Talk:Louisiana secession

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

United States: Louisiana Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana.

The Tricolor Displayed IS Incorrect.

The Tricolor used in the article's infobox is incorrect. That flag never had official status, but the flag displayed below was adopted by the Louisiana State legislature in 1861.

-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and replaced the Unofficial flag with the one above.-- Avazina, an Unreconstructed Southerner 15:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect according to the source below, that flag wasn't adopted until February 11, AFTER Louisiana had joined the Confederacy. The Tricolor was the closest thing to an official flag that Louisiana had. http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-la.html#1861 Anasaitis (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

According to the article on Louisiana's historical flags, the one posted is the one they used when part of the CSA, while there was a French-based one used during their independence for the two weeks. Wouldn't the flag in this article be incorrect then and should it not be the French-based one? Dustman15 (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Era

Hello there, I currently am in the 8th grade and I'm an Louisianian. I have currently added the Civil War Era part from a section out of my History Book. So please do not remove it, for this page hardly has any info anyways. --VarickWebbofSpanionte (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

The vast majority of content in the article has nothing to do substantiating the subject. Just because the Governor claimed Louisiana to be a Republic doesn't make it so. I'm surprised a hoax like this survived so long. If anything, this content about a pointless two weeks belongs at History of Louisiana#Secession and the Civil War (1860-1865).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris troutman (talk • contribs)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because of the fact that there is credible information in this article. If you want to delete the vandalism and the blatant hoaxes, then delete those areas. Keep factual information, don't take out the entire page for cause of some vandalism.—SPESH531 Other 21:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us what he credible information is.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No entity by the name of "Republic of Lousiana" was formed. It called itself "State of Louisiana." Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are sources in the references section, and if you feel that the page should be the State of Louisiana, then simply move it.—SPESH531 Other 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article on "Louisiana secession"

I moved the text to a new article "Louisiana secession" since this one did contain useful info. Rjensen (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for "unrecognized state" is dubious

I reverted the addition of this infobox as it appears mostly original research/speculative. There are some glaring errors outside the time period: Confederate dollar, flag (possibly...no date given on adoption in current wiki article), Louisiana dollar??, two capitals that weren't during the time. Sources would be needed for much of the rest. "Republic of Louisiana" is not any official name. I'm not sure that the box adds much value for a state government in the process of transferring allegiance, but if it is present, it needs to be sourced. Red Harvest (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then source it! The information is available. The only reason it's unsourced is because the original article to which this Infobox belonged was deleted. The Infobox is not dubious! Anasaitis (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed one source which mentions "the republic of Louisiana" in the dicussion regarding the flag,. Use it. Anasaitis (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Here are some sources mentioning the Louisiana dollar. http://www.usrarecoininvestments.com/coin_articles/ss_republic_coins.htm http://shipwreckstore.com/cart/products/1861%252dO-%22State-of-Louisiana-Issue%22-Half-Dollar.html Anasaitis (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's insufficient to say Louisiana existed as its own country. The consensus brought this article to "Louisiana secession." Chris Troutman (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is good information for the article about the minting of a Louisiana coin. It should probably be incorporated into the text explaining what happened with the mint. However, there remain some problems. Are there images of a coin with "Republic of Louisiana" (or even "Louisiana") on them? I've done some brief searching and it looks like they simply used the U.S. mint to put out the same coinage as before until some Confederate dollars were struck later. The other thing needed is any period legislation/govt. action making this an official currency. Red Harvest (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More sources mentioning the Republic of Louisiana: http://louisianaculturalvistas.org/question-secession/ http://louisdl.louislibraries.org/cdm/ref/collection/AAW/id/831 https://books.google.com/books?id=ncc4sjcNmGIC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=%22republic+of+louisiana%22&source=bl&ots=Tf6P_1_2g5&sig=YmqHgtl4xeAz61EZM_9CKet61C0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0vcuVbn4BIH8yQTIrYDYAQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22republic%20of%20louisiana%22&f=false http://www.electricscotland.com/history/america/south/south49.htm http://www.jeffersonhistoricalsociety.com/Activities/flags.pdf http://www.patriotic-flags.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=100_101_102 http://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/louisiana/new-orleans/things-to-do/sights/reviews/old-us-mint-97986/ http://markgchurchill.blogspot.com/2013/06/le-plus-ca-change.html Need I go on? I've got scores more. Anasaitis (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would need to "go on." Most of those websites fail WP:RS. The primary source document at the library website doesn't establish a republic existed; it only establishes that one contemporaneous person thought a republic existed. I'm not impressed by the Jefferson Historical Society, either. Partisan enthusiasts with a website do not a source make. The book you listed is a step in the right direction but still not enough. Google is your friend. Why not use this, this, this, and this? I think you'll find that in most cases the source material puts the term "republic" in scare quotes because there was never international recognition of this temporary state before joining the Confederacy. I don't doubt that some people flew a flag for Louisiana and that many locals like to hold onto this republic concept as a point of pride. What Wikipedia requires is a consensus among historians that a republic existed. You haven't done that and your bluster really speaks volumes to those of us that have seen similar content arguments in the past. The onus is on you, not us. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to emphasize what Chris says, particularly the WP:RS point. That page will be very helpful to you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating: "Republic of Louisiana" was not an official name. It wasn't used for official governmental documents or the result of some renaming that followed/coincided with secession. (I've looked and so far not found any--if you can find legislation to that effect then please present it here. I searched for material like this back when the fates of the "Republic of..." articles were being debated...actually I looked for it before proposing they be eliminated.) It was still the state of Louisiana, even though it was claiming full sovereignty. The government of the state did not change, although it had taken on roles formerly denied it. Its relation to the United States had changed. We can't call it by another name like "Republic of Louisiana" unless we have some reliable sources demonstrating that it was its actual name at the time. Red Harvest (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should also note that the "Republic" pages were created by an editor who was 12 years old at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spesh531&oldid=637430930 It was a good faith effort to differentiate, but it was essentially treating a classification as an official name. Red Harvest (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that was not the official name, then a note should be added noted in the infobox, as opposed to the complete deletion of the Infobox, An additional note should also be made of the fact that the flag pictured was the de facto flag, as it was the commonly used flag prior to the adoption of the first official flag in February 1861, following the formation of the Confederacy. Anasaitis (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is to remain separate from LA in the ACW it needs focus

If the article is to remain independent of Louisiana in the American Civil War it will need to be fleshed out with regards to the actual events of secession from elections prior to the convention, up to the time it joined the Confederacy. Cites are also missing through most of the article. The text of the ordinance of secession might be moved lower in the body of the article.

It looks like some later material could be moved to the ACW article. Red Harvest (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ALL of the information could be incorporated into the ACW article. IMHO, this page is part of a series created to foist the beliefe that the southern states established thermselves as independent nations before forming the confederacy.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. I understand where you are coming from on this and agree to some extent. However, I believe there is room for more specific coverage of the events culminating in secession of the state. In some states this can be difficult to cover properly in a the XXXXX in the ACW articles. Poster child for complexity of this nature is Missouri. Individual state secession articles could be useful in discussing particulars of the timelines, ordinances, and declarations. This also allows some fuller examination of secession conventions and such.

My understanding of the situation is that the early seceding states were essentially cooperating with one another. Formation of a new entity was intended from the start. So while they briefly claimed individual national powers, there was no need to change official names/forms. They retained their continuity as states even while briefly acting as de facto nations. Red Harvest (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]