Talk:James Wilkinson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wilkinson not first Governor of Louisiana Territory (said BT to kick off this page....)[edit]

I don't have Vol. IV of Gayarré in front of me, since I'm still inputting Vol. III, but other standard works on my site confirm that Claiborne was the first Governor of Louisiana Territory:

Mind you, in Gayarré Vol. III, pp619 ff. — not yet up on my site, I'll probably get there within the week though — it is Claiborne who receives the keys from the French Prefect, and it is Claiborne who makes the initial American proclamation. (The reason Vol. III doesn't go into the American governorship is that the Volume covers only, and is subtitled, "The Spanish Domination".)

But, just in case this should not be believable, the Secretary of State of Louisiana goes along for the ride as well; Wilkinson is not even mentioned on that page.

The source of the confusion is that Jefferson appointed Claiborne and Wilkinson as joint Commissioners to accept the province from France. Bill 18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Be careful not to confuse Orleans Territory (which became the state of Louisiana) with the Louisiana Territory.
Both this and this agree that Wilkinson was appointed the governor of Louisiana Territory in 1805. I will look for other references this evening. older ≠ wiser 18:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're approaching a 50‑50 split: I didn't realize he'd been governor of the rump end starting in 1805. On the other hand, no confusion; Wikipedia's own article points out that the Territory only acquired the name "Orleans Territory" in late 1804. Before that, the entirety was called "Louisiana Territory", and Claiborne was definitely its first governor. Bill 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civil government was organized under the name Orleans Territory; the Louisiana Territory was a separately organized civil government. Prior to that, there was no civil territorial government, only military governors. So Claiborne was not the first governor of the Louisiana Territory (except in a colloquial use of the term for the area). older ≠ wiser 19:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few additional links from Congressional Archives:

  • October 31, 1803 Act of Congress authorizing Jefferson to accept the territory ceded by France and authorizing him to appoint military governors unless the Congress makes provisions for temporary government sooner.
  • January 16, 1804 Letter from Jefferson read into the Senate Journal reporting successful exectuion by Governor Claiborne of the Mississippi territory and General Wilkinson, who were appointed commissioners to receive possession of Louisiana as ceded by France.
  • Novermber 30, 1804 Senate Executive Journal receipt of letter from Jefferson appointing Claibourne as governor of Orleans Territory.
  • March 2, 1805 Act of Congress authorizing Orleans Territory to proceed to the next level of territorial government and enabling it to form a state constitution upon reaching population of 60,000.
  • March 3, 1805 Act of Congress organizing the district of Louisiana into the Louisiana Territory.
  • December 20, 1805 Senate Executive Journal receipt of letter from Jefferson re-appointing Claibourne as governor of Orleans Territory and appointing Wilkinson as governor of Louisiana Territory.

I think it is clear that Claibourne was never governor of the organized Louisiana Territory and that by all apppearances Wilkinson was appointed the first governor (I could find nothing indicating that Jefferson had appointed anyone else in the interim between organization of the territory in March 1805 and the letter of appointment dated December 1805). older ≠ wiser 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No question that
  • (a) I was wrong about Wilkinson and the "Louisiana Territory": I didn't know that, now I do.
  • (b) Claiborne never was governor of the "LT" rump.
  • (c) Claiborne was indeed governor of the Orleans Territory.
The question I (still) have is what was the territory bought under the Louisiana Purchase called before it was divided into the LT and the OT. Surely, "Louisiana Territory"? What else could it possibly have been called?
On a different note altogether, a great big thank-you for introducing me to http://memory.loc.gov/, a resource I was completely unaware of. And on a final note, I'm adding a Wilkinson page of my own — masking about 150 pages of print — to the Links.... Even if right this second, one of the index pages is a bit sketchy; it'll be shipshape in an hour or so. Best, Bill 22:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confusingly, it was often called "Louisiana" (which in itself, even under French and Spanish rule, encompassed a rather vaguely defined area). When described in official documents, it was often accompanied by some mention of the land or territory ceded by France. References to district of L or territory of L (at least in federal documents) generally references to officially designated entities.
http://memory.loc.gov/ is a great resource -- I wish they would make more Congressional documentation available online. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wilkinson County, Georgia[edit]

Roswell native (talk · contribs) has added this category to the article twice now and I've removed it twice. Neither this article nor the Wilkinson County, Georgia article mention that Wilkinson had any significant connection to the county. Simply because a place is named after a person is not a good reason to include the person in the category for that place. That is a misapplication of categories, IMO. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad, I would like to politely disagree. For example, Monroe County is listed in Category:James Monroe. If Monroe did not have his own category, this would obviously be listed as a category on his individual entry even though he did not have anything to do with most of those seventeen counties - it's part of Monroe's legacy. In addition, adding back Category:Wilkinson County, Georgia will also help in attracting those interested in or from that area that may be able to expand the article with respect to Wilkinson County, Georgia. In fact, I think we should also add Category:Wilkinson County, Mississippi for the same reason. Finally, both of these county categories should be present if Category:Confidence tricksters remains IMHO. -- Roswell native 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, on both points. Monroe County was incorrectly categorized -- disambiguation pages in general should not be categorized. From Wikipedia:Categorization, the section on "When to use categories" has this guidance:
Questions to ask to determine whether it is appropriate to add an article to a category:
  • If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
  • If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate.
I don't think it at all is obviouswhy the article was put in the category. The category subject "Wilkinson County, Georgia" is not so much as mentioned in the article, let alone prominently discussed. I don't see how the inclusion of Category:Confidence tricksters has any bearing on the others. Wilkinson was certainly involved in several high-profile scandals that had some similarities to confidence scams and which are discussed in some detail in his article. But whether it is appropriate to describe him as a "confidence trickster" is somewhat debatable -- I'm not really sure exactly how well he fits into that category. But that is a rather completely different matter from including him in the county articles. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia:Categorization, I have been looking for that page and never finding it for some reason. As for Monroe County being incorrectly categorized, I'm not sure I agree there. Another case in point, Category:Places named for Benjamin Franklin is in Category: Benjamin Franklin - if Franklin did not have his own category, this would be listed on Benjamin Franklin's entry instead (similar to JW and Wil. Co. category discussion we are having). The more I look, the more this appears to be an accepted practice with respect to Bio entries and the places named after those people. Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out what I am observing as I peruse Wikipedia.
  • If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
  • You've lost me on this point. We are talking about a category that does exist, or did I misunderstand the category to which you are referring?
  • If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the category is probably inappropriate.
Passing on the first question, definite yes IMO on the second.
As for Category:Confidence tricksters, this seems to grossly understate his actions. Category:American fraudsters perhaps instead? He was involved in the Yazoo land scandal as well although that is not currently documented in either the Yazoo or JW entries. His historical actions are open to much more development, and it would be good to attract those that are local to the place of his actions to expand upon his article and related articles (which is why I inserted the cat. in the first place to be honest). -- Roswell native 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A category is not (or at least IMO should not be) just a collection of things that are tangentially related to a topic. It is not really completely obvious why the article on the man James Wilkinson would be in the county category. Being named for a person is not a very significant factor so far as that individual is concerned. That is, generally, a category represents a significant attribute pertaining to the subject of the article. As I've said several times now, the county is not even so much as mentioned in Wilkinson's article and the last time I checked he was not even mentioned in the county article. I'm probably not presenting the rationales about categorization very well -- you might want to try bringing this up on Wikipedia talk:Categorization to get some other perspectives. I could be all wet, and if so, I'll withdraw my objections. But from what I recall of past discussions there, I don't think there will be a lot of support for including the man in the county category merely on the basis of name. The Franklin example you mention is significantly different. The places are included in a subcategory for the person and not the person in a category for the place. If that subcategory, Category:Places named for Benjamin Franklin, did not exist, you would not add Ben Franklin to the categories for the places, such as Category:Franklin County, Illinois. The categories are describing an attribute of the places, not an attribute of the person. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth[edit]

According to his great-grandson (of the same name), James Wilkinson was born in Calvert County: the younger JW spent a good deal of time researching his ancestor; the result was published in LHQ I:79‑166, and the statement as to the place of birth appears on p83, at this link. I notice that the Park Service's birthplace, Benedict, is just across the river in fact from Calvert County: I suspect that "Benedict" is shorthand, as very frequently, for "the nearest town was Benedict"; and that JW was very probably born just across the river. I'm not reverting the edit just made — usually all that does is trigger a pig-headed revert war, more ego than concern for accuracy — all the more so that I'm merely offering a theory to explain why two credible sources should say slightly different things; but anyone doing careful research will comb thru this Talk page, and the suggestion may be useful in steering them to the final authority. The print version of the current Encyclopedia Britannica, FWIW, gives Calvert County. Bill (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be accurate - however, googling for details, I found various results, e.g., "Calvert County", "somewhere in Calvert County", "Benedict". Benedict is a smaller location than Calvert County, and there are a large fraction of hits on that. If it's "near" Benedict, then it would be nice to have a source that relates the two, or (more likely) a given farm location if it's not in a town/village. Also note that sources often are blurry regarding place of birth when the person lived thereafter in another place. Tedickey (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and I are on the same wavelength. I didn't spell it out, but yes, what's needed is the source with the actual place; I don't think it's online. Very likely the authoritative (though hardly definitive) biography of JW, Tarnished warrior, Major-General James Wilkinson, by James Ripley Jacobs will have the details; I haven't seen it. As it turns out (I've already done the copyright research) the book though 1934, is public domain because they failed to renew, and I'm thinking of transcribing it on my site as well. Anyhoo, just so that anyone poking around for the details is aware of the little uncertainty. Best, Bill (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that - this scrap of text: 

Tarnished Warrior: Major-General James Wilkinson by James Ripley ...
In this Maryland of early days, James Wilkinson was born in 1757,
three miles northeast of the present village of Benedict, on the south side of Hunting ...
www.questia.com/library/book/ tarnished-warrior-major-general-james-wilkinson-by-james-ripley-jacobs.jsp - Similar pages

fits with the comment here which leads to this less-informative marker relating to Hunting Creek. So "near Benedict" looks okay (am looking further). Tedickey (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More sources needed.[edit]

This article appears to have several sources, but upon checking them out, there is a brief U.S. Army bio, a Maryland roadside historical marker (cited twice), a rotten link, and a reference I added for his wife, Ann Biddle, but that reference is about her older brothers, Owen Biddle, Sr. and Clement Biddle, and only briefly mentions their younger sister. There is a lot of detail in the article, but the sources appear to be weak. Stronger references are needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive review coming[edit]

This is a head's up. Within the next month there may be some significant changes to this entry. I am requiring students in a college class of mine to edit this entry based on review of major sources on the topic. Most of these editors are new to Wikipedia; I'm a neophyte myself. We aim to follow standard protocol, but we'll doubtless makes some mistakes (by being bold) along the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuigiV (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're back[edit]

Another heads up: As we did last year, I'm putting my college students on the job of editing this page. See above. Thanks.137.143.146.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Nolan[edit]

User Tedickey has reverted my removal of this erroneous info:

It was also from these environs that Burr recruited his would-be revolutionaries, most notable amongst them a young Philip Nolan, famously remembered as "the man without a country" in literature and history.

I don't wish to edit-war, but I do want the article to be accurate.

  1. The link is to the wrong Philip Nolan.
  2. The right Philip Nolan was the protagonist of a work of fiction.

@Tedickey: will you please self-revert? Thanks, Yopienso (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear to me that the fictional Philip Nolan was inspired by the historical one. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your comment, and suggest an improvement for the topic TEDickey (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fictional Nolan bears no resemblance to the historical one. A website created by Amy A. and Leon Kass says Hale based Nolan on Clement Vallandigham.
Again, please self-revert. Yopienso (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue, except to note in passing that my attention was originally drawn to the connection by some paper in (pay-wall) JStor. Perhaps someone will improve the topic later on. By the way, statements about correctness/etc, inevitably come across as hostile, unless you happen to be the authority who wrote the sources.. Try to point out that things are or are not sourced to something reliable. TEDickey (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Wilkinson. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Wilkinson. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Wilkinson. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Wilkinson&oldid=1210966321"