Talk:Thomas Cresap

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

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.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Thomas Cresap is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Removed Text

Removed text, there is speculation in the article as well based on 19th century books. Removing section... The relationship of George Croghan and his nephew and King Hendrick is not important. Removing the rebutal section dispite the inflaming remarks in the article. Conaughy (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confusing the Indians known as Caghnawaga with some other group. This is a well known group of Mohawk who relocated to Canada after conversion to Catholic faith at the end of the 17th century. Confirmation of this comes from the fact they were in company with "St. Johns and Pasmiquoddi Indians" from the same region. While it may look like a similar spelling, Caghnawaga is pronounced in Mohawk quite differently from Canawagh. I have never seen any evidence of a permanent Caghnawaga presence outside of Canada during the 18th century except for temporary hunting and war parties. See James Smith's captivity narrative for example. I have noticed you reference Connolly having "clinics"? as well as this "Canawagh clan" associated with him. I have never seen any period documents that mention any of this. Could you possibly supply where you obtained this information from? TruthBastion (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should most of the section on Thomas' son Michael be moved to the Wiki page that is already dedicated to him, and not on his father's page? TruthBastion (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've known well about the problems of the forming of the Five Nations and early the politics that split the late 17th Century Caghnawaga. Not all removed themselves to the Jesuit mission in Canada, they split as some remained associated in our parts. Also, forgot the reference to the 28 Jesuit houses of Cauhnawaga across the mouth of the Kanawha River at today's Kanaugha, Ohio it's name sake est in 1747. see W.J. Jacobs. "The Edmond Atkin Report and Plan of 1755" Conaughy (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"French carpenters were sent to build 28 homes of Jesuit Mohawks, this 1747 Canawagha village was located at today's village of Kanaugha, Ohio, its namesake, opposite the mouth of the Great Kanawha.[37] "...Caghnawago Nation, near Kentucky, a Western Branch of Ohio," writes George Croghan in his journal of 1767. They were estimated to have 70 canoeing warriors at this time. These split later in the century due to politics, a few remained." I have likewise removed this from another article in WIKI. Conaughy (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't lay hands on Atkins right now, but if you check the actual full text of the other quote, it reads, "October. Treaty with the Ohio Indians in 8ber Alexander Magenty, Indian Trader, trading w, the Cuttawa Indians, allies of Gt. B., was, on the 26th Jany. last, taken Prisoner by a Party of French Indians, of the Caghnawago Nation, near Kentucky, a Western Branch of Ohio, who beat & abused, & sent him to Montreal." It does not imply that part of the "Caghnawago Nation" was permanently living "near Kentucky", merely that is where they took Magenty prisoner. They often sent war parties far ranging, including into the Ohio Country, as in the James Smith captivity narrative I cited above. The facts that they were identified as "French Indians" and that their prisoner was sent to "Montreal", speaks for itself. And I believe the quote is from 1753, not 1767, and I did not find attributed to Croghan. http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives/miamis10/M52_4a.html#233 TruthBastion (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found my Atkins. I can find no reference in it to the building of 28 houses by French carpenters for Caughnawaga. You appeared to cite it to a "37", but there is nothing on that page about it. There is a reference on page 41-42 that as of an accounting taken in 1748, among the "Colonies of the Six Nations" living along the Ohio River were "Twenty Seven French Mohawks, mixed with the other Mohawks; which I suppose were sent thither by the French politically from near Montreal, where many of the Six Nations live, known by the name of Shawendadies and Cahnuagae or praying Indians..." Would you be kind enought to tell me what page you found the ""French carpenters were sent to build 28 homes of Jesuit Mohawks, this 1747 Canawagha village was located at today's village of Kanaugha, Ohio, its namesake, opposite the mouth of the Great Kanawha." on, or what its actual source is? TruthBastion (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The [37] is the citation from the WIKI number in citation. The 28 houses were the number of houses built there across the river from where I live. Mr. Adkins from the Carolinas spelt their names "Cahnuaga". The Virginians sometimes spelt their name "Caughnawaga", "Cahnawaga" and some simply said "Canawagha". Mr. Croghan spelt it "Caghnawago". Our local terminology "splinter" of the "Mohawk" was simply said "Canawagh", another variation of slang speaking back then. There was various dialects in our valley each spelling with their own manor of speech. It's a good thing I didn't mention the founding of the French City of Gallipolis, Ohio. That would probably stir up even more questions. And yes, you are right, they did move around a lot. The 1747 village was abandoned as a group by the time of the French and Indian War as I understand it. As I understand they spent some time near Louisville Falls, too. cheers Conaughy (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to a side note paragragh at the end of the abstract, "The Hobson Site: A Fort Ancient component near Middleport, Meigs County, Ohio" by James L. Murphy, a historic Delaware village called "Kishkeminetas Old T." was near Chesire, Ohio. Hanna (1911, V. 2, p, 142) was cited as was Lewis Evan's 1755 map. This map is within the pages of this book. It is certain not to imply any connection with the Hobson Site (33Ms-2) of the Feurt Phase which is 1 1/12 miles below Middleport, Ohio (1100~1200AD) with the westerly migration of the Delaware Groups centuries later. It's good with me, then, you say no "Caghnawaga" in our part of the country only long range hunting parties is good to go with me, no contest here. Cheers Conaughy (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...And I believe the quote is from 1753, not 1767, and I did not find attributed to Croghan...", your are correct, I did cite the wrong journal, apologies for I had on my mind about something else: Journal of Croghan's Trip to Detroit (1767) Croghan, George in: Peckhan, Croghan's Journal . . . 1767, pp. 31-47. "...The Same Speaker then Spoke on another Belt and Said Father, when the French had this Country, they always kept a Doctor to attend our Sick People at this Place, and for some time after You came here, You did the Same; We are now, and have been this Summer past very Sickly for want of a Doctor to attend us as formerly, We have lost a number of People, We there fore beg You'll let us have a Doctor to attend us when Sick...." Won't happen again and will remove anything or you can remove that which I contribute, thanks for the citation correction, cheers Conaughy (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conaughy, Unless you are going to now claim Gallopolis was settled by the 27 French Caughnawaga, I don't really see a reason for its inclusion here in this discussion. Should I presume you don't actually have a period quote for the alleged building of the 28 houses? And I am not sure exactly what a reference to a Delaware town on a 1755 map has to do with either the building of 28 houses for French Mohawk or the Caughnawaga in 1747? I don't remember the Delaware being part of the discussion. Piling on unrelated sources does not document the claims you have made, and my request for actual citations remains unanswered. The Croghan quote is great, but I asked for the documentation of Connolly having "clinics" among the Indians. I don't see his name mentioned in the above quote. Are you assuming that he is the doctor the Indian referred to, or do you have verifiable documentation that he is talking about Connolly? Perhaps you have misunderstood the core issue here and my challenges elsewhere to your contributions. Wiki has several fundamental "rules". One of the primary ones is verifiability. To quote Wiki, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Often when I checked the sources you provided, the information was simply not there, or it was misquoted/misattributed/unreliable. Another fundamental of Wiki is "No original research". Again, to quote Wiki, "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." With little or no exception, what you have so far voluntarily removed recently from various pages falls in direct violation of one or more of these fundamentals. I think you should take a long look at the other sections you have contributed to and think about these rules and the third, "neutral point of view" rule. I have no doubt about your diligence and zeal for researching the history of your region, but it is not the purpose of Wiki to create and maintain an arena for you to share your own unique analysis and interpretation of that research. Wiki is supposed to be for the verifiable, published facts. My purpose is not to flame you, just to remind you of the purpose of Wiki. Obey the rules, and your contributions are relatively safe. Don't obey them, and expect folks will challenge you to provide verifiable proof. If you can't supply it, someone will eventually remove your posts. Speculation, with lots of unrelated citations attached, is not the same as verifiable documentation. TruthBastion (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks for the meaning, best to you, Conaughy (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

Other sources seem to give a different death date for Thomas than this wiki article. This should be looked into and corrected if it is wrong here. For example see http://www.mdoe.org/cresapthomas.html TruthBastion (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text in February 2011

"Cresap's role in the nine years of the French and Indian War was ... In addition, he became mixed up"

This sentence fragment removed at the same time the cleanup tag was added to the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major citechecking needed

I just revised this article fairly extensively, after noticing a great deal of confusion and duplication concerning Cresap's roles in the development of the Susquehanna valley and Allegheny valley routes. Despite the extensive discussion on the talk page about various Iroquois federation tribes (including the Seneca and Mohawk), part of the confusion might rest with the (forced) westward movement of the Algonkian-speaking Delaware valley tribes. I'm not sure which language group the Kanawa belonged to, but the area now named after them in West Virginia is above the headwaters of the Potomac River and nowhere near the Susquehanna. To help clarify matters, I'm soon going to post a basic article about Nemacolin, a Delaware chieftain originally from that Susquehanna/Chesapeake area, and who worked with Cresap and died far west of his tribe's ancestral home.

IMHO, some of the confusion too could be cleared up by finding out when and where Cresap's first wife died, and where exactly the Hendricks farm was. Donegal, Pennsylvania is in the Alleghany mountains, much closer to the Brownsville ferry across the Monogehela/Ohio River headwaters than the Wrightsville ferry and the Susquehanna watershed on the other side of the Alleghenies.Jweaver28 (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]