Talk:Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868

Proposed expansion

This article is a daughter of Virginia Conventions initiated by Dallyripple. Editors are invited to expand it with additional research to develop better historical context prior to the Convention itself, and to elaborate the main features of the Constitution that are not addressed in the summaries at Virginia Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of Delegates -- editor contributions

As of January 27, the chart of delegates shows linked bios for those

(a) found or created to date (in blue),

(b) those listed in Swem, “A register of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1776-1918” (in red),

(c) those listed in Jackson “Negro office-holders of Virginia, 1865-1895” and in other sources under investigation by editors (in red).

Those who are not readily notable for any other elected office than that of this one Constitutional Convention are unlinked (in black). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait source

@Jweaver28: Black delegate photos can be had in the rare book room at the City of Fairfax regional library in Luther Porter Jackson, “Negro Office-Holders in Virginia, 1865-1895”.

They include Peter G. Morgan, p.11, Daniel M. Norton. p.31, and James W. D. Bland, p. 60.

Any assistance in uploading them via Wikicommons Upload Wizard for the delegate biographies would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it'll be next weekend or later before I can, providing it's on the shelf. BTW, I noticed there a few weeks ago in a history book about the convention published by a W&M historian in the late 1920s, that Norton might be mostly Native American, which wasn't mentioned in his encyclopediavirginia article. Or it might be that he was simply a much better politician than Bayne, for both apparently testified before Congress before the Reconstruction Acts passed--according to that or another book in that same reference collection that had no footnotes. Argh. Anyway, Bayne and Lewis Lindsay seemed the lightning rods for criticism, in part because of their race, but they may also have been the most radical politically, along with Hunnicutt.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I envy your mobility. I can't drive any more and am in Chesapeake, Virginia. I did stumble on reprints of Lyon G. Tyler, President of W&M, edited three volume "Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography" (1915) online, and so far I have volume one, the burgesses to 1776, and volume three 1861 to 1915 in hand. So far I can find a few Conservatives in addition to Pulliam; no Republicans of any description. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction: that book was published in 1945, so the photos from it probably can't be directly uploaded on wikipedia (only those books published before 1923 have definitely expired, copyright-wise, and I don't have the time nor expertise to do that kind of tracking, only had a photo of a long-dead priest once removed after I uploaded it, with a copyright-within-copywright reason cited). However, if Jackson managed to get the photos to publish them before his death, they must exist somewhere (perhaps at LVA? or a collection in Petersburg?). Since the subjects died before 1923, that source would be uploadable. While I did manage to view the encyclopediavirginia article on Luther Porter Jackson (who also deserves a wikipedia article), because of other responsibilities, I have only been able to get to Arlington's collection, which doesn't have that book.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The photos go into the Encyclopedia Virginia on line published by the Library of Virginia from the University of Virginia Special Collections for, Peter G. Morgan, Daniel M. Norton, and James W. D. Bland.

Their rationale is as follows: "this portrait, taken by an unknown photographer in the mid-ninteenth century ... was published in Luther Porter Jackson's Negro Office-Holders in Virginia (1945)." It might be worth a try. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We got the green light from Masem at Non-free content Talk. That's because the photos were all identified as having been made before 1895. Thanks for the cautionary heads up. I'll see if I can't get 'er done. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm now at the Fairfax library, and have the book in hand, but it rarely describes the image source, though I noticed one photo was copied from a church wall (as I've done on occasion). Before going online at wikipedia, I noticed the poor quality of some of the photos and tried to locate the newspaper sources mentioned in the introduction: the "Petersburg Lancet" (which isn't on worldcat, but might be at the Petersburg McKenney library he also thanks) and the "Richmond Planet" (which was microfiched at some point, and in collections including the Library of Congress and University of Virginia but surprisingly not at the LVA). Since you also have the book, I'll just add birthdates, etc for the articles you recently posted, once the library computer reboots and I can get back onto ancestry.com.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]