard as a Reliable Source. The DHR (http://dhr.virginia.gov/HistoricMarkers/, search "Pocahontas Island") gives the following references for the marker: "Mary Ellen Bushey and Ann Creighton-Zollar, et al, African Americans in Petersburg (1994). Pocahontas Island Historic District nomination form Preservation Virginia, 'Pocahontas Island Historic District.' Whsv.com (15 May 2014)."

The full citation of the Bushey paper is

Bushey, Mary Ellen, Ann Creighton-Zollar, Lucious Edwards, Jr., L. Daniel Mouer and Robin L. Ryder, “African-Americans in Petersburg: Historic Contexts and Resources for Preservation Planning, Research and Interpretation,” (Department of Planning and Community Development, 1994)

which makes me think it's not a peer-reviewed work. In any case, it's not a likely source for the claim regarding ancient inhabitants. The historic-district nomination form is on the web at http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Petersburg/123-0114_PocahontasHD_2006_NRfinal.pdf, and, while very interesting, and apparently well-documented (extensively documented, at least), is not the source of the 6500 B.C.E. claim. That leaves "Whsv.com", which is a Harrisonburg, Va., TV station's web site. It's not archived on the Wayback Machine, and the present site doesn't appear to contain any information on Pocahontas Island. A web search has not turned up any independent support for the Pocahontas Island claim.

I think it would be best to lose the Pocahontas Island claim, and really the Rountree claim as well (since it doesn't take us very far back), and to replace both with a summary of the DHR's account, assuming it's as reliable as it looks (I haven't read it through or investigated its sources). The article, Pocahontas Island, Virginia should also be revised accordingly. (The historic-district nomination form might furnish a good basis for more extensive revision of that article.) I've already spent more time on this than I could really afford, but maybe MPS or somebody else will have time to follow up on what I've done here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050309195818/http://oncampus.richmond.edu:80/academics/education/projects/webunits/vahistory/tribes.html to http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/education/projects/webunits/vahistory/tribes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the archive link, and it works. I sampled many of the links on the archived page, and they also worked, although most of the graphic images are missing. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Was there was continued conflict with natives east of the Alleghenies??

We have an editor who insists on stating " there was continued conflict with natives east of the Alleghenies" in the 18th century. No sources. Rjensen (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have some source stating there was no conflict with natives east of the allegheny ridge after the year 1700, I don't think much of it because it is painting a false picture. In the year 1700, the Virginia colony had NO effective control above the fall line. Fort Christanna was built in 1717 west of the fall line. They only acquired up to the Blue Ridge (not the Alleghenies) in 1718 from the Seneca, who continued to maintain the Shenandoah Valley (east of the Alleghenies) as a military zone in their wars with the Catawba as late as 1743. In 1743 the Six Nations were on the verge of wiping out the Virginia Colony over the Shenandoah dispute when it was resolved by a payment to them. If you don't know the history of this country, t is easy to find quality first hand sources nowadays to enlighten you. The removal of the factual information I added about Bob Benge in the western counties until 1794 is either systemic bias against western counties, or plainly obstructionist against improving this article with bonafide factual information instead of the usual Junior World Book "The red man rolled over with no contest" 71.127.128.222 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

reliable sources please. we have a strong rule here about that. Rjensen (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying when you do you homework you will see that every word i just wrote is 100% the truth and if you haven't done your homework and are thumping Junior World Book or the equivalent to say "the red man rolled over without a fight", then why are you even here??? 71.127.128.222 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying you may have invented everything. We need sources. Here's the example of your editing you erased this fully sourced information from the major study of American Indians by the Smithsonian Institution: After 1700 nearly all of the Indian tribes that had existed in Virginia in 1600 were extinct or had left the region. Numerous Indians lived inside the white community, and were not counted as part of the Indian tribes. There were only four small tribes left --the largest of which (the Pamunkey) counted 40 warriors in 1722, and just 10 families in 1735. By 1755 there were about 60 Indian warriors in all of Virginia. In 1787, Jefferson reported about 15 Indian men.[ref] Bruce G. Trigger, ed., Northeast. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 15 (Smithsonian Institution, 1978) p 263.[ref] What population estimates is anon using? his own I guess. Rjensen (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Surely your source means there were only four tribes in the settled part of VA east of the fall line in 1700- all the rest of VA west of the fall line still belonged to native inhabitants in 1700 and was beyond the frontier. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• This guy has managed to find sources to support his fantasy that all of Virginia was cleared of natives in the 1600s and was cleared throughout Virginia by 1700. I have stated that the last part of Virginia and Wise county did not become clear until 1794, and that in 1700 colonial control did not extend past the fall line, but he thinks I made that up without a source. I wonder if anyone else can help us out in the meantime and I will also look for the sources within a reasonable time. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a look through the article and seeing what's the best way forward; in the meantime I have full-protected the article as edit warring over it isn't the way to resolve a dispute. The most recent edit removed information cited to "Ronald L. Heinemann, et al. Old Dominion, New Commonwealth: A History of Virginia, 1607–2007 (2008) p. 96" along with the claim "France was defeated". I don't know anything about Heinemann, so can somebody explain what's the problem with citing his work? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

it is true that France was defeated, but Rjensen is using sources from a one sided pov to suggest the complete falsehood that all of Virginia was conquered and virtually Indian free already by 1700 when that is far from the case, and cannot really be said for ALL of Virginia until 1794. It was over the course of the 1700s in particular that the frontier was extended from the Fall Line, to the current extent of Virginia, at the expense of native nations. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Ronald L. Heinemann, et al. Old Dominion, New Commonwealth: A History of Virginia, 1607–2007 (2008) Is a major university textbook published by University of Virginia press, the co-authors Are or were senior professors at major universities: Heinemann, At Hampden Sydney College; John G. Kolp, At the US Naval Academy; Anthony S. Parent At Wake Forest University, and William G. Shade At Lehigh University. The editor of the Virginia magazine of history says "for decades we've lacked a modern account of Virginia's rich, tumultuous inconsequential history.... Now we have it." It's a standard reliable source that summarizes the scholarly literature through 2007. You can read an excerpt at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Old-Dominion-New-Commonwealth-1607-2007/dp/0813927692/ Ridiculing it has a non-did indicates very poor historical judgment on his part. Rjensen (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you like quotes Rjensen, check this one out from a reliable source, native historian Daniel Paul: "The subjugation of the Northeastern Native American Native American Nations by the English Crown was accomplished with much barbarity. Not surprisingly, these actions have been studiously ignored or downplayed by most White male historians. However, their reluctance to enter into honest discussion and critically comment on the matter does not obscure the facts that the documents and journals left behind by colonial English and French scribes irrefutably prove..." -- We Were Not the Savages p. 9, ISBN 1-55266-039-7 71.127.128.222 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Paul is the historian of the Mi'kmaq and writes about Canada, not Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying sounds credible, as my cursory understanding is that strict Native American zones were not truly established until the 19th century; however this dispute has gone beyond my area of expertise (all administrators do is remove obstacles to help others edit successfully), and I would strongly recommend getting some help from the United States military history task force to help this, as that is where the subject experts hang out. To pick a random example, @Rogerd: describes themselves as an expert "Pre- U.S. Civil War conflicts" (which this is) and they may be able to offer a third opinion that we can all accept. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP is correct, unlike the history of Latin America, the Woodland Indians of eastern North America played the Europeans and Amerindians off of one another for the better part of two hundred years. Of course, Virginia stretches west to the Mississippi River until 1792 (Kentucky) and north to the Ohio River until 1863 (West Virginia). Its expansion by settlement is sometimes by conquest with Amerindian allies (early on with the Rappahannock against the Powhatan), mostly by negotiation and purchase. There is no interest in slighting the western counties of Virginia with representation in the House of Burgesses. — However, — also, — there is only interest in sourced material.

A quick survey reveals, Dabney notes in Virginia: the New Dominion (1972 p. 72, 78), Indian warfare became “less oppressive” during the reign of William and Mary. Spotswood’s advanced trading posts were at the Fall Line, when the King in Council repealed the Indian Act of 1714 and the House of Burgesses made no effort to continue the initiative. Heinemann recalls in Old Dominion, New Commonwealth (2007 p. 78-80) Virginia’s defensive response during the Carolina Yamasee War in 1715. Andrews reports in Virginia: the Old Dominion (1937 p. 190, 208) Spotswood negotiated a treaty with adjacent tribes and with the Six Nations of the Iroquois in 1722 following raids.

In 1744, Iroquois raiding parties against Cherokees were caught at Balcony Falls in Rockbridge County and dispersed. They ceded their rights to the Valley of Virginia west to the Ohio River. (Heinemann, p.92)The three-year Anglo-Cherokee War followed the end of their British alliance against the French in 1761. There was three years of Pontiac's War following 1763. Cornstalk’s uprising in 1775 led to Lord Dunmore’s War.

BUT, The Cherokee War of 1776 stub is also without sources, and may be removed. It notes that following the peace treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Chickamauga Cherokee band led by Dragging Canoe continues raiding until 1794. You can help Wikipedia with sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that all sounds on target, but i would point out, in the 1744 treaty the Iroquois only conceded that they had sold up to the ohio watershed, which would mean only the Shenandoah Valley, and maintained a claim beyond that until Ft Stanwix (1768) 71.127.128.222 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the question is. If we are talking Central Virginia, the Powhatan Confederacy was broken in the mid to late 1600s, which opened up the Richmond-Petersburg area to white (plantation) settlement. The state was never "cleared" as the Pamunkey Indian Reservation has been in existence since ~1658 and the Treaty of 1677 sought peaceful state coexistence with and protection of Virginia Siouan and Algonquin (including the Nottoway, the Appomattoc, the Wayonaoake, the Nansemond, the Nanzatico, the Monacan, the Saponi, and the Meherrin) tribes. The Beaver Wars ended in the early 18th century, which makes me think any violence from the Five Nations would have either been isolated incidents or wartime alliances during the French and Indian War or the Revolutionary War. Governor Spotswood resettled several Virginia Tribes on the periphery of the Virginia colony (at sites like Fort Christanna) in Southside Viginia), which is further evidence that the tribes have been in VA the whole time. Another thing to consider is that in Virginia, Anti-miscegenation laws blurred the distinction between Native Americans and blacks. see also: One Drop Rule. tl;dr -- The indigenous tribes moved around a lot but they have been east of the Alleghenies the whole time. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, 71.127.128.222, and Rjensen: In the copy edit exchange at [2], the unsourced addition attributing raiding band leadership to Bob Benge is at odds with the sourced attribution to Dragging Canoe referenced in the Cherokee War of 1776. Source is needed if indeed that much detail goes into the introduction.

In the copy edit exchange at [3], Rjensen’s defense of B.G.Trigger sourced material should be revised to read, “After 1700, nearly all of the organized Indian tribes which had had independent territory were extinct or had left the region.” Jefferson’s reported speculation from 1787 is too much detail to be treated in context here, the last sentence should be deleted. But the mere assertion of a pov by the IP without alternate source is itself a species of pov. Is there a source with an online link to further collaborative discussion here?

In the copy edit exchange at [4], the additional material, though sourced, needs work to meet encyclopedic summary style, and some of it is redundant to the preceding paragraph. The collaboration should develop the passage here at Talk before adding. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the date 1700 isn't quite accurate. It is clear that as of the year 1700, everything west of the fall line was still independent territory. If it said 'east of the fall line' it would be accurate. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Good eye. It should say, "east of the fall line" or "east of the Blue Ridge", with an emphasis on independent lands, or apart from county boundaries ... as MPS says above, "indigenous tribes moved around a lot but they have been east of the Alleghenies the whole time", --- some eleven of whom are now recognized as incorporated tribes by the Bureau of Indian Affairs [5], which excludes many others such as the well documented tri-racialites of the Virginia Alleghanies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be 'fall line' until Spotswood's Treaty of Albany 1718, then you can say Blue Ridge... 71.127.128.222 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section where it talks about Spotswood's 'Knights of the Golden Horseshoe Expedition - could an admin please add to that, that none of the English were even certain about what lay beyond the Blue Ridge at that point (1716) as few had ever ventured that far? The article on the expedition should persuade you I am not inventing all this myself. Thanks, 71.127.128.222 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

When the freeze is lifted, should we try for this proposed language: "In 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood led the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe Expedition into previously unsurveyed regions, reaching the top ridge of the Blue Ridge Mountains at Swift Run Gap(elevation 2,365 feet (721 m))."[33][34] --- ? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that, since I believe it was George Washington who did the first surveying of those parts ca. 1748-50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian has been very helpful in providing sources but with an article under dispute like this, edits need to be reliably sourced to be made. So far, you have had some strong points of view but haven't provided secondary sources which is why you see accusations of "making things up". In general, on Wikipedia, when there is a content dispute, it is resolved in favor of the editor who provides the stronger reliable sources to support the edits they want to see made. This goes for any editor, a longtime editor or an IP editor, sources rule. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: clearly at least somewhat controversial, sort it out here first. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 07:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

RV [6] the vandalism that sparked the page protection. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterizing me as a vandal, as anyone can see there is clearly and obviously a content dispute here. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I for one find your command of the material a useful contribution to the discussion, but we’ve got to have sources for putting in narrative and taking it out — besides broad tag line declamations against white men.

For instance, Wood and Heinemann are pretty well established in the field, but I could not find anything on Virginia in the excerpts online for “We were not the savages” by Mi'qmak Canadian Daniel Paul which can be used to refute Wood or Heinemann.

With a second flow of reliably sourced material, we can add both streams of historiographical accounts together in the WP article narrative. It does not have to be all one or the other. What are Daniel Paul’s scholastic credentials, or are there others we should be reading for Virginia history? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasnt suggesting that we use Paul for this article, I am enlightening editors here to the existence of other viewpoints for their consideration, just as rjensen is using his heavily cherry-picked quotes from his favored authors to enlighten me about his viewpoint, so at least I think I know better what his viewpoint is now, where he is coming from. 12:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk)

Um, y'all... John Lederer was the first to explore the Blue Ridge in Virginia in his 1669 - 1672 expeditions. source. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, and he was soon to be followed by Batts and Fallam... but it is interesting that Spotswoode still thought Lake Erie might be nearby on the other side. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

IPs unsourced delete

@71.127.128.222: IP 71.127.128.222 has again deleted a section without sourcing, claiming it is only POV and racism [7]. The passage reads:

Ultimately, many Virginians were caught up in the resulting French and Indian War that occurred 1754–1763. According to a recent state history: In Virginia, too, the frontier interrupted into violence and terror. Many decades of relatively peaceful relations with the Indians had completely broken down by mid-1755 as nearly all native groups had gone over to the French....Raiding parties hit settlements and Frederick, Augusta, and Hampshire counties and then moved south into the long-settled areas of Halifax. Several hundred Virginians were killed or captured, and many more...fled east.

(a) What is at issue? raiding parties? former peaceful relations? Native-American tribal alliance with the French against Virginians? Attacks in Frederick, Augusta and Hampshire Counties? Virginian losses or subsequent out-migration?

(b) What alternative sources are to be brought forward to justify removing the passage?

(c) Removal without justification or discussion on this Talk page will be construed as vandalism by most observers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Does it really say "nearly all" native groups had gone over to the French? I certainly hope not because as far as Virginia history is concerned I don't know who that would be other than the Shawnee. Perhaps if it said "Shawnee Nation" rather than "nearly all native groups" it would look less biased. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The pro-English Miami Indians (Twightwees), had displaced to a settlement on the upper Great Miami River (Dayton Ohio). Their town of Pickawillany was massacred by French Indian allies in 1754, sparking the Seven Year’s War between Britain and France worldwide. (Dabney “Virginia: the New Dominion” 1972 p. 100)

The Iroquois Confederacy of five tribes, initially neutral, eventually allied with the British in 1758, while their traditional rivals to the south nearby Virginia --- the Algonquins (the Wabanaki Confederacy) allied with the French. These included the five tribes of Algonquian speaking people, plus the Lenape, Ojibwa (Chippewa), Ottowa, Shawnee and Huron (Wyandot). The Cherokee and Catawba also fought for the English, then the Anglo-Cherokee War ensued against the English for three years until peace with the French and their allies. That’s six for the English, ten nearby Virginia for the French. See warpaths2peacepipes.com at [8].

For a Virginia history, where is the source to say most Native-Americans in the French and Indian War are NOT allied with the French. — It seems only a Canadian Iroquois-centered history would conclude they were not, and that is not applicable to a encyclopedic History of Virginia intended for the general reader. --- Should the passage replace "nearly all Native-American tribes" to read, "Nearly all Native-American tribes adjacent the thirteen colonies that would become the United States"? But the article is about Virginia, not Canada, is an additional qualifier to "nearly" really necessary? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You are playing games here on the talk page to achieve your desired, deceptive misleading word sophistry on the article itself. We all know what the tribes are of Virginia. You could even make a list of the tribes of Virginia. then go down that list and count how many of those tribes of Virginia, joined the French in that war. The factual answer is you will find only ONE of the tribes on that list of Virginia tribes who joined the French, and all the rest of them did NOT. But clearly that factuality does not fit in with your agenda to make it look like "nearly ALL" tribes joined the Fench and then come here onthe talk page and say "Oh - but see, we weren't talking about Virginia THAT TIME when we said "nearly all", we were talking about Ohio and Quebec. And since we are so well informed on the topic, we also get to make the rules on what racial pov to give the article, and to belittle and demean anyone who notices what were doing with regard to Virginia Indians, as being of substandard intelligence. Because we just HAVE to do that. We're wikipedia. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I’m sorry, the last post did not track. I understand that you attribute the passage containing “nearly all Native-American tribes” as “deceptive, misleading word sophistry”, but generally the Iroquois League is not considered as Virginian tribes at the time of the French and Indian War, although there may have been treaties with some of them.

There is no response to my proposal to modify “nearly all” Amerindian tribes to my last proposal, (a) "Nearly all Native-American tribes adjacent the thirteen colonies that became the United States…” — Let me add a second alternative language, taking into account your objection to the best of my ability, (b) "Most Native-American tribes nearby Virginia's frontier…"

Calling for sources does not imply substandard intelligence of an entire race, it just indicates the offhandedness of the editor concerned --- regardless of his knowledgeable command of the subject area --- he is one who has not provided sources to back his proposed copyedit. Please respond to the two proposals collegially either agreeing with one --- or --- with a counter proposal of your own which matches the source you find as a truthful and forthright narrative on the subject of Virginia history before you delete sourced narrative here by others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I will tell you yet again the wording that would be accurate: Only the SHAWNEE out of tribes resident in Virginia joined with the French in the year 1753-4. I don't have to pick one of your two proposals which both seem intent on insinuating that the Powhatan, Monacan, Nottoway, Cherokee etc joined the French when that is falsely impugning them and lumping all these nations together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Order!

As we have no moderator in this forum, I take it upon myself to call an unruly participant to order. The anonymous user behind the IP address 71.127.128.222 has abused this forum and Wikipedia long enough, with his or her unsourced assertions and contradictions, personalities, and scandalous accusations. She or he has, incidentally, made some reasonable-sounding claims, but obstinately refuses to do the "homework" he or she enjoins on everybody else, and back those claims up with citations to published authority. Whoever questions the anonymous user, or fails to defer to his or her marked POV, is subjected to condescension, personalities, or worse. It's pointless and counterproductive to try to engage such a person in constructive debate, who clearly has no use for the cordial give-and-take of scholarly discussion. We should treat her or him like any other troll, until we see clear evidence of a change in attitude. A good start, in my opinion, would be for him or her to observe some of the basic courtesies of Wikipedia, such as creating a named user account and user page, citing sources, and presuming good faith in others. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jdcrutch -- this is nasty troll action that degrades Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

other than this one reply I am just going to ignore this pretentiousness, because as usual, it is merely someone asserting a pretense of authority over others without the merest shred of legitimacy. If you think lording it over me like some kind of junior participant is the way to move forward, you are wrong and to hell with you. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You clearly speak with authority based on familiarity with the material. I wonder if it is Canadian sources you are working from, since you are reluctant to disclose any. See comments and sources in the section above in reply to your specific exception finally made explicit, duly noted there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Help me out here. Let me know what the controversial assertion I've made is that you're having trouble believing sourcing. and i'll do my best to show you the source. be specific - not just vague 'everything you said must be wrong because you aren't playing the source game with dotted i's and crossed t's" that makes everyone want to puke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have not provided any source to justify removing the sourced Heinemann characterization, “nearly all native groups [along Virginia’s frontier] had gone over to the French” … nor have you chosen to respond with an explanation other than undocumented charges and mischaracterizations, nor have you responded to alternative proposals taking into consideration your unsourced dissatisfaction with Heinemann, a Virginian scholar who does not seem to have done much research into Canadian Iroquois history...

But on the other hand, your characterization that only one tribe aided the French on Virginia's frontier is mistaken unsourced speculation on your part, and your other copyedit assertion that somehow Bob Benge was more influential than Dragging Canoe among the Chickamauga Cherokee band raiding Virginia's western frontier is unsourced...and in any case, it is a detail unsuited for placement in the introduction as a matter of encyclopedic style. There is need for Native-American eyes on this page to critique, but it is best to be sourced even on the Talk page, and wp: reliablesource is a requirement for the article mainspace. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

at this point the systemic bias here and stubbornness in your clearly trying to impugn the powhatan, monacan, cherokee, nottoway and majority of VIRGINIA tribes as having joned the french in 1754, resorting to every dirty trick in the book it seems, my only recourse will be to do as i originally suugested and list this on the appropriate boards for "indegenous" and systemic bias on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "stubborn" about my two attempts at collegial copyedit compromise. Calling for a reliable source is not a "dirty trick". The "appropriate boards" will take note that the Heinemann source is referencing native groups "along Virginia's frontier" in the context of the paragraph, and VIRGINIA tribes of Powhatan, Monacan and Nottoway were not living on the frontier, but east of the Alleghenies. After an unhappy early alliance with the British, the Cherokee centered nearby North Carolina and Georgia settlement initiated the Anglo-Cherokee War for three years including along the Virginia frontier, with the French, apart from the VIRGINIA tribes. Again, if you have a suggestion for a more discriminating phraseology which avoids "systematic bias", please make a collegial, reliably sourced suggestion here on the Talk page before making unfounded mischaracterizations and summarily deleting narrative material which is reliably sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The point needs to be raised about these editors insistence that certain selected white male historians only be used to paint a deceiving picture with their point-of-view perspective and misleading phrases to give that false impression when there are abundant accurate firsthand sources to paint a complete and not such a misleading picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You have raised it eloquently. But at Wikipedia an editor cannot launch into WP:OR Original Research from an individual interpretation of firsthand accounts. WP:Primary sources are to be used with care, and only to support analysis and interpretation of published scholarship. A WP:Reliablesource is required to put material in and to take material out. At the blue links, you will find a more in depth discussion of each subject as it relates to editing on WP. You are clearly well acquainted with material related to Native Americans. Welcome!

Your insight is important; you have persuaded me to suggest two edits to conform with your concerns. I really like the idea of restating those Native-American tribes joining the French were only those found on Virginia's frontier, and not those found living in Virginia's interior. Why have you not directly responded to by proposal (b) replacing the offending "nearly all Native American groups" with "most of the tribes on Virginia's frontier" or some variant? Without constructive, collegial engagement, others see your actions here as mere trolling. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I mainly notice you as the one going out of your way to flip this into an ad hominem about me, with practically your every post, and notice you are always quick to step in quickly and declare how "others" see me as well. you must be like omniscient or what? :Even if you trump up enough accusations to get rid of me here, you will not get rid of the truth and all of your fudging with facts is publicly visible here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.128.222 (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

71.127.128.222 has systematically insulted the editors and the experts--he now pleads victimization. As for truth he always tells people to go read the books but he never has any titles of a book he has looked at. I suspect there's an old outdated high school textbook he's using but is too embarrassed too admit it. Rjensen (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I got a source

I got a perfect firsthand source for you: James I original 1606 charter granting all of those occupied territories to his favored fiefs. You can read right in there how he says all those lands were legally his because the occupants had no right to hold them, and he claimed them as up for grabs and his for the taking. This proclamation is what all of the jingoistic 'Virginia extended to the pacific and to the ohio' attitude or pov that permeates this article, finds its basis and justification in, barbaric as it might seem in modern times, to continue claiming all these areas where no Englishmen actually ever set foot were legally Virginia "on paper" because King James decided the nations already there had no claim. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the Charter of 1606 can find it on the internet here. Under the English feudal system, lands of non-Christians were considered to not have legitimate governments and thus they were not sovereign states subject to Act of State doctrine. According to the political philosophy of the day, once the king claimed land for his kingdom, divine right of kings gave James I divine authority to establish the law over that land... hence the Virginia Charter. Not saying it was morally right, but legally it "was the way it was" until the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660. So really, the disenfranchisement of indigenous rights was a function of the post-reformational intellectual climate. Do we want to say this or do we just assume that people know that early Virginia history is a product of the Jacobean era? Peace, MPS (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why yes, the article refers to the founding of Jamestown named for the James I of the Jacobean Era; the colonization attempt of Elizabeth I had failed at Roanoke. But what would you change in the article account of the French and Indian War? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP.222, In the late 1500s, Powhatan increased the empire of his father during his lifetime something like ten-fold, including territorial expansion west, north and east to the Chesapeake Bay. The English were just another group which took the contested lands from the most recent Amerindian conqueror who had -- in his turn -- governed before them by right of conquest without the free consent of the previous occupants. Even with the cessions to the English, Powhatan continued to expand his empire of tributary tribes, and set himself up as a trading middleman between the English and tribes more removed from Jamestown. Sometimes in this matter of right-by-conquest, writers stake out a race-based bias which does not comprehend both cultural sides in an even handed way.

The firsthand source of a 1606 "charter granting all of those occupied territories" does not bear on the historic facts discussed in reliable scholarly sources that most Native-American tribes along the Virginia western frontier sided with the French as military allies in the French and Indian War of the mid 1700s, --- and they suffered the fate of defeated nations that violate peace treaties when initiating conflict -- loss of territory to accommodate the victors, sometimes with payment of restitution or tribute, thus assuring their self preservation.

Interestingly, some Eastern Woodland Indian land cessions were accompanied by the "winning" English or French making sustained payments to tribes over decades, including treasure, technological innovations such as copper pots, firearm weapons and blacksmiths to maintain them, --- firearms which the Amerindians used in combat against their Virginian treaty partners by 1644, due in part to the expanded arms supply by New Amsterdam's Dutch (later absorbed into New York) at the time of Anglo-Dutch wars. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

1644 eh, so in other words you are alleging that Opechancanough got firearms from the Dutch? That's a new one on me. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's in Andrews 1937 "Virginia: the Old Dominion". He maintains Algonquin language tribes traded with one another along the eastern seaboard. The Virginians were pretty good about trying to keep firearms out of the hands of Amerindians by law. Opechancanough wanted a war-chief reputation comparable to his brother's early career, so pulled off quite a tactical surprise considering his armament and the existing treaties of Powhatan as a peace-chief. He killed more English, but with less effect. Powhatan's assault twenty years before finished off the Virginia Company and made Virginia a royal colony. The English counter-punch "march" to Opechancanough resulted in the Powhatans ceding some eastern territory to the Fall Line.

Though as a source for Wikipedia, I prefer Heinemann out of the University of Virginia 2007 "Old Dominion, New Commonwealth" for political history, or alternatively Wallenstein out of Virginia Tech 2007 "Cradle of America: four centuries of Virginia History" and Dabney's 1972 "Virginia: the New Dominion" for minority history. What are your favorite reliable, scholarly published sources for contributions to Wikipedia on Virginia? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Haha, what all the modern reliable sources say is the natives in VA mostly got their firearms between the years 1656 and 1676, when the House of Burgesses apparently tolerated a group of kidnappers from the great lakes known as the Westo in exchange for English muskets. The real problem here is too many reliable sources from professionals talking about this in detail to quote, but just a couple I found that seem good and recent:

Cynthia A. Kierner, ‎Sandra Gioia Treadway - 2015 - Virginia Women: Their Lives and Times --Volume 1 - Page 40

Allan Gallay, 2009, Indian Slavery in Colonial America p. 217, and 2002, The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South p. 41

Eric E Bowne 2005 The Westo Indians: Slave Traders of the Early Colonial South

Regards, 71.127.128.222 (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong on all counts.

• Page 40 of Kierner’s book concerns Grace Sherwood (c. 1660 – c. 1740), “The Virginia Witch”. It does not address the armament of Opecancanough in 1644 twenty years before her birth, nor the French and Indian War alliances fifteen years after her death. [9] -- "haha, what all the modern reliable sources say" -- are there no sources to support your point of view at all? It may be we can help you here with chronology, as sequence of events matters in historiography.

• Page 217 of Gallay’s book Indian Slavery concerns Indian slavery in Southeastern Indian and British Societies, 1670-1730, which does not address either Opencancanough’s armament in the assault of 1644, nor the French and Indian War under discussion. The Westos traded with Virginia colonists "exchanging war captives for guns" and “terrorizing Indians throughout the southeast with their slave raids.” — not attacking British colonists with firearms as Opecancanough did. In the early 1660s, the Westos moved out of the region of Virginia into the Carolinas, almost a hundred years prior to the French and Indian war under discussion (1754–1763). [10]

• page 41 of Gallay’s The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South is about Carolina, the Westo, and the Trade in Indian Slaves, 1670-1685, not in Virginia and after the French and Indian War. [11]
• Bowne’s “The Westo Indians: Slave Traders of the Early Colonial South” notes, "At the height of their influence, between 1659 and 1680, it is believed the Westos captured and sold several thousand Indians from Spanish Florida, often trading them for guns.” The Westos were effective fighters until Native Americans banded together in confederacies and obtained their own fire arms from friendly Europeans to resist them. The Westos did not arm Native American tribes to assault the colonists. This does not reflect on how Powhatans gained firearms between 1622 and 1644. It is also irrelevant to a narrative concerning Native-American alliances with the French against the English colonies in the French and Indian War.

That is, you still have no sources to support removing the contested passage on "most Native-American tribes on Virginia's frontier" joined with the French in a military alliance during the French and Indian War (Seven Year's War). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a damn thing I said was wrong, actually. Dont expect me to play by some silly rules you dictate on what my source should refer to. I never said I was offering those sources as mentioning anything about Opechancanough or 1644. I specifically said that they all agree (which they do) that the Westo traded kidnapped Indian children to Virginians in exchange for firearms after 1656 (I don't suppose you think that bears mention in history of Virginia do you?) From what I know of 1644, the Powhatan had not obtained many firearms by then though I admit I could be wrong there, I wasn't looking for a source on that yet. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Who knows what's true and what's false in your edits?? The sources you just cited may have been picked up this week in a museum book store. Yes we do expect you to play by the Wikipedia rules, or go away. Rjensen (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You are insane. there is absolutely nothing wrong with those sources, those are the latest scholarly research. that's it, I'm bringing this up on the systemic bias and Indigenous projects tomorrow for more eyes. 71.127.128.222 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

the problem is that you wrote a lot of text for the article without sources and still refuse to provide them. how is anyone to trust you? you have no credentials, no track record, you make wild threats & nasty attacks on leading scholars. You refuse to follow the rules. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Dont expect me to play by some silly rules you dictate on what my source should refer to. — well yes, in a reputable sourced encyclopedia, a source reference must refer to the subject of the text. I concur with including the nomadic Westos in the Virginia narrative for the twenty years or so that they were nearby Virginia 1640-1660, sourcing Gallay, if you care to do the work. But as you see in the Wikipedia article on them, most of their historically significant career is along the Savannah River (see your sources, Bowne and Gallay 2002) before they were "extinguished".

But you began here by deleting sourced material on the French and Indian War 1754-63, without discussion, without sources, without addressing collegial counter-proposals, and making wild threats. Can’t you see the difference? There may be a need for additional contributions concerning Native-Americans in this article, but you are muddying your expressed intent by disqualifying behaviors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

IP is an indefinitely blocked editor known for making personal attacks

I'm sorry, I hadn't checked the IP range for a while. Too late to block him although it's tempting to strike all his comments above. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of Virginia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page is a little to complicated

Last edited at 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of Virginia

Any interest in creating a Timeline of Virginia article? A few other U.S. states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:

• Benson John Lossing, ed. (1905). "United States: Virginia (chronology)". Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History. Vol. 9. Harper & Bros. – via HathiTrust. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Benjamin Vincent (1910), "Virginia", Haydn's Dictionary of Dates (25th ed.), London: Ward, Lock & Co. – via Hathi Trust {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Federal Writers' Project (1941), "Chronology", Virginia: a Guide to the Old Dominion, American Guide Series, Oxford University Press – via Google Books {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Blair Howard; Mary K. Burnham; Bill Burnham (2005). "Summary of Virginia's Notable Historic Events". Virginia Handbook (3rd ed.). Hunter Publishing. ISBN 978-1-58843-512-5. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• "Notable dates in Virginia history". Virginia Historical Society.
• WorldCat

-- M2545 (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wm.edu/niahd/journals/index.php?browse=entry&id=4965
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203111617/http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/21361.htm to http://www.vahistorical.org/onthisday/21361.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413164214/http://www.vtmagazine.vt.edu/fall97/feature1.html to http://www.vtmagazine.vt.edu/fall97/feature1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930231947/http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/488 to http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/488

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)