Talk:Early United States history

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scope of article[edit]

As there is no articles for the pre-Columbian or colonial periods, this article should focus on all history of the territory that came to be the United States, from the arrival of the Indigenous Americans, until 1861. If there is enough material, we could break it down to multiple articles. /Yvwv (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There could of course be an article named Early North American history, covering the indigenous and colonial heritage of Mesoamerica, Canada and the Caribbean as well; but that might just be too generalized. /Yvwv (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the starting point? The Birth of Benjamin Franklin? It appears fourteen ninety two is too early a starting-point... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lets put the starting point at 10,000 BC, with the first settlements in Alaska, until someone starts an Indigenous Americans or pre-Columbian America article. /Yvwv (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much clearer to have the focus of this article on the history of the United states and the ancestors of its non-indigenous citizens. That history is of course intermingled with the history of Indigenous Americans, but their story is different and mentioning some points here will not give their cultures the attention they deserve – rather it will make the Indigenous Americans article seem redundant. The indigenous should of course be mentioned also here, as much as is convenient and important to understand the conflict between them and (descendant of) the immigrants, as well as their present situation. --LPfi (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and most of these things mentioned were specifically never part of the United States, existing long before the continent ever saw any idea of what a nation state is. And especially from a traveller's perspective, visiting early US sites (history) is very different from visiting indigenous sites (mostly prehistory). I'd like to see that stuff taken out of here an put in its own article where it can get full attention and be expanded on properly without having to compete with the much better known colonial/early US stuff. Texugo (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


from Wikivoyage:Requested articles:
  • Napoleonic Wars they occurred on at least two continents and were a major watershed in the history of Europe AND North America (war of 1812). Sites in Europe include Leipzig and Waterloo
I'd think the American theater of this should be separate, not least because, though true in a sense, it is a very European concept to consider the War of 1812 just another of the Napoleonic Wars — it is not taught this way in US schools — and the dynamics of the American theater were considerably different from what was happening in Europe. You can also be pretty sure next to no one is going to be planning a single trip on which they visit such sites on both sides of the Atlantic anyway. Texugo (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could start an article named Colonial and Revolutionary North America or Antebellum United States with sites from before the Civil War, and branch off articles into regions or time periods, if it gets too big. /Yvwv (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was an edit conflict so I'll try to reformulate: I doubt that the relatively minor war of 1812 (at least in terms of the size of the armies involved) has many sites to be visited. Sure the white house was burned down, but the fact that it doesn't look today like it did in 1815 is part of the attraction of the place, I'd say. I think we can create a good article on the Napoleonic wars in Europe without to much effort and see if and where the war of 1812 can be covered once the case has been made how much there is to cover. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course wait-and-see is probably the right answer, but at any rate, these sites seem to indicate that there would be plenty to warrant a separate article:
Texugo (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move the discussion to Talk:Early United States history. /Yvwv (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us in this neck of the woods do *not* consider 1812 to be "relatively minor". There are plenty of sites built either for use during the 1812 war or immediately afterwards as defence against this conflict happening again: Fort York in Toronto, Fort Ontario in Oswego, Fort Henry in Kingston (Ontario), Sackets Harbor, Fort Wellington in Prescott (Ontario) are the first few still extant which come to mind. A few are national historic sites. The UNESCO-listed Rideau Canal was built after the 1812 war, but for a defensive purpose and specifically because of the war. Even if the US saw Britain being distracted by the Napoleonic Wars as their opportunity to attack Canada, the war here is a separate conflict from the wars in Europe. K7L (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All wars but one in North America (that actually saw significant fighting on the mainland) were "relatively minor" in the terms of lives lost and armies moving around. It appears that there is much more still around from these wars than I thought, and of course the historical consequences of these wars have often been tremendous (Canada being a thing, for example) which is all the more surprising considering that it was only a small couple of soldiers compared to more massive wars elsewhere that accomplished next to nothing either way except demographic imbalances (e.g. triple alliance war, Taiping rebellion and countless other wars in the "millions died, no-one cared" category).... I must commend North America however on keeping history alive and visible. That is imho sadly absent in Europe with very few exceptions... Old stuff in Europe just sticks around because nobody bothers to tear it down. There has only very recently been an effort to restore or preserve. And while we may debate the fact whether the war of 1812 was or was not part of the Napoleonic wars it can (like the Haitian revolution) only be understood in that wider context. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be need for at least one History of Canada travel topic. /Yvwv (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1812 itinerary[edit]

from Wikivoyage:Requested articles#Itineraries:
I imagine all of the above topics will have to be framed as topic articles and not itineraries, since there is nothing geographically linear about any of it, nor is anyone likely on a single trip to visit all or even most of the sites for any of these topics. Texugo (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with User:Texugo and also I'd like to add, that the war of 1812 is maybe not enough for a travel topic per se, but it might be in the greater context of the Napoleonic wars. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of military history sites for the 1776/1812 eras, although they'll tend to be all US Eastern Seaboard for the American Revolution and along the Canada-US border for 1812. (Those pesky Nebraskans wouldn't dare throw the gov'nors blimey tea in the harbour, would they?) That might put them in something close to an itinerary-style line, although otherwise these would be travel topics as military history or military tourism. K7L (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles on US history?[edit]

How can we cover the rest of US history? An idea:

From a 2015 vantage point, it seems like 1945 is a long ago, or at least that from then till now contained a lot of eventful times that might not fit well in a single travel topic. The 50s and 60s were very different decades, for example. And there are various aspects of this history. There were changes in architectural style and the other arts (notably, music); if there is not yet a topic on the Civil Rights movement, there should be; there either is or should also be a topic on the history of the gay rights movement in the US, with the Stonewall Bar and the Castro in San Francisco obvious focusus (foci?) but not the only ones; and it's natural to focus on the music of the different decades, where it was most performed and recorded and what remains of those times. In terms of music, we have an article on The Jazz Track, though it could be greatly improved and there could be another (or the same?) one for post-1935 jazz. (And why 1935 in particular? To avoid Swing? That's another possible topic.) We could have topics on the Blues, 1950s Rock 'n' Roll, Hillbilly and Country music, 1960s and 70s rock, funk and disco, and hip hop, to name a few, covering the places where each style of music started and thrived and where you can still find echoes of those styles and movements to this day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, LGBT travel already exists and there's a listing for Stonewall in the respective city article. 1950s and 60s nostalgia is used pretty heavily to market Route 66, although we don't have an article about nostalgia tourism in general. K7L (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Industrialization of the United States started, with an intended scope of 1865 to 1939. The scope might be too large; but let us see where the article is going; we might break it down into several articles. /Yvwv (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikivoyage, not Wikipedia. The scope seems ridiculously small already. Powers (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Should we subdivide the "Cities" section by state? If not, where should the state name go? I don't like it being in parentheses, which is what happens when it's in "directions". Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site scope[edit]

Can someone explain how this article is intended to help the traveler? I mean, I see there's a list of itineraries, and a list of cities with historic sites, but that seems pretty superficial, and there's a risk that this could become a facade on which to hang an encyclopedic history. I guess what I'm asking is, what would an article such as this look like in its final, star-quality state? Powers (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section about places should preferrably present many individual venues within cities; in places such as Boston or Philadelphia there are many museums, parks and monuments relevant to early US history. /Yvwv (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the United States#History section is massive; many geographic articles contain lenghty encyclopedic material, which could probably be shorter, with expanded editions in travel topic articles, such as this one. /Yvwv (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still remember a discussion we had on the talk page about the US whether the Monroe doctrine should be mentioned and if so how... Now we have a place where we could in fact put it ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the Monroe Doctrine had little practical effect in the 19th century other than providing some support for Latin-American independence fighters. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
United States of America#History has a tendency to get larger over time; periodically it needs to be pruned. But shunting lengthy encyclopedic material to another article isn't a solution; in general, we don't need that encyclopedic detail at all. The geographic articles should contain overviews, which I think the current U.S. history section is right on the edge of. Powers (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itinerary: Atlantic Coast Historical Tour[edit]

Since most of the point of interests are along the Atlantic Coast, we could have an itinerary from Boston and St. Augustine, parallel to the U.S. Highway 1 itinerary, which is rather thin. /Yvwv (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we keep that from becoming a "personal itinerary" though? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikivoyage:Itineraries, there are two criteria. 1) It should describe a specific route, and 2) the content cannot properly be covered by a single Wikivoyage article. An Atlantic Coast Historical Tour obviously meets criterion 1; when it comes to the second term,

one could argue that all its content is already in the Early United States history. However, the Atlantic Coast Historical Tour could include single venues along the route, which are prominent enough to be mentioned in the Early United States history article. That has been the intention of the Manufacturing Belt itinerary. /Yvwv (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I won't stay in the way of you making that itinerary, than. But I'm afraid that my contributions will most likely be rather limited. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More background[edit]

A lot of the timeline is worded in such a way that readers are expected what the importance of - say - the second Indian War was. Should we explain stuff like this in the timeline or I'm a new understand section? Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a reason that there is no marking (is that the right term?) form Roanoke on the map?Animalia555 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's because there's no listing for it. If you look at the "Cities" section in edit mode, you'll see that all the other cities have templated listings that include geocoordinates. Those coordinates form points on the map. Please make the appropriate edits if you feel motivated to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]