Talk:Annapolis Convention (1786)

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Maryland may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Agree with merge proposal. Two articles, same topic. Geraldk 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also. Hornje 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to the merging proposal. This article is about a different event that has nothing to do with the current Anapolis convention. By the way, the name is not even identical. I thinl that a disambiguation page is required here. א.שטיימן (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge tag, because it has obviously become outdated and irrelevant. When it was placed, the "Annapolis Conference" article was indeed about the same meeting as this article, namely the convention that resulted in the calling of the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787. As near as I can guess from a quick glance at the edit history, when the Annapolis Conference of 2007 was announced, that article was changed to one on the 2007 conference. That being the case, the merge that had been proposed has, in effect, already taken place. 6SJ7 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 DELEGATES

only 11 are listed Charleebraun (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. George Tucker was missing for some reason. Readded. NW (Talk) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called Nationalists were in contempt of the people's original Civil Purpose.

A lot of confusion arises here from the idea of civilization being a shallow interpretation of law and order, where law takes legal precedence over order, instead of the prior original idea of our Founders who established a supreme order firsthand before later utilizing the law as a means to this supreme end. In other words, the order was first established as a natural law by our Founders within The Declaration of Independence before they later established the law within The U.S. Constitution as a means to this end -- with that end being our Civil Purpose. This is a very subtle point. Our Founders didn't create a new Democratic Republic, with this being thirteen separate nation-states balanced with a federal government, based on the former traditions of legal precedence which was usually the case beforehand. No! They utilized the scientific method in use during their time which was natural law in order to establish for the people a new Civil Purpose. After establishing this new natural law, they then had just cause to divorce us out from under the rule of a former tyrant / tyranny before marrying us to a "more perfect union," or what can be thought of as a necessary tyranny, one that can be improved on forever. This is also a very subtle point. The sovereign states spoken about in the Articles of Confederation were legal separate nations but united. This too is a very subtle point. Therefore, the best a so-called nationalist can be is a state rights advocate. The federal government is not a state government just as a Democratic Republic is not a nation. This too is a very subtle point difficult to understand. In conclusion, a person who is a nationalist or believes in nationalism should be considered a "confusionist," or "one who has been confused by the legal system of law to the point of ignorance."

The prior information is all based either on original thoughts from the author, within formal documents created by our Founders, or on general knowledge.

50.10.183.240 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Uncle Emanuel Watkins[reply]

final report vs author

The given source does not mention a final report on page 30, but only credits Hamilton with working harder than anyone else. TEDickey (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source credits Hamilton with working at least as hard as anyone else, but not harder, which is the distinction that I thought underlay your first comment. As to Hamilton's authorship of the report, the source says that "it was his persuasive pen that wrote the historymaking address there determined upon." 2603:6010:100:6E85:6553:B120:E6C0:26FD (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penmanship and authorship don't necessarily coincide. The source and statement should match (no additional inferences are needed) TEDickey (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he "wrote" it, as the source states, then he was its author, as the article now states. 2603:6010:100:6E85:6553:B120:E6C0:26FD (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say that. It says In the preliminary convention at Annapolis, no one did more to crystallize sentiment for it, and it was his persuasive pen that wrote the historymaking address there determined upon. without mentioning whether it contained only his ideas (the essential point of authorship), or whether it reflected the ideas and expressions of others at the convention. You need another source to support your statement. TEDickey (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]