Talk:Adams–Onís Treaty

message: The articles states: Spain gave up its claims to Oregon County north of this boundary, but Oregon County links to Oregon County, Missouri. Is this the same Oregon County referenced by the treaty? Unless that county was previously much bigger, it seems pretty inconsequential to mention in a treaty. But there is no mention of historical area on the current county page. older ≠ wiser 11:44, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the geography. In the west, the boundary was decided to go along the Sabine River, the Red River and the Arkansas, then north to the 42nd parallel. Spain gave up its claims to Oregon County north of this boundary. It could not possibly refer to any county in Missouri because the northern most point in Missouri is 40°35'N. Since the area north of 42°N and south of 54°40'N was historically called Oregon Country, I changed the link to the Oregon Country article and made Oregon County a disambiguation page. --H CHENEY 20:30, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the reference to Oregon County was just a typo. There is no reference to that term in the text of the treaty and a quick and dirty check on google did not give any evidence that it was ever called County. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Geography question

message: Considering that Spain and the U.S. exchanged ratifications in 1821, this statement is somewhat suspicious: 
:The treaty was not ratified by the United States and the new Republic of Mexico until 1831, allowing for a continuation of the border controversy in Texas that was not resolved into the independence of the Republic of Texas in 1836. 
When and how did Mexico enter into the picture? older≠wiser 21:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that date is wrong. I just pasted it from the other article. But it disagrees with the Sabine River article addiitions I just wrote. I am going to change the date. In any case, according to the Texas handbook online, Mexican Independence did sort of throw a monkey wrench into the Texas border situation, allowing the U.S. actually to reopen the controversy by claiming that the Neches and Sabine rivers were switched on maps, and thus trying to claim lands farther west. -- Decumanus | Talk 21:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Here's the passage form HofT online  (from UT, so I have to trust it :)) -- Decumanus | Talk 21:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Spanish delay in ratification of the treaty and Mexican independence (1821) put the boundary again in controversy. The United States for a time claimed that the names of the Neches and Sabine rivers had been reversed (see NECHES RIVER BOUNDARY CLAIM), but no definite settlement was made. On December 19, 1836, the Congress of the Republic of Texasqv set forth the northern and eastern boundaries of the republic as stipulated in the Adams-Onís Treaty, and the United States dropped the claim to the area between the Sabine and the Neches.
Interesting stuff. The things I've learned on Wikipedia. older≠wiser 21:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratification 

message: The article says that the treaty "had the effect of ending the Seminole Wars in Florida."  Yet the linked article gives this information as to the dates:
:The First Seminole War was from 1817 to 1818; the Second Seminole War from 1835 to 1842; and the Third Seminole War from 1855 to 1858. The second clash is often referred to as the Seminole War.
One of these statements must be wrong or at least in great need of clarification. JamesMLane 10:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Seminole Wars

message: Just dropping a note that there was a proir Russo-Spanish Treaty that establiswhed teh 42nd Parallel as the southward limit of Russian claims vs Spain's and also 54-40 as the northward limit of Spanish claims vis a vis the Russians; might hav been in teh wake of the Ukase of 1799...all I know is both 42 and 55/54-40 were pre-existing in diplomatic law at the time, which is why they were mirrored by later agreements; t he 42nd Parallel was also part of the Nootka Conventions, which if they're not mentioned here should be....Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 42nd Parallel

message: The term "Oregon Country" should be removed from the map; it is a US-only designation.  The Russians considered the area in question was Russian America, to the British it was the Columbia District or Columbia Department.  It is not appropriate to feature only US political claims/terminology on such maps.  I know it's common, but it should stop.  This is wikipedia, Not US-ipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map needs globalization

message: My impression is that the "claims" were in lawsuits, the way it is written-but of course, I am probably wrong. Is there any way to prove/disprove this?76.102.227.227 (talk) My school's IP adress keeps getting banned. Wonder why?  —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand it either, but it appears to refer to Article XI of the treaty (online here). I don't quite understand what Article XI is saying though. Pfly (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed.... 

message: This treaty is also known as the "Florida Purchase Treaty" as well as "A Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Borders Between the United States and His Catholic Majesty"? Ddperk80 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be backed up this book here.--Banana (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And, similar, as the Florida Treaty of 1819 here, by EOS Scholefield, a major early 20th C historian in British Columbia, whose choice of language is the British norm.  I know of only a few other treaties titled here by the names of the negotiating plenipotentiaries/signees, another being the Hay-Herbert Treaty, generally known in the real world as the Alaska Boundary Treaty or the Alaska Boundary Settlement.  Both need a reqmove, I'd say, to something more "global" and also in line with treaty-naming conventions (such as there are any, if there are).Skookum1 (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: NB Florida Treaty already redirects here, and I'd nominate it for most common and easiest use, and most inline with most other treaty articles.Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, no, it seems that Wiki lower-caseism has ruled the redirect, and it's "Florida treaty" that redirects here.Skookum1 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: a look at the bibliographies, histories of American diplomacy, and standard reference works suggests that the "Adams-Onis" is the most common usage. Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In work on American diplomacy and on the existing mostly-American-source bibliography, perhaps; but this treaty affect Britain and is also part of other country's histories; is it the most common term in Spanish?  In non-USian countries?  and which standard reference works - Britannica, Merriam-Webster?  To me the title is obscure and does not go by its most common usage in standard continental histories; same goes for the Hay-Herbert Treaty, where the most common name obviously is the Alaska Boundary Treaty and that's certainly how it's known on our side of the border.  USian-only terminology is not most common usage anywhere but within the US....if it's even more common there, and I dispute that it is at all. I've never even seen the term before seeing it in Wikipedia (and I've read a lot of history, including yours).Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: this is an article about the US and Spain. We follow the RS, which mostly use Adams-Onis. What they call it in Paris or Moscow is not really useful.  The reference to "most common usage in standard continental histories" is too vague: please cite titles and page numbers of these sources.  (I looked at Bemis on Adams, Howard Jones - 2009 p 112; Bailey textbook; Herring 2009;, Dangerfield 1953, Patterson textbook, Flanders Dictionary, and Dict. Am. History. Also Stacy, Mexico and the United States p 17, Hodge, Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism p 7), Smith, Historical dictionary of United States-Latin American relations p 3; Weeks, John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire p 150; Cash, The Adams-Onis Treaty Claims Commission (1998); Stagg, Borderlines in borderlands (2009) p 287; and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations (2002) vol 1 p 12.  Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: nonsense --you have to use quotes or you get garbage out. I get a mere n=89 Google hits for "Florida Purchase Treaty" see Google search here 
Rjensen (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: if you search for "florida treaty" you will get all sorts of interesting results, for example the "Florida Treaty Live Oak" is a famous tree. I suspect the Mexicans historians write in Spanish but note that the Oxford History of Mexico (2000) uses Adams-Onis.  Historians have long pointed out that "Florida" is a misnomer. (see Bailey A diplomatic history of the American people p 173). We still are not told what Reliable Sources Skookum1 actually relies upon--only his speculation or actual books? Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: No good. I looked at the first 20--nearly all from 19th century original sources and not one from a RS. Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  no good. these are old newspaper stories--mostly before 1900 and none are a RS. None is in last 50 years. Skookum1 seems to want to revive a near-defunct term for reasons he cannot explain. he still has not produced a single reliable source according to Wiki guidelines and I've gioven over a dozen. Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, Rjensen, I have forty-five other things on the go than your demand that I produce sources now.  What I want here is a recognizable term familiar to more readers than people who've read the specific books you have; there are only two treaties in the whole of Wikipedia named for their negotiators, not by their description or where they are signed, which is the norm. You're being a dimsmissive, demanding jerk about this, as if I should jump up and run off and spend my whole evening doing what you demand of me; I've fielded this issue, now instead of trying to push my into a hole like you're doing with your patronizing insults, why not wait and see what I do turn up, and what others may as well?  I searched the Library of Congress adn NY Times - and the LOC items aren't all 19th C items, and neither are the NYT ones.  I started this because I came across some discussions of continental geopolitical history which used the term you say is "archaic"....well, I must be archaic, then, and sure as shootin' I probably am twice your age.  Or do you WP:OWN this title????Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Per WP:COMMON NAME, Wikipedia articles are titled with the "name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Skookum will have to show that "Florida Treaty" is the most commonly used name in reliable sources in order to change it. "Florida Treaty" was common in the 19th century, but since at least the 1940s historians seem to avoid it in favor of "Adams-Onis Treaty" or some other name, as the treaty did more than negotiate the sale of Florida. See, for example this. It appears that in sources written since the latter half of the 20th century, "Adams-Onis Treaty" is the most common form, though "Transcontinental Treaty" is also common. It is extremely unlikely that English-language sources from outside the United States are going to have a widely different usage.--Cúchullain t/c 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That one editor has condemned the term as "archaic" is no reason to not have it in the article at all; I don't have time right now to look up other 20th Century sources (sounds like pre-1940 is "19th Century" or "archaic" by the prejudices evinced here against older sources), but here is a bunch of googlebooks which use the term, including official state documents and academic/legal works from earlier times; the history I mentioned, Scholefield, is on http://www.nosracines.ca and was published in 1914.....it would be more than fair to say, in fact, that it "Florida Treaty" was a common name for it in its own time and for teh rest of the 19th Century and early 20th Century; not saying that, and even more pretending that the term is archaic and obsolete is just not honest, and it's very peremptory, nor is it encyclopedic; I "only" graduated high school in 1972, and I know for a fact it was what was in our (Canadian, but American-influenced) schoolbooks and classroom maps...."Transcontinental Treaty" I'd never heard of until this discussion; sounds like over-correction to me.  The Treaty of Utrecht affected even the Columbia District/Oregon Territory and wasn't just about Europe; it of course was named for where it was signed, like so many others.  In general, however, I find the exclusionary attitude towards earlier sources and earlier terminologies in Wikipedia very disturbing....what things were known as in their time, and for decades after, should not be so easily dismissed - nor treated with contempt (as I have been, also).Skookum1 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is treating you with contempt, and I don't think anyone is against including the term "Florida Treaty" in the text. The only objection as far as I can tell is to moving the article to that title. Again, such a move would require you to show it is the most common term in reliable sources (ie, history books, academic works on Spanish-US relations, etc.) It does appear that "Florida Treaty" was common, especially in older sources, but over the last several decades, many historians have preferred to call it the "Adams-Onis Treaty" (or "Transcontinental Treaty"). For example, in a search of books written since 2000, Google Books returns 376 hits for Florida Treaty, but 2,740 for "Adams-Onis Treaty", and 1,070 for "Transcontinental Treaty". In the absence of evidence to the contrary, "Adams-Onis Treaty" would appear to be the most common name for this subject.--Cúchullain t/c 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one is treating you with contempt, and I don't think anyone is against including the term "Florida Treaty" in the text." - really?  Coulda fooled me - read Rjensen's posts and edit comments.  I'm of the opinion myself that treaties, like placenames, should be named in the context of the times they'er from, which is why for a given context we write Koenigsberg (-burg?) for what today is Kaliningrad, and why Danzig in some concepts and not Gdansk.  We don't use "Czech Republic" when referring to pre-mid-19th Century Bohemia.  This treaty was known in its day, and for over a century after, as "the Florida Treaty" and though it's been overtaken by "correctors" who've given it a "better" name, it's certainly not its most common name in historical contexts nor over time.  I think this "recent sources are better than older sources" guideline in Wikipedia, like so many, is prejudicial hogwash.Skookum1 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just as we are entitled to disagree with it. From my point of view, "Adams-Oniz Treaty" is the best title for the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you disagree that Florida Treaty should be included in the article, even thought cites using it are rife (even in the 20th Century)?Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I said the article title shouldn't be "Florida Treaty". As I specifically said above, I have no problem with including the term the text.--Cúchullain t/c 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Let me cite a recent Spanish article, published in Madris: José A. Armillas Vicente, "Relaciones diplomáticas entre España y los Estados Unidos de América desde el Tratado de San Lorenzo, 1795, al de Adams-Onís, 1819," Revista de Historia Militar, v 51, 2007, pp. 159-200  Rjensen (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Use in other languages doesn't matter; what matters is use in English-language reliable sources. It seems that Skookum has conceded that "Florida Treaty" is less common in more recent sources. Clearly "Florida Treaty" should be mentioned in the article as a historical name for this treaty; is there really any more to discuss here?--Cúchullain t/c 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty names 

message: *Adams-Onis Treaty - 27 results
*Florida Treaty - 54 results
Further note: A search for "Hay-Herbert Treaty", "Alaska Boundary Treaty", and "Alaska Treaty" turned up only two entries each.  I'll be searching the NYT online archives next....Skookum1 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No good. I looked at the first 20--nearly all from 19th century original sources and not one from a RS. Rjensen (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: LOC search comparison

message: *"Adams-Onis Treaty" - 2 entries, one of which is entitled "Florida Treaty"
*"Florida Treaty" - 17 entries
More tomorrow maybe; I know the pattern I'm going to find already; these aren't cherry-picked results either....Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  no good. these are old newspaper stories--mostly before 1900 and none are a RS. None is in last 50 years. Skookum1 seems to want to revive a near-defunct term for reasons he cannot explain. he still has not produced a single reliable source according to Wiki guidelines and I've gioven over a dozen. Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, Rjensen, I have forty-five other things on the go than your demand that I produce sources now.  What I want here is a recognizable term familiar to more readers than people who've read the specific books you have; there are only two treaties in the whole of Wikipedia named for their negotiators, not by their description or where they are signed, which is the norm. You're being a dimsmissive, demanding jerk about this, as if I should jump up and run off and spend my whole evening doing what you demand of me; I've fielded this issue, now instead of trying to push my into a hole like you're doing with your patronizing insults, why not wait and see what I do turn up, and what others may as well?  I searched the Library of Congress adn NY Times - and the LOC items aren't all 19th C items, and neither are the NYT ones.  I started this because I came across some discussions of continental geopolitical history which used the term you say is "archaic"....well, I must be archaic, then, and sure as shootin' I probably am twice your age.  Or do you WP:OWN this title????Skookum1 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Per WP:COMMON NAME, Wikipedia articles are titled with the "name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Skookum will have to show that "Florida Treaty" is the most commonly used name in reliable sources in order to change it. "Florida Treaty" was common in the 19th century, but since at least the 1940s historians seem to avoid it in favor of "Adams-Onis Treaty" or some other name, as the treaty did more than negotiate the sale of Florida. See, for example this. It appears that in sources written since the latter half of the 20th century, "Adams-Onis Treaty" is the most common form, though "Transcontinental Treaty" is also common. It is extremely unlikely that English-language sources from outside the United States are going to have a widely different usage.--Cúchullain t/c 15:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That one editor has condemned the term as "archaic" is no reason to not have it in the article at all; I don't have time right now to look up other 20th Century sources (sounds like pre-1940 is "19th Century" or "archaic" by the prejudices evinced here against older sources), but here is a bunch of googlebooks which use the term, including official state documents and academic/legal works from earlier times; the history I mentioned, Scholefield, is on http://www.nosracines.ca and was published in 1914.....it would be more than fair to say, in fact, that it "Florida Treaty" was a common name for it in its own time and for teh rest of the 19th Century and early 20th Century; not saying that, and even more pretending that the term is archaic and obsolete is just not honest, and it's very peremptory, nor is it encyclopedic; I "only" graduated high school in 1972, and I know for a fact it was what was in our (Canadian, but American-influenced) schoolbooks and classroom maps...."Transcontinental Treaty" I'd never heard of until this discussion; sounds like over-correction to me.  The Treaty of Utrecht affected even the Columbia District/Oregon Territory and wasn't just about Europe; it of course was named for where it was signed, like so many others.  In general, however, I find the exclusionary attitude towards earlier sources and earlier terminologies in Wikipedia very disturbing....what things were known as in their time, and for decades after, should not be so easily dismissed - nor treated with contempt (as I have been, also).Skookum1 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is treating you with contempt, and I don't think anyone is against including the term "Florida Treaty" in the text. The only objection as far as I can tell is to moving the article to that title. Again, such a move would require you to show it is the most common term in reliable sources (ie, history books, academic works on Spanish-US relations, etc.) It does appear that "Florida Treaty" was common, especially in older sources, but over the last several decades, many historians have preferred to call it the "Adams-Onis Treaty" (or "Transcontinental Treaty"). For example, in a search of books written since 2000, Google Books returns 376 hits for Florida Treaty, but 2,740 for "Adams-Onis Treaty", and 1,070 for "Transcontinental Treaty". In the absence of evidence to the contrary, "Adams-Onis Treaty" would appear to be the most common name for this subject.--Cúchullain t/c 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one is treating you with contempt, and I don't think anyone is against including the term "Florida Treaty" in the text." - really?  Coulda fooled me - read Rjensen's posts and edit comments.  I'm of the opinion myself that treaties, like placenames, should be named in the context of the times they'er from, which is why for a given context we write Koenigsberg (-burg?) for what today is Kaliningrad, and why Danzig in some concepts and not Gdansk.  We don't use "Czech Republic" when referring to pre-mid-19th Century Bohemia.  This treaty was known in its day, and for over a century after, as "the Florida Treaty" and though it's been overtaken by "correctors" who've given it a "better" name, it's certainly not its most common name in historical contexts nor over time.  I think this "recent sources are better than older sources" guideline in Wikipedia, like so many, is prejudicial hogwash.Skookum1 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are entitled to your opinion, just as we are entitled to disagree with it. From my point of view, "Adams-Oniz Treaty" is the best title for the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 20:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you disagree that Florida Treaty should be included in the article, even thought cites using it are rife (even in the 20th Century)?Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I said the article title shouldn't be "Florida Treaty". As I specifically said above, I have no problem with including the term the text.--Cúchullain t/c 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Let me cite a recent Spanish article, published in Madris: José A. Armillas Vicente, "Relaciones diplomáticas entre España y los Estados Unidos de América desde el Tratado de San Lorenzo, 1795, al de Adams-Onís, 1819," Revista de Historia Militar, v 51, 2007, pp. 159-200  Rjensen (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Use in other languages doesn't matter; what matters is use in English-language reliable sources. It seems that Skookum has conceded that "Florida Treaty" is less common in more recent sources. Clearly "Florida Treaty" should be mentioned in the article as a historical name for this treaty; is there really any more to discuss here?--Cúchullain t/c 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''NYT'' archive comparative search

message: Posting here if only to remind myself to later make this fix, but the main map here, :File:Adams onis map.png, which is mostly quite excellent, says the Oregon Country was claimed by the US, Great Britain, and Russia, when in fact Russia never claimed the Oregon Country as it is known in the US. Russian claims to the south, apart from Fort Ross, which was its own thing, stopped at about 54-40, the present Alaska-BC boundary. In 1821 the Tsar claimed control south to the 51st parallel (which is still north of Vancouver Island), but the US and Great Britain protested and in a few years hammered out the 54-40 boundary. In short, "claimed by Russia" should be removed from the map. (Details and sources at Maritime Fur Trade#Diversification and transformation). Pfly (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map issue 

message: There is an improper (requesting editor placed templates with no discussion) request to merge Florida Cession to this article. That article is a mirror stub to this article and has absolutely nothing to offer by "merging". Florida Cession needs to be deleted (speedy if possibly) and redirect to this one. Otr500 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to delete; I've just redirected the title here. It's at least a reasonable search term.--Cúchullain t/c 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: It's tragically laughable to still, in the 21st century, to see historical write-ups refer to European and US invasions and military occupations and takeovers as 'colonialism' and 'self defense acts'. When does this nonsense stop. The Seminole Wars were purely launched as invasions and territorial-grab operations. How ridiculous to read of pretentious excuses for these invasions being put forth as if believable; similar to the Nazis claiming they invaded Poland to protect German-heritage civilians there - and by the way, many German-heritage poles were screaming this fact out to their deaths as the Nazis led them away to mass executions.
Write history objectively - not with sly prejudices of yesteryear. The US govt. perpetrated methodical evils against the Seminoles for greed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123xz (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: well actually the "Seminoles" invaded Florida after 1700 and killed off all the native tribes. The problem in 1820 was that Spain had abandoned the territory with only a few hundred soldiers in a few isolated posts. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of Florida's pre-Seminole natives were eliminated by British and native-allied slave raids circa 1680-1720. Of course some of those native allies later joined the Seminoles. It's a complicated history. No doubt this page could be better worded. The stuff about Florida certainly has some pro-US POV issues. Pfly (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Florida