This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Public domain article to incorporate http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/dec12.html
I just incorporated this public domain article. — DLJessup 03:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user included the following text:
I don't understand why this should be in this article, since Gay is pronounced with a hard "g" and so cannot be confused with "Jay", even when spoken aloud. I am therefore removing this sentence as not germaine to this article. — DLJessup 01:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
John Jay's title was never President of the United States - even if, and I see no source for this, people sometimes called him that. He was President of the Continental Congress, an office that later became known as President of the United States in Congress Assembled. There is no need to add "under the present constitution" to articles about presidents of the United States to distinguish them from these other men who presided over congress. -- JimWae 05:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's go through this:
— DLJessup ( talk) 14:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This is baffling logic - you have already agreed that Jay was never called POTUS and never president of the country. If each colony had sent the same number of representatives to an assembly, would that make them what we now call senators? The office of POTUS had not even been outlined yet, and the role was much closer to that of a Speaker of the House -- JimWae 03:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Jay was the youngest President in American history, albeït not under the present Constitution.)
Under the previous logic, John Jay was actually a proto-Speaker of the House, or rather proto-President Pro Tempore to a proto-Senate. However, his official title is "President of the Second Continental Congress." This makes him a 'president' though not exactly a 'POTUS.' Here's my ultimate test though: who held the highest office in the land at the time? Assuming you count the colonies as no longer subject to King George, you're answer has to be John Jay. His authority was certainly nowhere near as strong as the latest 43 Presidents, but no singular person could officially overturn his decisions.
An important side edit that should be addressed in the article: John Jay was the FOURTH President of the Second Continental Congress (Sixth of the Continental Congresses), not the FIFTH as is stated! -- 129.74.187.106 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point on the "highest office" argument, though personally the lack of an official head of state does not mean there is no leader. George Washington was the symbolic leader of the Constitutional Convention but there can be no doubt that despite the mere parliamentary powers that position held, Mr. Washington was viewed as the leader. And while you may argue that an office is limited to its outlined powers, I think it's very well-known that the leaders define their office more than any job description (again, George Washington did more to shape the Chief Executive office than the few lines in the Constitution. Other presidents also broadened the role despite any amendments being ratified). So in that vein, being President of the Continental Congress or of the United States, Congress Assembled may have been a more influential role than history can record due to the tumultous time, short term, and frantic structuring of government. Speaker of the House doesn't seem too high and mighty of a job on paper, but it's not too much of a stretch to argue it's the second most powerful office in the land.
Additionally, I'm sticking to my guns. John Jay was the fourth president of the Second Continental Congress. There were two congresses. The first was led by Peyton Randolph and Henry Middleton. The second was led by Peyton Randolph, John Hancock and Henry Laurens before Mr. Jay. It's mind-numbingly anal retentive, as is the fact that "Geo" is just the at-the-time common shortening of "George." -- ScottieB 23:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No; it's frustrating logic; not baffling logic. I've already drawn an analogy to the King of England. The first Kings were not called "king" during their reigns, but the occupied the same position as was occupied by later men who were called "King".
Are you going to deny that "Geo. Washington" properly refers to George Washington, exactly as you deny that "President of the United States" poperly refers to the Presidents of the Contintentant Congress from Hancock onward?
Absolutely. Hence it is quite desirable to make it plain that a different constitutional arrangement was in place.
Science isn't properly driven by consensus, whether it is the social science of history or otherwise.
What really obtains here is that you want to avoid confusion by suppressing an inconvenient truth here. But the proper way to avoid that confusion is with more words and more truth, not less.
Jay apparently had a notable role in the Episcopal Church. Can someone with knowledge on the subject enlighten the readers? Thanks! -- 198.59.190.201 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure that this detail would pass wikitorial muster in the article, so I'll simply quote it here. <>< tbc 06:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Failed to mention The Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution. John Jay Drafted the Treaty with Ben Franklin and John Adams in Paris, France.
In the section on the Jay Treaty of 1794, someone has put up a "disputed neutrality" marker - yet there is nothing about it on the talk page. Should the marker be removed, or is there a real dispute about the neutrality of that section? Salim555 23:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I get the feeling that the disputed neutrality is regarding Jay as an abolitionist...it seems to early in history for such a pivotal figure to take on such a controvertial (in those days - late 18th century) position.
-- 169.237.165.102 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I regret to see that Rjensen genuinely misunderstands the fundamental policies of wikipedia. The edit summary value judgment" is not a Wiki rule;... is utterly false. Not making value judgments, in Wikipedia's voice, is the essence of the neutral point of view which is fundamental policy. Compared to this, his claim of anti-abolition pov is less important, although it is a personal attack. It is McManus's view, not mine, that the bill of 1799 was easy, because all but one of the legislators of 1785 had voted for some form of emancipation. IIRC the "open door" was even his metaphor. McManus wrote in 1968, and I believe he was black; proving that he was anti-abolition would take extraordinary evidence, and Rjensen has given none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following mixed evaluation by a prominent scholar on colonial slavery may yet be useful: John Peronneau, John Adams, and Robert Carter III "were contemporaries whose reflections on the injustice of slavery (or at least its inexpediency) caused them to act sooner, with more rectitude and at greater cost than Jay." But "[i]f Jay was not in the vanguard of militant abolitionists, he was still a leader among men of property to recognize a wrong and move slowly and genteelly towards its eradication."(Littlefield 2000, p.133)
Jay ran the department of Foreign Affairs on the well into the Washington administration, in fact the entire first year of it. He was still running it after the executive department known as "State" was officially called into being by the first Congress in September of 1789. I put down that he served until Jefferson was sworn in on March 22, 1790. Ericl 02:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple of changes today regarding this paragraph as well. The article originally stated that the office was established under the new Constitution, which simply is not true. You won't find any of the Departments in there (Article 2, Section 2 mentions heads of departements but not any specifics). What became the Department of State was brought about by two acts of Congress, both initiated by Washington and signed by him. Jay, who had been Secretary of Foreign Affairs, became acting Secretary of State with the name change in September of 1789, and stayed on as acting Secretary of State until March of 1790 when Jefferson arrived home from France and took over. I have made the changes, but they made need a bit of fixing up and citing. But even the original citations were wrong too, not really citing what was originally said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.107.24 ( talk) 15:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at a video by John Jay and I wondered why the name sounded familiar. Naturally I checked in here to find the first chief justice in the search. sure thing I said, I've heard of this guy! :-) But what about this other John Jay? the cinematographer, I mean. It's hard to believe there are no skiers in wiki-land. This guy was practically the snow-gardener that cultivated snow skiing into the american sports salad. (see http://www.johnjayskifilms.com/bio2.htm and/or http://www.skiinghistory.org/John%20Jay.html)
So I guess my question really is, how to search for john jay NOT the judge?
Bill 17 07:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition, there are, I think:
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)best ever rellik
-- daniel folsom 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
*remove fact tags.
Mm
40 (
talk |
contribs) 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
*prune external links section.
Mm
40 (
talk |
contribs)
21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
***In ==Secretary of Foreign Affairs== the following words should be evaluated: the most, however, will.
***In ===''Federalist Papers'' 1788=== the following words should be evaluated: popular .
—— nix eagle 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
two of them don't work? -- Banana ( talk) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
As User:Danielfolsom asked if I would stop by and give a review, here it is:
Lead
Body
Referencing
Images
The article definitely needs a thorough copyedit and the expansion/sourcing described above. That said, it's a solid start and you shouldn't have any issue promoting it with a little work. :) Regards, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Confusing placement of clauses, and extraneous bits of information, have been edited to make this sentence somewhat clearer. "In 1794 Jay angered southern slave-owners when, in the process of negotiating the Jay Treaty with the British, he dropped their demands for compensation for slaves owned by patriots who had been captured and carried away during the Revolution." --> "In 1794, while in the process of negotiating the Jay Treaty with the British, Jay angered Southern slave owners when he dropped their demands for compensation for slaves who had been captured and carried away during the Revolution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeemont ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing something? The article seems to say that Jay simultaneously held the office of Chief Justice (from 1789 September 26) and Secretary of Foreign Affairs (until 1790 March 22).
Yes, I know the Articles continued in effect until ratification. However, appointment of Jay as Chief Justice could not be made until AFTER ratification, and I believe his former office ceased to exist when ratification occurred.
ARTICLE TEXT:
1st Chief Justice of the United States In office September 26, 1789 – June 29, 1795 Nominated by George Washington Succeeded by John Rutledge
2nd Governor of New York In office July 1, 1795 – June 30, 1801 Lieutenant Stephen Van Rensselaer Preceded by George Clinton Succeeded by George Clinton
2nd United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs In office May 7, 1784 – March 22, 1790
Sorry, I don't follow this page very much (and I'm really not trying to create problems), but this one jumped out at me and I thought I should point it out, somehow.
If the stated facts are correct, then perhaps there should be some sort of explanation/clarification.
02:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripodics ( talk • contribs)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Public domain article to incorporate http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/dec12.html
I just incorporated this public domain article. — DLJessup 03:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user included the following text:
I don't understand why this should be in this article, since Gay is pronounced with a hard "g" and so cannot be confused with "Jay", even when spoken aloud. I am therefore removing this sentence as not germaine to this article. — DLJessup 01:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
John Jay's title was never President of the United States - even if, and I see no source for this, people sometimes called him that. He was President of the Continental Congress, an office that later became known as President of the United States in Congress Assembled. There is no need to add "under the present constitution" to articles about presidents of the United States to distinguish them from these other men who presided over congress. -- JimWae 05:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's go through this:
— DLJessup ( talk) 14:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This is baffling logic - you have already agreed that Jay was never called POTUS and never president of the country. If each colony had sent the same number of representatives to an assembly, would that make them what we now call senators? The office of POTUS had not even been outlined yet, and the role was much closer to that of a Speaker of the House -- JimWae 03:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Jay was the youngest President in American history, albeït not under the present Constitution.)
Under the previous logic, John Jay was actually a proto-Speaker of the House, or rather proto-President Pro Tempore to a proto-Senate. However, his official title is "President of the Second Continental Congress." This makes him a 'president' though not exactly a 'POTUS.' Here's my ultimate test though: who held the highest office in the land at the time? Assuming you count the colonies as no longer subject to King George, you're answer has to be John Jay. His authority was certainly nowhere near as strong as the latest 43 Presidents, but no singular person could officially overturn his decisions.
An important side edit that should be addressed in the article: John Jay was the FOURTH President of the Second Continental Congress (Sixth of the Continental Congresses), not the FIFTH as is stated! -- 129.74.187.106 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point on the "highest office" argument, though personally the lack of an official head of state does not mean there is no leader. George Washington was the symbolic leader of the Constitutional Convention but there can be no doubt that despite the mere parliamentary powers that position held, Mr. Washington was viewed as the leader. And while you may argue that an office is limited to its outlined powers, I think it's very well-known that the leaders define their office more than any job description (again, George Washington did more to shape the Chief Executive office than the few lines in the Constitution. Other presidents also broadened the role despite any amendments being ratified). So in that vein, being President of the Continental Congress or of the United States, Congress Assembled may have been a more influential role than history can record due to the tumultous time, short term, and frantic structuring of government. Speaker of the House doesn't seem too high and mighty of a job on paper, but it's not too much of a stretch to argue it's the second most powerful office in the land.
Additionally, I'm sticking to my guns. John Jay was the fourth president of the Second Continental Congress. There were two congresses. The first was led by Peyton Randolph and Henry Middleton. The second was led by Peyton Randolph, John Hancock and Henry Laurens before Mr. Jay. It's mind-numbingly anal retentive, as is the fact that "Geo" is just the at-the-time common shortening of "George." -- ScottieB 23:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No; it's frustrating logic; not baffling logic. I've already drawn an analogy to the King of England. The first Kings were not called "king" during their reigns, but the occupied the same position as was occupied by later men who were called "King".
Are you going to deny that "Geo. Washington" properly refers to George Washington, exactly as you deny that "President of the United States" poperly refers to the Presidents of the Contintentant Congress from Hancock onward?
Absolutely. Hence it is quite desirable to make it plain that a different constitutional arrangement was in place.
Science isn't properly driven by consensus, whether it is the social science of history or otherwise.
What really obtains here is that you want to avoid confusion by suppressing an inconvenient truth here. But the proper way to avoid that confusion is with more words and more truth, not less.
Jay apparently had a notable role in the Episcopal Church. Can someone with knowledge on the subject enlighten the readers? Thanks! -- 198.59.190.201 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Not sure that this detail would pass wikitorial muster in the article, so I'll simply quote it here. <>< tbc 06:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Failed to mention The Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolution. John Jay Drafted the Treaty with Ben Franklin and John Adams in Paris, France.
In the section on the Jay Treaty of 1794, someone has put up a "disputed neutrality" marker - yet there is nothing about it on the talk page. Should the marker be removed, or is there a real dispute about the neutrality of that section? Salim555 23:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I get the feeling that the disputed neutrality is regarding Jay as an abolitionist...it seems to early in history for such a pivotal figure to take on such a controvertial (in those days - late 18th century) position.
-- 169.237.165.102 19:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I regret to see that Rjensen genuinely misunderstands the fundamental policies of wikipedia. The edit summary value judgment" is not a Wiki rule;... is utterly false. Not making value judgments, in Wikipedia's voice, is the essence of the neutral point of view which is fundamental policy. Compared to this, his claim of anti-abolition pov is less important, although it is a personal attack. It is McManus's view, not mine, that the bill of 1799 was easy, because all but one of the legislators of 1785 had voted for some form of emancipation. IIRC the "open door" was even his metaphor. McManus wrote in 1968, and I believe he was black; proving that he was anti-abolition would take extraordinary evidence, and Rjensen has given none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The following mixed evaluation by a prominent scholar on colonial slavery may yet be useful: John Peronneau, John Adams, and Robert Carter III "were contemporaries whose reflections on the injustice of slavery (or at least its inexpediency) caused them to act sooner, with more rectitude and at greater cost than Jay." But "[i]f Jay was not in the vanguard of militant abolitionists, he was still a leader among men of property to recognize a wrong and move slowly and genteelly towards its eradication."(Littlefield 2000, p.133)
Jay ran the department of Foreign Affairs on the well into the Washington administration, in fact the entire first year of it. He was still running it after the executive department known as "State" was officially called into being by the first Congress in September of 1789. I put down that he served until Jefferson was sworn in on March 22, 1790. Ericl 02:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I made a couple of changes today regarding this paragraph as well. The article originally stated that the office was established under the new Constitution, which simply is not true. You won't find any of the Departments in there (Article 2, Section 2 mentions heads of departements but not any specifics). What became the Department of State was brought about by two acts of Congress, both initiated by Washington and signed by him. Jay, who had been Secretary of Foreign Affairs, became acting Secretary of State with the name change in September of 1789, and stayed on as acting Secretary of State until March of 1790 when Jefferson arrived home from France and took over. I have made the changes, but they made need a bit of fixing up and citing. But even the original citations were wrong too, not really citing what was originally said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.107.24 ( talk) 15:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at a video by John Jay and I wondered why the name sounded familiar. Naturally I checked in here to find the first chief justice in the search. sure thing I said, I've heard of this guy! :-) But what about this other John Jay? the cinematographer, I mean. It's hard to believe there are no skiers in wiki-land. This guy was practically the snow-gardener that cultivated snow skiing into the american sports salad. (see http://www.johnjayskifilms.com/bio2.htm and/or http://www.skiinghistory.org/John%20Jay.html)
So I guess my question really is, how to search for john jay NOT the judge?
Bill 17 07:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition, there are, I think:
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)best ever rellik
-- daniel folsom 19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
*remove fact tags.
Mm
40 (
talk |
contribs) 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
*prune external links section.
Mm
40 (
talk |
contribs)
21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
***In ==Secretary of Foreign Affairs== the following words should be evaluated: the most, however, will.
***In ===''Federalist Papers'' 1788=== the following words should be evaluated: popular .
—— nix eagle 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
two of them don't work? -- Banana ( talk) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
As User:Danielfolsom asked if I would stop by and give a review, here it is:
Lead
Body
Referencing
Images
The article definitely needs a thorough copyedit and the expansion/sourcing described above. That said, it's a solid start and you shouldn't have any issue promoting it with a little work. :) Regards, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 15:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Confusing placement of clauses, and extraneous bits of information, have been edited to make this sentence somewhat clearer. "In 1794 Jay angered southern slave-owners when, in the process of negotiating the Jay Treaty with the British, he dropped their demands for compensation for slaves owned by patriots who had been captured and carried away during the Revolution." --> "In 1794, while in the process of negotiating the Jay Treaty with the British, Jay angered Southern slave owners when he dropped their demands for compensation for slaves who had been captured and carried away during the Revolution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treeemont ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing something? The article seems to say that Jay simultaneously held the office of Chief Justice (from 1789 September 26) and Secretary of Foreign Affairs (until 1790 March 22).
Yes, I know the Articles continued in effect until ratification. However, appointment of Jay as Chief Justice could not be made until AFTER ratification, and I believe his former office ceased to exist when ratification occurred.
ARTICLE TEXT:
1st Chief Justice of the United States In office September 26, 1789 – June 29, 1795 Nominated by George Washington Succeeded by John Rutledge
2nd Governor of New York In office July 1, 1795 – June 30, 1801 Lieutenant Stephen Van Rensselaer Preceded by George Clinton Succeeded by George Clinton
2nd United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs In office May 7, 1784 – March 22, 1790
Sorry, I don't follow this page very much (and I'm really not trying to create problems), but this one jumped out at me and I thought I should point it out, somehow.
If the stated facts are correct, then perhaps there should be some sort of explanation/clarification.
02:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripodics ( talk • contribs)