Talk:History of South Carolina

Section title

I'm a bit surprised there is not a section called Proprietership between Prehistory and Colonial. This period introduced the characteristic economic system and concluded with the first of South Carolina's several revolutions.Hughespj 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed "Pre-colonization" to "Pre-history" as colonization is a charged word (can be taken to imply that the area was unoccupied) while pre-history simply refers to anything that occurred prior to the keeping of known written records. I know that this was mentioned in the FAC evaluation, but perhaps another more neutral word could be found. I'm not sure what the specific objection was to the title "Pre-history" and the commentor did not elaborate. Cmadler 03:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, it's all right. I used that title in the first place because I had seen it in several other country and state articles. I'm going to write another state history article, History of Arizona and hopefully bring it up to FA status like this one. Right now it only incorperates text from Arizona. Doing another article on one of the original 13 colonies would be just too monotonous. I'm reading about 450 pages total of information before I get started. Toothpaste 06:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Moving content about Jim Hodges

There are currently 6 paragraphs about Jim Hodges in this article. Someone should move most of that content into the Jim Hodges article (which currently is little more than a stub), and create a summarized version for this article. After reading this article, I feel like I know more about Jim Hodges than any other aspect of South Carolina history. Kaldari 21:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Christian Exodus

I wonder if we should add something about this mouvement in the article--Revas 17:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to wait to see if it amounts to anything significant. So far, it hasn't. Pollinator 21:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Leader Text

Following a request from Toothpaste, I'll have a go at condensing the leader text of the article below. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Existing Leader Text

Although the contemporary U.S. state of South Carolina has been populated since approximately 13,000 BC (when tool-making nomads began to leave material remains), the documented history of South Carolina begins in 1540 with the visit of Hernando de Soto. The South Carolina Upcountry was settled largely by Scotch-Irish migrants from Pennsylvania and Virginia who were following the opening of the frontier. Carolina became a royal colony in 1712 before being split into the Province of North Carolina and the Province of South Carolina in 1719. South Carolina declared independence from Great Britain and set up its own government on March 15, 1776, and on February 5, 1778, South Carolina became the first state to ratify the first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation.

Disputes over slavery (as well as other economic matters such as tariff levels) led it to be the first state to secede from the United States on December 20, 1860. The rest of the Southern states seceded in the following months; together, they organized themselves as the Confederate States of America. On April 12, 1861, Confederate batteries began shelling Fort Sumter, which stands on an island in Charleston harbor, thus precipitating the Civil War.

The Confederacy lost the war, and was subject to a bitter occupation during the process of Reconstruction. The freed slaves benefited from this, gaining numerous civil rights; however, the gains were short-lived, and were eventually taken away by the Democrats once South Carolina re-entered the Union and northern troops were withdrawn. Civil rights for South Carolina blacks would not return until the mid-20th century, under President Dwight Eisenhower.

Today, South Carolina is attractive to businesses due to its low cost of business environment, and South Carolina is a right to work state. Along with other states in the U.S. South, the state has sought to use its low labor costs to foster economic growth as part of the New South. Also like other former-Confederate states, South Carolina has been torn over memorials to its Confederate past. The state has had a vigorous debate over what should be done with a Conderate battle flag flown over the South Carolina State House. As a compromise, the flag was moved to a Confederate monument on State House grounds. Other current issues are legalization of gambling and the HOPE and LIFE scholarships.

Proposed Shortened Version

Although the contemporary state of South Carolina has been populated since approx. 13,000BC, the documented history of South Carolina begins in 1540 with the visit of Hernando de Soto. Scotch-Irish migrants from Pennsylvania and Virginia, following the opening of the fronter, settled in the South Carolina Upcountry. In 1712, Carolina became a royal colony before being split into the provinces of North and South Carolina in 1719. South Carolina declared independence from Great Britain on March 15, 1776; and on February 5, 1778, became the first state to ratify the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States.

On December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the United States. With the collaboration of other Southern states, which also seceded in the following months, the Confederate States of America were organised. On April 12, 1861, Confederate batteries began shelling Fort Sumter, thus precipitating the Civil War. Following the Confederate loss of the war, and occupation during the Reconstruction process, the freed slaves benefited from increased civil rights. These were retracted when South Carolina re-entered the Union, and would not return until the Presidency of Dwight Eisenhower during the mid-20th century.

Comments

• Proposed version completed. Do what you like with it. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 01:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

==The Leader Text==

The leader text seems drastically changed from these versions. I think it has POV problems. One could argue SC had an "extraordinary commitment" to political independence for whites; they were happy enough to go along with the Federal government when the South controlled it in the decades before the Civil War--Parkwells 15:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--Parkwells 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say when South Carolina signed the US Constitution. Seems to me this is not an accidental omission since the article mentions South Carolina signing the Articles of Confederation. I am a Northerner and I don't like this. Do what you like. I have made my peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.236.123.29 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Christian Exodus

Does this group self-identify as fundamentalist or did a Wikipedia editor apply the label? If they do not self-identify, I will remove the tag and link for NPOV, following the Associated Press guidelines for use of the term. Pollinator 18:51, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why did they split NC and SC?

Why did the British split the Carolina territory into North Carolina and South Carolina? I'm just curious, and think this deserves a cursory explaination in the article. Nick 08:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I put this in the article:

The royal colony of Carolina (1712) was settled by immigrants from Pennsylvania and Virginia who followed the frontier, in the northern parts, while the southern parts were populated by wealthy English planters. As well, this southern part was more fully developed. For this reason, the Province of South Carolina was distinguished from the Province of North Carolina in 1719.

Toothpaste 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reconstruction

This section describes nothing positive achieved, when public education, expanded suffrage for whites as well as blacks, and other reforms were instituted. It does not demonstrate NPOV. --Parkwells 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1877-1890

This section only tells problems resulting from Reconstruction, none of the progress. There are no citations for references to "massive corruption", and damage to the state. Part of the debt resulted from planters refusing to pay taxes. Also the state took on more social welfare responsibilities during Reconstruction, to try to improve the situation of both black and white laborers, which the planter elite had neglected for years. W.E.B. Du Bois's account (1935) and Eric Foner (1988) gave more thorough and balanced accounts of what happened during and after Reconstruction. Also, the text refers to a leader's "demagoguery" as being the reason farmers wanted some assistance, but gives no references. --Parkwells 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--Parkwells 16:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

References added. If you want detailed statistics of all the ways the Radical Republicans wasted money, you can view the South Carolina Reports and Resolutions, 1868-1900 which is available on microfilm at most SC libraries. Gamecock 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Automatic addition of "class=GA"

A bot has added class=GA to the WikiProject banners on this page, as it's listed as a good article. If you see a mistake, please revert, and leave a note on the bot's talk page. Thanks, _BOT Giggabot (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The article is lacking inline citations in many areas, and for the article to maintain its GA status, it needs sources for the information present. There a large wealth of resources at the bottom of the page that can be used to provide the requested inline citations, and if desired, consider using both web and print sources. I have made a list of multiple statements, quotes, and statistics that should have inline citations:

1. "The Scots-Irish constituted the largest and last group of immigrants from the British Isles before the Revolution." User:Parkwells put in Fischer cite to address this one. Done
2. "Political tensions between the lowcountry and upcountry became a recurring theme for generations."

   This isn't a controversial statement - the regions differed in economics, culture, class, slaveholding and settlers' backgrounds. Competition was played out in politics.--Parkwells (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   How you explained it is sufficient enough for me, so I struck through the issue. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

3. "Until about 1830, South Carolina had the largest Jewish population in the United States and all of North America." --Parkwells (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC) edited/changed for what was found and provided cite.Done
4. "He also threatened to take away the parole of Patriot prisoners of war unless they took up arms against their fellow Americans." Delete; can't find source. Done--Parkwells (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
5. "Kings Mountain is considered to be the turning point in the southern campaigns since it forced General Cornwallis to split his troops, making his plan for a major push north impossible." --Parkwells (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Edit for Jefferson quote,and cite - Done
6. "Before federal forces arrived at Charleston, Calhoun and Henry Clay agreed upon a compromise tariff that would lower rates over 10 years." Edit for passage of Compromise Tariff of 1830 and add correct cite from Library of Congress - note image of bill on same page has wrong attribution; don't know how to fix. Done.
7. "States with strong pro-secession movements, such as Alabama and Mississippi, sent delegates who advised the Carolinians to "take the lead and secede at once."" Edit section to reflect history found in source document on First Baptist Church. Done--Parkwells (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
8. "Lincoln argued that the United States were "one nation, indivisible," and denied the Southern states' right to secede."
9. "Among the reasons were that South Carolina lost 12,922 men to the war, 23% of its male white population of fighting age, the highest percentage of any state in the nation."--Parkwells (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Corrected and sourced - Done
10. "Laws forbidding former Confederates, virtually the entire native white male population, from bearing arms only exacerbated the tensions, especially as rifle-bearing black militia units began drilling in the streets of South Carolina towns."
11. "President Ulysses S. Grant sent 1,100 federal troops to keep order and ensure a "fair" election." Deleted number (no source) but add citation, plus note request for assistance by Gov. Chamberlain. Done--Parkwells (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
12. "Each selected a black man to watch, privately threatening to shoot him if he raised a disturbance."
13. "For a while, two separate state assemblies did business side by side on the floor of the State House (their Speakers shared the Speaker's desk, but each had his own gavel), until the Democrats moved to their own building."
14. "After the promulgation of the Constitution of 1895, the usual black vote dropped from approximately 15,000 to under 5,000." Edit for data from source; add cite. Done--Parkwells (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
15. "In 1919, the invasion of the boll weevil destroyed the state's cotton crop. Despite its not having paid well since before the Civil War, cotton was still the state's primary crop." Reorganized - well-documented; this is not controversial, the boll weevil destroyed cotton throughout the south. Done--Parkwells (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
16. "In 1970, when South Carolina celebrated its Tricentennial, more than 80% of its residents had been born in the state."
17. "Despite these new arrivals, about 69% of residents are native born."
18. "As governor, Beasley surprised everyone and risked the wrath of Southern traditionalists by announcing, in 1996, that as a Christian he could not justify keeping the Confederate flag flying over the State House, since he knew that it offended black South Carolinians."--Parkwells (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Edit for authority, and add cite. Done
19. "In 1998, 90% of African American Carolinians voted for Hodges, causing the election to swing his way." Delete -can't find source Done--Parkwells (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
20. "By USA Today's reckoning, the Collins Company, maker of video gambling machines, had given at least $3.5 million in donations to Hodge's campaign. Others claim the numbers went more than twice that high." Use different source. Done--Parkwells (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
21. "They were aided in this action by the public outcry after a Georgia woman killed her 10-day-old baby by leaving her in a sweltering car while she gambled in a Ridgeland casino." Not sourced;Delete - Done--Parkwells (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
22. "In addition, Hodges insisted that a full $3 million be sent to Allen University, Benedict College, Morris College, Claflin University, and Vorhees College, all private schools with a significant number of non-South Carolinian students." Delete. Done--Parkwells (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
23. "In 2002, Hodges and legislators were chagrined to learn that only about 40% of the LIFE scholars were able to maintain the necessary 3.0 GPA needed to renew their scholarship for sophomore years." Delete; can't find source - Done--Parkwells (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Other issues:

1. The lead needs to be consolidated considerably to four paragraphs at most, just briefly mention the contents of the article as the information will be repeated the article itself. This is interesting to see such a long lead, usually I have to request that people expand the lead. (UPDATE: User:Parkwells said he would revise the lede, in response at South Carolina wikiproject talk page.)
2. Before the "Colonial period" section, there should be mention about the indigenous people that were living there at 13,000 BC as mentioned in the lead.
3. "When the plantation owners, many of whom had already gone off with the Confederate Army, fled the area, the Sea Island slaves became the first "freedmen" of the war." I'm not positive on this, but should "freedmen" be two words? If so, please correct it.

   "Freedmen" was one word, as in Freedmen's Bureau.--Parkwells (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Sounds good, thanks for clarifying. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1. "Together with persistent racial segregation, underfunding of public education and limited opportunities, the failure of cotton led thousands of both black and white laborers to migrate to northern cities to seek better jobs and lives." "The expansion of military bases during and after WWII, followed by domestic and foreign investment in manufacturing, have helped revitalized the state." See if these two sentences could be better expanded, possibly with more information between the movement and WWII (WWI is skipped).

This article is well-written and if the inline citations and lead is addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone planning on completing the changes? If not, I will unfortunately have to delist it. I will check back in a few more days to see if there is any additional progress. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I happen agree that in-line citations are better, but seems harsh to impose a 7 day requirement that a well-sourced article change over rapidly from a general sourcing style that was acceptable in the past to an in-line sourcing style. That is a lot of work, and the sources in the article are not readily available to editors who might make the changes. doncram (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: for the sources that are on-line, is there any automatic tool available that could cross-check a given source vs. this article? I mean something that would run a "diff" to find any word sequences that appear in both, to facilitate identifying where specific inline citations/footnotes can be added. I would be willing to do some cross-checking along those lines, which could address some of the 23 statements in question. doncram (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I myself have some wikilinks and new sources to add to the article, from active work-in-progress articles on National Historic Landmarks in the state, indexed at List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina. I don't know whether i have sources that address any of those 23 questioned statements specifically, but I will be adding to this article. doncram (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The seven day deadline was a period for me to determine if anybody was going to contribute to the article and address the issues. I always contact the main contributors of the article and the related WikiProjects to get more people to assist in the workload. Usually if progress is being made, I will extend the deadline until the work is completed. However, in several cases, I will post the message with deadline and no corrections will be made. Since it appears that there are several editors who are interested in helping the article maintain its GA quality, I have no problem extending the deadline to however long it takes. The article is well-written, but since the guidelines have changed since late 2005 when the article passed as a GA, there are inevitably going to be some changes that need to be made. By the way, if you find a bot that is able to check sources like you mentioned, I would be interested in hearing about it. If you have any questions, let me know, and I'll be happy to answer them. Good job with addressing several of the issues so far. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ur reply, Nehrams2020. In ur most recent edit comment, u say something like "You're making good progress", perhaps generically. All credit to Parkwells for progress however. I did make perhaps just one edit to the article but do not generally find the National Historic Landmark material that I have command of to be that helpful. Parkwells, I am glad you are responding and striking out these issues as you deal with them! sincerely, doncram (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Progress looks like it is still going pretty well. Please continue to address the issues. I'd recommend starting with the lead first since that is one of the largest issues I had with the article. If you address the issues concerning the mention about the BC history and the World Wars history, I'll pass the article for now and you can continue to add the sources for the other statements later. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I will tackle the lead next - it needs a complete rewrite and I chose to work on the sources/cites first. Will also address other issues you raised. Needed a break from SC as I was also working on other stuff.--Parkwells (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you've done an excellent job so far. The lead shouldn't be too hard to reduce in size. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I want to commend you guys on the work so far, but it is more than a month later and the other tasks still need to be completed. The main problems are still the large lead and the issues listed in the "other issues" section. If you address these, you can remove the statements that are lacking sources and move them to the talk page until a source can be found. Unless the stated issues can be addressed in this week, I'm unfortunately going to have to delist it. If this occurs, the article can always be renominated again after the issues are addressed, and it should pass easily. If you have any questions, please let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

I'm sorry I have to do this, but I'm delisting the article since the above issues were not all addressed. Again, good job so far on the work, and this article should definitely go back to GAN once the above issues are met. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you when I'm available. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Label is incorrect on image The Compromise Tariff of 1833

It seems highly unlikely that this image of the Compromise Tariff was created by the National Park Service or its Historic American Buildings Survey, or included in an online LOC "Built in America" exhibit. There isn't any relation between those activities and the Compromise Tariff of 1833.

It's more likely that it was simply part of the Library of Congress records of Congressional legislation and its American exhibits. --Parkwells (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The label is totally incorrect, but I don't know how to fix it. It comes from Statutes at Large - 22nd Congress, 2nd Session, p.629 of 818 (you can read the page number on the image) (Library of Congress, "A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875accessed 7 Mar 2008)--Parkwells (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead is too long

The lead is much too long - it should be only three or four paragraphs.--Parkwells (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree...that is my next project. Legohead1my_talk 19:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jewish population in SC

I think you can see the issue for yourself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.69 (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:History of South Carolina

The SC history sidebar template has been recently revised with slightly different layout and expanded content (following the model of Template:History of Texas). Please edit/add to it! Thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of South Carolina

Any interest in creating a Timeline of South Carolina article? A few other US states have timelines (see Category:Timelines of states of the United States). Here are some sources:

• A. C. Webb (1865). "South Carolina". Historical Companion, with Geographical and Historical Notes, Containing the Chronology of the United States (9th ed.). Philadelphia: E.C. & J. Biddle & Co. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (timeline)
• Benson John Lossing, ed. (1905). "United States: South Carolina". Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History. Vol. 9. Harper & Bros. – via Hathi Trust. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) (chronology) + via Google Books
• Federal Writers' Project (1941), "Chronology", South Carolina: a Guide to the Palmetto State, American Guide Series, Boston: Houghton Mifflin – via Open Library {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Walter Edgar (1992). "A South Carolina Chronology, 1890-1991". South Carolina in the Modern Age. University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 978-1-61117-126-6 – via Google Books. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• George C. Rogers Jr.; C. James Taylor (1994). A South Carolina Chronology, 1497-1992. University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-87249-971-3.
• Craig A. Doherty; Katherine M. Doherty (2005). "Time Line". South Carolina. Facts on File. ISBN 978-1-4381-0741-7. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Eric Dabney; Mike Coker (2006). "Timeline". Historic South Carolina: an Illustrated History. South Carolina Historical Society and Historical Publishing Network. ISBN 978-1-893619-52-4. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Robin Doak; Robert Olwell (2007). "Time Line". South Carolina, 1540-1776. USA: National Geographic Society. ISBN 978-1-4263-0066-0. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

-- M2545 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

yes, a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of South Carolina. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7023/indigo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823030234/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state.php

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) 08:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of South Carolina. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205060613/http://ego.com/us/sc/myr/history/rise.htm to http://www.ego.com/us/sc/myr/history/rise.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134732/http://www.washingtonch.k12.oh.us/mapsite/usctcw/studentpages/54th55th/54th_and_55th.htm to http://www.washingtonch.k12.oh.us/mapsite/usctcw/studentpages/54th55th/54th_and_55th.htm

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) 22:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

1526

According to a piece in the ''Smithsonian" magazine, " In 1526, enslaved Africans were part of a Spanish expedition to establish an outpost on the North American coast in present-day South Carolina. Those Africans launched a rebellion in November of that year and effectively destroyed the Spanish settlers’ ability to sustain the settlement, which they abandoned a year later." https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/misguided-focus-1619-beginning-slavery-us-damages-our-understanding-american-history-180964873/ Shouldn't this be checked and included? Kdammers (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Old English District is unexplained

Hi, Olde English District is a redirect leading to the other page, yet it remains unexplained why that term would be synonymous for "History of South Carolina". Please elaborate in the article, or delete the redirect. Thanks --Enyavar (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)