Talk:Second Continental Congress/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Continental Congress. 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://colet.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/amarch/getdoc.pl?%2Fprojects%2Fartflb%2Fdatabases%2Fefts%2FAmArch%2FIMAGE%2F.5774
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206214032/http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/index.html to http://dig.lib.niu.edu/amarch/index.html

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) 08:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Congress of the Confederation be merged into Second Continental Congress. Despite repeated requests from various editors, no one could provide historical reasons for referring to the later years of the Second Continental Congress with the term "Congress of the Confederation." Editors have already cited sources that declare that neither the membership, nor the purpose, nor the structure, of the Second Continental Congress changed. More to the point, citations have been provided that prove that the governing body under question referred to itself as the "Contintental Congress," not as the "Congress of the Confederation." Where does this term, "Congress of the Confederation" come from? It seems that all of the cited sources -- including records of the congress itself -- indicate that the Continental Congress and "Congress of the Confederation" were one and the same, and that the term "Congress of the Confederation" seems more of a Wikipedia invention than one of any historical merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.130.196 (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Declaration's adoption

they felt like they needed no help because they did it on there own!

The following post was copied to here from Talk:Continental Congress. At the time of writing, the “Continental Congress” article had not yet been split into three articles.

jonathan rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.14.86 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence, as the official record kept by Secretary Thomson makes clear, was not signed until August 2nd. It should also be noted that the Congress declared independence of the 2nd of July, not the 4th. The article should probably be changed to reflect this discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.229.252 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This suggestion has now been incorporated into the article. — DLJessup (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i changed it because i heard that in history so it's fixed. p.s. I"M AN EIGHTH GRADER TAKE THAT ADULT READERS I CAUGHT THIS ALL BY MYSELF HA HA! 71.198.2.171 (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)An eight grader

OliveBranchPetition

Maybe the article should mention why Britain refused the petition and repremanded the colonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHeadWolf (talk • contribs) (01:37, 15 December 2006) ass hoe sucker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.116.149 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikirulesoncontroversy

By Wiki rules, if there is a controversy among experts the solution is to cover all the main positions, giving citations. We do not delete a position that is fully sourced by scholars. Rjensen 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't begin an encyclopedia article about the Second Continental Congress with the first sentence "The Second Continental Congress was the national government established by the First Continental Congress". That is POV. I defy you to find any encyclopedia article on this topic which begins this way. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

why is it POV to say the Congress was the national government? It acted exactly like a national government and was so treated by France, Netherlands, and by each of the states, which took its orders. Rjensen 21:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it is an opinion...not a fact. This isn't a PhD dissertation or a journal article where we are trying to prove it was or was not a national government. We have to be NPOV here. It acted in some ways like a national government, and in some ways it was nothing like a national government. And, of course, it certainly wasn't considered as such by Britain. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it is far more the consensus of experts that the Congress was absolutely not a national government. It acted directly on no citizens; it passed no laws; its rules, once a full-fledged union was formed after independence, were called Articles of Confederation for a reason. As JW says, if somebody were interested in proving that for all intents and purposes the Congress effectively behaved like a national government, well, they'd have their work cut out for them, but that might be interesting; but no seriously intended article on the Continental Congress (in any or all of its many iterations, per the comment below) can begin by calling it a national government. Whogeland (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In actuality using the period of 1775 to 1781 as the 2nd Contintental Congress is inaccurate. This Congress disbanded and was re-elected several times during this period creating a 3rd, 4th and even 5th Continental Congresses. What you really have is a 1st and second Continental Congress of the United Colonies that lasted until July 1, 1776. Then you have the Continental Congress of the United States from July 2, 1776 until February 28, 1781. Then there is the United States in Congress Assembled from March 1, 1781 until 1789. What do you think? --97.97.197.9 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal Authority to Govern

I added the qualifier "explicit" to the clause "Although it had no legal authority to govern", which keeps being deleted. I don't think this is a controversal statement. The cited Bancroft reference backs this up:

" ...Whom did they represent?...They formed no confederacy; they were not an executive government; they were not even a legislative body... there was not a foot of land on which they had the right to execute their decisions; and they had not one civil officer to carry out their commands, nor the power to appoint one...They had been elected...by tumultuary assemblies, or bodies which had no recognized legal existance; they were intrusted with no powers but those of counsel..." --JW1805 (Talk) 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where meeting

Should the article state clearly where the Congress met? There is mention of fleeing Philadelphia; were they meeting there and did they meet someplace else after fleeing? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How selected?

Unless I'm missing it, there's a curious omission from this article: how the delegates were selected by the various colonies. So, how were they? By the colonial legislatures? Was the executive branch of the different colonies involved at all after the de facto independence of the various states was established? --Jfruh (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

the first line just doesn't sound right.

the first line does not read very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.85.117 (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Some sort of mishap in the "History" section

Something has obviously gone wrong there, perhaps a misformatted... something? It begins with DAVID ALEWCH and the rest of the paragraph is italicised for some reason. 173.174.193.160 (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Summer vs Spring Suggestion

The first sentence of the lead states that the Congress started meeting in the summer of 1775, but the second paragraph specifies it "came together on May 10, 1775". Since May 10 is in the spring, is there any reason not to change "summer" to "spring" in the first sentence? --Thomprod (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, seeing no response in opposition. --Thomprod (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Several Dates appear to be wrong.

Some of the year dates and perhaps the day and month as well, appear to be incorrect. For example, the arrival of the Georgia delegates is stated to have occurred in 1875. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.252.250 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Zeroth United States Congress"

"Zeroth United States Congress" apparently redirects to this article. Is this an accurate name for it? Jarble (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Jarble, I came across your query this morning after I retargeted "Zeroth USC" back to Congress of the Confederation; it looks like the "Zeroth Congress" redirect was moved from the Confederation Congress page to this article when that page was redirected here, but not retargeted when the page was split again. (BTW, there's also a "0th USC" redirect, and has that page as its target.) Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)