Talk: New France
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
See: (cur) (last) . . 02:40, 23 Sep 2003 . . Adam Bishop (Some massive expansion) --- I deleted some things that are not correct:
"Louisiana remained off-limits to settlement from the American colonies, which helped contribute to the American Revolution over a decade later."
For clarification: Louisiana was under Spanish control until Napoleon and had zero to do with the American Revolution. Angelique 00:04, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It wasn't always under Spanish control...they got it from the French after the Seven Years' War, didn't they? (NO ! Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)) Anyway, I guess I meant the French territory in the Ohio Valley, (WHAT FRENCH TERRITORY - There was only one, the Louisiana Territory] Angelique) where Americans weren't allowed to settle, since that did contribute to the Revolution. (My God! Where do you dream up this stuff that you are inserting as fact into Wikipedia? You went to what University? And studied what?)Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
By the way, are you going to answer the questions that Mathieu and I have asked you elsewhere, or am I going to have to repeat them on every page you edit? I wish you would stop being so contentious (even your language here could be much more pleasant). Adam Bishop 00:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have deleted the External links because they have no merit in an encyclopedia reference:
- New France: 1524-1763 is the personal website of Patrick Couture and has no credibilty
- Lists of Governors, Intendants, and Bishops is a site that provides no statement of ownership but refers to three individuals, one of which leads to Claude Routhier, an employee of the the cable TV company, Videotron. Angelique 01:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) (And this is interesting because Videotron is owned Quebecor which also owns Sun Media.) Angelique
- Okay, if there was only one French territory called the Louisiana Territory, then the Americans weren't allowed to settle in Louisiana, were they? What is so hard to understand about that? And yes, the Spanish did get it from the French in the mid-eighteenth century. I have issues with your removal of the external links, but I suppose that's not as bad as everything else you're doing...
Now, you have changed what you were stating as fact: Please explain how this had to do with the American Revolution? Angelique 01:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Can you please be more willing to work with other people here? Your actions are very un-Wiki-like. Adam Bishop 01:15, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Certainly. Apologize first and before opening mouth or typing assertions into articles or belittling others (me), check your facts first. Angelique 01:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) -- Please check your facts. I don't want to have to recheck all your additions to all the articles you have inserted information into based on your profound knowledge of history. Angelique 01:23, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? Adam Bishop 01:26, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Just because u dont like the external links, doesnt mean they wont be of interest to the reader. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Angelique, I obviously do not want to get into an edit war with you, so I wish you would be more cooperative. Removing an external link because it is four times removed from a media conglomerate is very strange - the link is just a list! As for the personal website, if it is imformative and useful, so what if it is a personal site? Why don't you replace them with something better, if you know of any? Adam Bishop 01:55, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I do not wish to impose my views, only to work to make Wikipedia a valuable and reliable encyclopedia. As such, I placed my thoughts on this matter on the Village Pump page. Was that proper? If not, where should it be to discuss such a vital issue as Wikipedia's credibility? Angelique 02:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ahem, may I?
It seems to me that most of these things should be in the History of Quebec or in the History of Canada. But then again 1763 is not a perfect cut off point.
In all your discussions you are both right, in a way. The special case of Louisiana is tricky because there was a crucial boundary change in this period. On November 3rd 1762 France transferred Louisiana to Spain in a secret treaty which was revealed only in 1764. The formal transfer to Spain occured only in 1769.
During that relatively short period the boundaries of Louisiana were redrawn in a radical way: By a treaty co-signed in Paris in February of 1763 by representatives of France, Portugal, Spain and Great Britain all of the parts of Louisiana which were East of the Mississippi river (and also East of the Iberville river, and lake Maurepas and lake Pontchartrain, to be precise) were ceded to Great Britain.
This is the territory (East of the Mississippi and West of the Appalachians) which Great Britain decided to join to what was formerly New France. By the Quebec act which Parliament passed in London in 1774 this territory was subjected to rule from a British governor, normally located in Quebec city. By this same Quebec Act of 1774 all this vast territory was considered as being both under a localized version of french civil law (the codified "coutume de Paris") and British or English criminal law. Again within this territory, the Roman catholic church was granted all the legal privileges it had known in New France while under the french crown. The inhabitants of the 13 colonies were mostly protestants used to some form of self-rule by locally elected assemblies. They were technically not forbidden to colonize the area West of the Appalachians, but to move there would have meant that they would have to abandon any form of self-government and abide by what was to them an alien form of law. Added to this was the fact that the colonials had for several generations fought (as subjects of the British crown but also as defenders of their farms and families) many bitter wars and skirmishes against the French of New France. In the continuing heat of these conflicts much hatred was generated against everything which was French and/or catholic. Moving to a territory were the Catholic church had legal privileges which were unknown in the 13 colonies was thus very far from attractive! In addition vast stretches of the territory were considered as Indian lands.
This is why the Quebec act of 1774 and the presence of a bit of what had been once Louisiana is often considered as one of the causes of the rebellion of the 13 colonies (soon to be known as the USA) against the Crown.
Do what you wish with what I write, but I would be most pleased if you took the care to check up my facts in something else than the 1961 edition of the Britannica, which I consulted to compose the above. A long time ago I did an honours BA in History and had the great fortune to study under some wise specialists in the History of Canada and New France. They taught me that there is no such thing as a perfect source. Always check things in many sources. All of the text is mine: I have taken only the facts from the 1961 EB. The EB was necessary because my memory fails me and I could not have easily sorted out all those treaties and changes of boundaries whose intricacies I vaguely remembered.2003-12-08, 23:35
- Thanks for that, I hope it can help us here. Adam Bishop 16:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This article has nothing about Louisiana. Volunteers? Angelique 14:06, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
