Jump to content

Talk:Connecticut Colony

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

Map of territorial claims

[edit]

The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map of this province's claims, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

map request filled, I am working on a second one to add as well that shows the western claims. Kmusser 17:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice map! Minor thought: it would be interesting to have the New Haven colony's Long Island claims, pre-1664, shown. According to D.W. Meinig, the New Haven colony included northeastern Long Island, centered on the town of Southold. Long Island had been partitioned between New Netherland and Connecticut, by treaty (not sure what treaty). But when New York colony was established in 1664, Long Island was wholly given to it. Meinig says about the Long Island Connecticut people, "Its several Puritan settlements were thereby legally severed from their mainland kin but they long ignored or resisted efforts of New York to impose effective administration" ..anyway, just a minor footnote-like thing. I merely thought of it because when I saw there was a map of Connecticut Colony, that was the first thing I looked for, since it is an odd and forgotten bit of history. In any case, nice map and great as is! Pfly 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did include the Connecticut and New Haven settlements on Long Island - they didn't really have borders as such to show, so I just marked the town locations - they both claimed the entire island. Kmusser 22:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title change?

[edit]

The Colony of Connecticut sounds a lot better than just Connecticut Colony- in so many records it is listed as "The Colony of Connecticut" as it appears on the original charter. Connecticut Colony just sounds strange to me.

Monsieurdl 17:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point, and as nobody has made an objection in the month since you posted this I should think you'd be okay to use the "move" function to change the title. Cheers! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colony of Connecticut may "sound" better but no official documents and histories refer to it in that manner. It was "Connecticut Colony" (CC), that's it. Along a similar vein, Massachusetts Bay Colony (MBC) was not known as Colony of Massachusetts Bay. In fact, CC was founded by migrants from MBC such as the Wolcotts of Windsor. Dangnad (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)x[reply]

Missing text, under Leaders, para 1

[edit]

"...on the principles of government on May 31, 1638. also Hartford men, sat in the governor's chair..." Looks as though a line or two was inadvertently deleted. 24.211.220.127 (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)simonlefranc@hotmail.com[reply]

Compare with November 3, 2007 for instance Tedickey (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of Religion, para 3, writing unclear

[edit]

"Many historians believe that this law was the spark that led to the creation of issue politics in the colony..." Not clear what you mean here. What are "issue politics" and how do they differ from plain old politics? How does a law "create" any type of politics, here or anyplace else? 24.211.220.127 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)simonlefranc@hotmail.com[reply]

Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier. The best source for this is Richard Bushman's From Puritan to Yankee: Character and Social Order in Colonial Connecticut, 1690-1765 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967).
"Plain old politics," as you call it, did not exist in Connecticut in the seventeenth and first third of the eighteenth century. Even though Connecticut had an elected government (the governor and deputy governor, as well as the assistants on the Council and deputies in the Lower House were elected by the freemen), the voters, as good Puritans, believed that God actually chose the colony’s leaders by ensuring that the people He wanted won the popular elections. Therefore, the colonists did not elect candidates based on political issues or even popularity. Instead, the Connecticut political system relied on "deference," which is the social practice in which people in lower places in society submit to the judgment of those in higher places in society. Colonists assumed that the people at the highest levels of society were placed there by God, and, thus, the people at the top were recognized as the colony’s natural leaders. Consequently, voters in Connecticut invariably elected candidates who were economically successful, who were pious, and who came from prominent families. Once a candidate was elected to office, he could count on being perpetually re-elected until he died, without regard to any actions he took in office. Even the passage of unpopular legislation did not hurt a politician’s re-election chances because the government was not supposed to bow to the will of the public. Puritans believed that humans were sinners, and they looked to government to protect the public from itself.
Connecticut politics, however, underwent a significant transformation in the middle of the eighteenth century. There is some evidence that issue-based politics surfaced in the mid-1730s and again in 1740 over the question of whether or not the colony should issue paper money (see a couple of articles written by Bruce P. Stark, including “The New London Society and Connecticut Politics, 1732-1740” and “The Election of 1740 in Connecticut Politics” both in the journal, Connecticut History, as well as Stark’s article “'A Factious Spirit': Constitutional Theory and Political Practice in Connecticut, c. 1740” in The William and Mary Quarterly). Bushman, however, links the origin of issue-based politics in Connecticut with the passage of the Itineracy Law of 1742. This law prohibited traveling ministers from preaching in a Connecticut town without an invitation from the local minister. You can imagine how it affected politics. Old Lights, who opposed the Great Awakening, supported the law; but New Lights, who embraced the Awakening, believed the law threatened their ability to practice their religion, and they wanted it repealed. For the first time in Connecticut history, voters became concerned with their leaders’ position on a political issue, questioning candidates on their position on the Awakening in general and the Itineracy Law in particular. Once religion became a political issue, other matters would follow it into the Connecticut political arena. MCB/Boulder, 02/01/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.27.97 (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism warning

[edit]

this page has parts that are almost verbatim to NationMaster's site:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Connecticut-Colony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.195.146 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the bottom of the page - it (like a few others) just displays content from Wikipedia, and notes the origin of the material. Tedickey (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mirror site of Wikipedia, read down to the bottom and note the attribution notice. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Connecticut Colony

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Connecticut Colony's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connecticut Colony. 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: 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) 05:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolcotts

[edit]

This certainly is a "start class" page, possibly not even that. Roger Wolcott and his son Oliver Wolcott were prominent in Connecticut Colony; both were governors. I have added them to the "Leaders" section which really needs to be fleshed out. There are the Pitkins, Allyns, Newberrys, Saunders's just to name a few. I really think including long lists of further reading sources and specialized studies is shirking one's duty in writing an informative Wikipedia article. Dangnad (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

founders?

[edit]

who is the founder- 71.210.101.119 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linking shortened footnotes and Manual of Style changes

[edit]

Hi, first I see that there are unlinked shortened footnotes. I intend to link these using the {{sfn}} & {{harvnb}} to the full citations that are already in citation templates.

There are also section headings that do not adhere to the MOS:APPENDIX guidelines. For instance Further reading should be its own level 1 section heading. I will work on these as well. Peaceray (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed both of those issues, but there are citations in the Sources section that are not used for footnotes. I am going to move those into the Further reading section & then put the Sources section into alphabetic order.
I also see opportunities for improving some of the citations. Peaceray (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Connecticut_Colony&oldid=1250170729"