Talk:Republic of East Florida

Disputed

George Mathews' forays are described variously by historians as "farce" and "folly" and in no way created a free and independent state. An article that gives credence to the fantastical elements of this story needs also to treat the countervailing historical arguments. Jeff in CA (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not "folly" or "farce"

There will always be claims of "Fake news" and "fake history" on any political subject. But I can assure you that I have studied the constitution of the republic - my grandfather even had a copy. It is a real constitution. Thus, would it not be a real republic?

I am curious to what qualifies as a "free and independent republic." If you have land, a capital, a surrender from Spain (Capitulation of Amelia Island), citizens, taxes, and free elections.... are you not a republic? Included in Native Floridian history and lore is that idea that many people have suppressed Native Floridian ideas and beliefs (i.e. Politicians like Sidney Catts). Catts was a strong Anti-Catholic governor who removed much of Native Floridian History from texts and fired every nun teaching in Florida's Public Schools. Texts prior to the Sidney Catts era claim that the republic as both free and independent, although many point out that they desired to be apart of the US. Check out a History of Florida (1904) by Caroline Mays Brevard.

Now, I am fine with the free expression of ideas. Maybe those who feel that the "free and independent republic of Florida" is false can cite their sources as well. What I find is that belief usually comes down to the number of people. There are very few Native Floridians, thus they were/are subjected to their beliefs and ideas being trampled. Not even a wiki page is okay - OH MY! I don't understand why wiki users would praise the Republic of West Florida, but trash the Republic of East Florida. Why can't we celebrate both?

Perhaps, we can include all relevant perspectives, that way all identities and beliefs are respected. Sometimes counter points are not wrong, but just from a different perspective. To a Liberal Democrat, a conservative Republic may seem odd (and vice versa) but both a liberal democrat voter and a conservative republican voter may honestly both say that they voted for whom they believe is best suited for the presidency. It's perspective.

I say it is a republic for the following reasons: 1. Capitulation from Spain (Amelia Island) 2. Constitution 3. Free elections 4. Taxes 5. Legislative Body 6. Judiciary 7. Executive branch 8. Foreign ministers (i.e. Secretary of State) 9. Relations with foreigners (i.e. Lower Creek faction of the Creek Confederacy via William McIntosh) 10. Unique laws passed.

Points against it begin a Republic: 1. Not recognized by various foreign powers (like Women's Rights, racial equality, and a bunch of other things at the time). But yes, if you need a bunch of rich, white slaveholders to be your litmus test, then I guess you got me. Although, to be fair, the Republic likely had a few of those types as well.

I apologize for the excess sarcasm. I am just "a bit" cynical. And I admit that I am a bit liberal with my definition of a republic. Please check out the wiki on that. EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

George Mathews dies in 1812, only at the start of the Republic.

Many Criticisms of George Matthews may be fair, but he never gets to see what the Republic became. The Republic begins in 1812, the year he died. So, George Matthews as a source is incomplete at best.

Also, I reread what I wrote, and I think it came across in a rude manner. I did not intend for it to do so. I appreciate a good conversation. Any notion that I (or my little wiki edits here and there) could be "fantastical" is a compliment that I am willing to take. Thank you, good sir! You make me blush. EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Books published by a self-publishing press such as Outskirts Press are considered original research and unreliable as sources.

The entire article is based one source, The Republic of East Florida: Culture, Faith, & Lore, published by the Outskirts Press. Books published by a self-publishing press such as Outskirts Press are considered original research and unreliable as sources on WP. See WP:SELFPUBLISH. As the WP policy states, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field." This also raises the question of whether or not there is a possible COI here, as the same new editor who created this article seems to have a special interest in using this unreliable source, and has recently added content to other WP articles referring to the same source. Carlstak (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have just prodded them as not being sourced and for using a non WP:RS. If no other sources are added and it is deprodded I will AFD the articles Domdeparis (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It has reliable sources since Jeff in CA and I have been rewriting it, except for the original research EastFloridaHistorian keeps adding. Look at the article's revision history. It appears that EFH is not interested in learning about WP policy and guidelines, or at least in following them. Carlstak (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have brought in the "Fall of the Republic Section" entirely from the George J. F. Clarke page which accurately states the Legislative end of the Republic was 1816. I am working hard to add only scholarly works with the guidelines now that I have been educated on the subject. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt, Carlstak (Sarcasm). EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope sources like this

John Houstoun McIntosh marker in McIntosh County, Georgia, USA honoring McIntosh's role as the first American "Governor or Director" of the Republic of Florida

don't offend anyone. In Florida, Native Floridians know John Houstoun McIntosh as the first American Governor of Florida. And this source is a Historical Commission in Georgia, in case you were worried about my Florida bias!EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange voting districts map

This map bears no relation to anything that I can find in the referenced materials. At Wikipedia Commons, the editor who inserted it in this article says that evidence will be provided on request that it was created in 1912. That is inadequate. If the original could be verified to be from 1814, then it would be notable. Where can it be verified that any "voting districts" were ever created, let alone any districts that covered the entire Spanish province, which was very sparsely populated? Jeff in CA (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please Stop removing Floridian facts!

Us Floridians are VERY Proud of our history. Our maps are useful. Please stop removing them and vandalizing this page.

This page is about the Republic of Florida, which some of the editors denied even existed and are now shoving their revisionist history down our throats! If you can't edit anything nice about this page, don't edit anything at all.

Let Floridians edit the Florida pages. Only edit if you want to contribute.

TLDR; Stop removing things. Thank You! EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not about emotions. This is about historical accuracy supported by reliable scholarly sources (and then presenting the source information accurately). 

I accept Clarke's verbatim account in Vignoles as accurate, as he wrote it in 1821 specifically to recount his own experiences. Getting from those words to some of the wording in the Wikipedia passages you noted requires, perhaps not exaggeration, but rather, a leap. As for sources, Vignoles, Wasserman and Wyllys are cited. For this specific passage, Wasserman refers to Wyllys for his statement that the Patriots "finally ended their 'revolution' after four years of attempted conquest." Look up the cited Wyllys page, and you'll see that Wyllys cited C. M. Brevard as his source for his specific statement that "the East Florida Revolution at last came to an end" in 1816. 

Caroline Brevard's book is an elementary school history book published in 1919.  Its treatment of the Republic of Florida is on pages 87-90 of Part I. There is no mention of anything from 1815-1816. Clarke is never mentioned. Wyllys refers to a 1924 edition, which I have not found. Given the simple reading level at which this book is written, I can't imagine that the author would have enlarged this short section to include Clarke's mission in a later edition. She places the Madison 1812 letter after her description of the 1814 events and simplifies all events (after all, it's for grade school kids). The last thing (chronologically) that Brevard mentions is the fighting between Newman and the Seminoles in 1814.  Wyllys' subsequent statement about the East Florida Revolution coming to an end in 1816 is certainly not supported by this Brevard book. I won't attempt to explain why Wyllys cited her work or what actual source he may have meant.

So I have yet to see a reliable work cited that (1) establishes the Republic was continuous throughout four years, in fact and in deed, (2) contains records of the business of the legislature, (3) illustrates that a functioning Republic government exercised control over the area that it claimed, (4) shows that the 1816 malcontents were a direct continuation of the Patriots from a few years earlier, or (5) that Clarke was seeking terms of peace with an organized military opponent, rather than seeking to restore order among the reigning anarchy. These are a few of the potential concerns. (Oh ... and Kindelan was not the governor in 1816 when the trio of guys went out; Governor Coppinger was.)

I am not claiming that all of those things never happened. It is certainly possible that I've missed the relevant sources in my limited finite time. If that's the case, and the reliable supporting works are available, let's share them and celebrate.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

EastFloridaHistorian, here you are, issuing orders about who can edit the article and what they may say. Do you really think that's okay? You make presumptions about things you have no way of knowing: for example, I am a Floridian, not that it has any bearing whatsoever on editing the article. You are embarrassing yourself with these outbursts. It's comical that you say, "I am sensing more bias from someone", since I wrote the material you copied from George J. F. Clarke. I wrote the entire article. Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and follow the instructions. You can add the material to this article if you note in your edit summary that it is copied from that article. You are violating the copyright I hold (yes, I do. Read "Copying within Wikipedia") unless you do that. I quote: "It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." Carlstak (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Carlstak! I was curious to see if you would remove "word for word" sections. Your interpretation of my actions are about as accurate as your interpretation of history. I do think it's great that you identify as a Floridian! Good on ya, mate. You know what they say about language comprehension... it's all in the Wernicke's area of the brain, from generations of evolution with written and spoken language. English must be your forte. ;-) EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Let us work together to make Florida Proud: A new Proposal

Carlstak,

I discussed this page with Jeff in CA, whom I also disagreed with. He voiced his very reasonable concerns and I realized that we actually like similar sources. He and I just clung to different portions of traditional and academic literature. Diversity of thought is not a bad thing (Who cares if Boise State believes they were the best NCAA football team in 2006. I'd pick Florida, but why does everyone have to agree? It doesn't bother me. Nor should it, even if half the country believes that Boise State was the better team). By discussing this page with Jeff in CA, I realized that I am VERY passionate and emotionally attached to this subject. That's why I made the page. I grew up hearing of many tales of this Republic. I had not seen any articles on Wiki since I began (While Wiki was still in Florida), so I made an account and created this page. To my dismay, it morphed into something else and I was quite upset about that. Jeff in CA approached this page using Correct Wiki guidelines and skepticism. I approached it emotionally. Even though Jeff in CA and I disagree, I respect him and his opinion. I apologized to him and now, I would like to apologize to you. I believe I was quite rude to you. For that, I do personally apologize. I did assume that you were not a Floridian. I admit that my assumption was incorrect now that you have filled me in.

Before I explain the proposal, I would like to share with you the cause, according to lore, of the Floridian Revolution/Patriot War - Religious Liberty. In the Constitution of East Florida, it is mentioned that Spain was corrupt and idolized their priests. Religious liberty was the cause of the Revolution by Floridians. Spain had expelled all Jews that refused to convert to Catholicism. The Republic of East Florida military was made up of Jews, Orthodox Christians, Catholics, and Protestants. Sure, the Georgians probably had their own motives. I don't doubt that. All people have different beliefs, ideas, and motivations. People also die. George Matthews died in 1812, never reaching Washington DC. What do people fight for? Everyone is different. I don't believe that McIntosh sought to expand or spread slavery. I believe he fought for religious liberty. Kingsley though (as an international slave trader) very well could have fought for slavery. Spain did allow slavery in East Florida, but perhaps Kingsley wanted a return of the international trade. Ultimately, people fight for their country/government. Governments are made up of humans with different views. Even though history may record them as uniform, they rarely are.

Anyway, I propose that we "model" this page after the Republic of West Florida page, as they are sister republics. Now, "model" doesn't many make it the same. They are different, but I think this page deserves a "country info bar." Since Jeff in CA and I disagree on the dates, I will only use "1812" as the date. I will also link this page to all/many Florida History pages with brief and neutral commentary.

I hope that we can work together as fellow Floridians, and I believe that we can make Florida proud! EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology, EastFloridaHistorian. I appreciate your considered response. Please remember the Five pillars of Wikipedia, and that its mission is not to present all the different points of view on a given subject, or "diversity of thought".

I quote:

"We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

Also:

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."

I must say that I disagree with your interpretation of the cause of the Patriot rebellion: "the cause, according to lore, of the Floridian Revolution/Patriot War - Religious Liberty. In the Constitution of East Florida, it is mentioned that Spain was corrupt and idolized their priests." There was no single cause, and the events that precipitated it were much more complex than that.

It is my opinion that you are trying to magnify the so-called "Patriot War" and the ephemeral existence of the Republic of East Florida into something that they were not. I realize that "make Florida Proud" is a figure of speech, but that is not in any way part of our mission as Wikipedia editors (nor should it be); we are here to build an encyclopedia, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Carlstak (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You. I am happy that all three of us can agree on the 100th anniversary (and the day after) of Our Lady of Fátima! Miracles do happen. To clear up any confusion, since I see that you removed my country bar again... The country bar does imply that the rebels controlled Amelia Island as well as the lands North/West of the St. John's River (Originally call the River May by the French colonists of French La Florida). The only date I will give is St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) of 1812. Spanish control of the Island ceased with their Capitulation. You undid this by writing, "Using an infobox to dignify the "Republic of East Florida" as an independent country from 1812–? implies that Spanish government of the area ceased in those years. It did not." Well, a country box is used with the Republic of West Florida, which was a somewhat similar situation. Discrimination is an issue that Native Floridians face. Some hateful people go as far as to deny that the country even existed! I personally have a copy of the Capitulation, if you would like to see. And as for "years", Jeff and I discussed only using 1812 (a year) EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, you mentioned using only 1812 (realizing that the dash after it is in the infobox template). It is perhaps a better option than other options, but it is still open to debate. Here we have a provincial government, an occupying military from another country, and a group of rebels who claimed to have taken control. Considerations of existing sovereignty, limits of actual control, split spheres of influence, temporal jurisdiction and external recognition or lack thereof all enter into the answers. What qualifies as having control of one's own borders? Just as with West Florida, Spain never acknowledged the loss of territory. Unlike West Florida, Spain got the affected area of East Florida back upon the departure of the U.S. military. While the U.S. military was there, who exercised control of the area and to what extent could that be deemed to be a government? Did the U.S. Army become the de facto government? Did the U.S. Army take a hands-off approach to governance of the local population, which at that time consisted mostly of the men from Georgia (the Spanish subjects having mostly fled to St. Augustine)? And if so, did the Patriots exercise any semblance of control? Even if they did, how can they be considered independent under an occupying military power? After Governor Mitchell delivered the area back to Spain upon the army's departure, who controlled what? If it was indeed anarchy, that is the absence of government. Does Elotchaway count for something? Those are some of the questions that my mind wrestles with. Has anyone published research in regard to these things? Jeff in CA (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

EastFloridaHistorian: Please, enough with the unseemly posturing as a member of a victimized "culture". And enough with the talk of "Discrimination Native Floridians face" and such childish provocations as "Some hateful people go as far...".

Your previous edits, ever since your creation of the article, and your citing of only one self-published and unreliable source at the time, have indicated that you wish to promote a fantasy that the Republic of East Florida was a substantial governmental entity. This wishful thinking is unsupported by the academic peer-reviewed literature on the subject. And I must say, your rhetoric on the politics involved and the appeals to religious sentiment bear a striking resemblance to the utterances of white nationalist activists around these parts today.

Your continued emphasis on "Native Floridians" is a misrepresentation, as it might lead the unknowing to think that the group of mostly Georgian marauders who burnt the strings of plantations on the St. Johns River and the Intracoastal Waterway were the original white Floridians, which is laughable. The Spanish Floridanos (literally "Floridians", and meaning Spaniards who were born in Florida), were here since the 1500s. Carlstak (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

After its flag was lowered, the Republic of East Florida had no dominion over Amelia Island

EastFloridaHistorian, don't call a good faith edit vandalism, as you did on my talk page, that is as much of an offense on Wikipedia as actual vandalization. Your reasoning is flawed. Earlier, you added a funny map purporting to show the Voting Districts in the Republic of Florida (sic) that included the whole peninsula except the far western panhandle, notwithstanding that almost all of East Florida south of St. Augustine was uninhabited except by a few bands of Seminoles.

The "Patriots" who invaded Spanish Florida held Amelia Island for less than 24 hours before the island was turned over to United States occupying forces, their East Florida Patriot standard was lowered and the flag of the United States was raised. The island, including Fernandina, was to be held "in trust" for Spain by the US. The Republic of East Florida then had no dominion over Amelia Island, much less the whole Spanish province of East Florida, which is the area I referred to. At that point, the so-called "Republic of East Florida" controlled no territory in Florida, making it a putative "republic" with no territory. Also, you are ignoring recommended practice by reverting my revert. The onus is on the editor who is reverted first to make his case on the article's talk page and try to win consensus to make the change he wants, or else try to reach a workable compromise. You have disrespected Wikipedia practice and me by calling my good faith edit with a given rationale "vandalism". Carlstak (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

On Carlstak's talk page, he called me a "White Nationalist Crusader." I take your insults offensively and I believe YOU are the discriminatory one. You have belittled this fine republic with all of your edits. You cannot undo history! You didn't make this page for a reason - it is clear now that you DISLIKE this republic greatly. Your edit history proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. You dismiss academic sources I provide and cling only to the ones that back up your predetermined view. By the way, The Republic of East Florida did hold dominion of the Island for a period of time, thus it ruled it. I have given you warnings and even gave you an apology to try to smooth things over and resolve any hard feelings. I won't withdraw my apology to you. It stands, because I was stereotyping you as a "hateful person." Perhaps my initial judgments were correct as you are now insulting me on your talk page. You requested me not to respond to you there, so I won't. Back to the topic, Numerous other accounts report continued rebellion between the St. John's/River May and the River of St. Mary of the Gael (The St. Mary's River). But the bottom line is that you don't like the republic. You somehow think race is involved (I'm confused how as Floridians/Americans and Spaniards are all usually considered White/Caucasians/Caucasoid). Is it because I called Buckner Harris's death an "assassination"? What would you call it? A fun outing? Anyway, allow to fill you in that there are no "pure" races or ethnicities. We are all one species. Everyone comes from a common ancestor in Africa. :-) EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Carlstak, I feel that I have admonished you enough. Your chance has been given. Let no one say that you were not offered one. I forgive you. From all your false accusations and put-downs. I hope you can see humanity in all humans. May God bless you, Carlstak. May the Light of St. Mary help and guide you. I will no longer edit this page I have created. People are free to see my original edits if they so choose. Carlstak, I hope you have a good life and serve Christ well. EastFloridaHistorian (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk about "false accusations", EastFloridaHistorian. You are blatantly misrepresenting statements I've made. I did not call you a "White Nationalist Crusader." I said on my talk page, "Your general rhetoric sounds to these ears like that of a white nationalist crusader", which is not the same thing as saying you necessarily are one. Analogously, you keep injecting religious sentiments into this conversation, where they do not belong, and your doing that certainly makes you sound like a religious zealot, but I would never say that you are a religious zealot because of them, since as far as I know these statements might be completely insincere.

Again, the irony is rich in your accusing me of making false accusations. You neglect to mention that the markup for your comments on my talk page included the timestamp you copied from an edit I had made to the article, and then you inserted it on my talk page with invisible wikicode for a vandalism template. You got the code wrong, so the template didn't render. This is why I told you to stay off my talk page.

There is no point in debating you, because you take any mention of the depredations committed by the mostly Georgian rebels who called themselves "Florida Patriots" personally, and wrap your points in religiosity. Carlstak (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

1817 incarnation

The Spanish language article about this subject (es:República de Florida (1817)) focuses and the second incarnation of the republic in 1817. Should that be incorporated into this article, or would it be better to create a new one containing that content? --PiMaster3 ^talk 17:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The MacGregor-Aury affair is briefly covered at the page, Amelia Island affair. Perhaps that could be expanded. I would not favor adding it to this article. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

MacGregor's "Republic of the Floridas" must be distinguished from the British, and later Spanish, province of East Florida, as well as the Republic of West Florida. Although his quixotic quest to seize all of Spanish Florida involved some of the same actors who had been involved in the "Patriot War" fiasco, including Ruggles Hubbard and Jared Irwin, the "Republic of the Floridas" (or "Republic of the Two Floridas"), was not an incarnation of the putative Republic of East Florida.

There is more information about the MacGregor-Aury affair at Original Town of Fernandina Historic Site#Gregor MacGregor and the Republic of the Floridas and the following two sections of that article. Carlstak (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

U. S. military occupation before 1907

List of military occupations does not mention the occupation of Amelia island by US forces because the criteria for that list limits itself to the years following 1907. An interesting project might be to extend the list into the past to include all of U.S. history. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)