Add your comments below. Feel free to create a new heading, or to add questions or comments under existing headings.

• I was graciously welcomed by TPK on 16 Sep 2004.
• Ram-Man asked me about multi-licensing. My legal team is still looking into that.

Contents

1 Patrick Henry 2 Delaware Indians 3 George Washington 4 Tecumseh 5 Abraham Lincoln 6 Category: Good job! 7 Thanks 8 1812 9 Rock on 9.1 Northwest Indian War 10 Fourth Great Awakening 11 Smallpox and Amherst 12 Carter Doctrine 12.1 For your comments 13 Referances

Patrick Henry

Good Ol' Patrick has been vandalized again - I don't know how to revert it to the last good version. Kathleen

Delaware Indians

I have a special interest in the Delaware Indians that Washington addressed in 1779.

You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.

from: George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washinton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.

My understanding: These Delaware Indians were already Christian pacifists, thus they were among the few NOT fighting against the colonists & for the British (who by Treaty of 1763 had prohibited colonists from settling in Indian Territories). The Indians were in trouble with other tribes & were (or would soon be)negotiating terms favorable to their resettlement (homes & church) further West. They ended up mistakenly massacred by Pennsylvania militia. http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/history/h_indian/tribes/delaware.shtml --JimWae 04:30, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

You've got it somewhat correct, though it's a more bit convoluted, because the Delawares were at the time highly fragmented over Christianity and the American Revolutionary War.

The Delawares that Washington spoke to were allies of the United States, having recently signed a treaty to that effect [1]. There were troubles arising from the treaty, which is why the Indians were visiting Washington & Congress. Some Delawares (notably Captain Pipe) had already repudiated the treaty and were siding with the British.

Some of the 14 Indians present were Christians; few were probably genuinely pacifists. The several hundred Christian Indian pacifists in the Delaware Moravian settlements, about 100 of whom would later be murdered in the Gnadenhutten massacre, were among the constituents of these chiefs, but not all of the neutral (or pro-American) Delawares were Christian converts. But some of these chiefs were very close with the Moravians (some might say controlled by the Moravians), and had family among the converts.

These Delawares would have been familiar with the language Washington was using (quoted above), which was not proselytizing, but rather typical diplomatic language used with the Delawares, who had long been receptive to Christianity. Indian diplomatic language, which Washington was familiar with, was formal and ritualized, and should not be considered literal. With these words, Washington was actually brushing off the delegation, referring the matter to Congress.

The principal chief that Washington was addressing was Gelelemend (known to the whites as John Killbuck Jr.). Gelelemend was essentially a Christian, a close friend of the Moravians, but not a pacifist. He later fought alongside the Americans against pro-British Delawares. Repudiated by his people, he later joined the Moravians, long after the Gnadenhutten massacre.

The "second chief" present was Welepachtschiechen ("Captain Johnny"). He was a Christian murdered at Gnadenhutten.

Another chief present was Tetepachsit, who I believe was a friend to the Moravians, maybe a Christian himself. In 1806, he was accused of witchcraft by the Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa and burned to death.[2]

Hope that helps. Let me know if you need more info. --Kevin Myers 07:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

George Washington

Kevin, a couple of points for you to consider. I'm not going to edit the article myself but I thought you might like an outside perspective. George Washington is very important in American history but is of little importance outside America. We know who he is solely because of his place in American history. "Modern history" is still "world history".

To give you some idea, our history lessons do not mention Washington, except in passing (I'm English). He has no relevance for us outside of the USA, whereas other figures, such as Metternich, Napoleon, Frederick of Prussia, Queen Victoria, Lenin clearly do.

I daresay most people outside of America know nothing about Washington except that he was the first prez, chopped down a cherry tree and has a city named after him.

In any case "is generally recognised..." is a weasel phrase. If you cannot substantiate the opinion it's better simply to put that he *is* an important figure.

My personal view? I would stick with "American". It's by definition true that he was important there and you don't have the difficulty of establishing any wider importance.Dr Zen 03:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. First of all, I would not equate "world history" with "modern history;" modern history covers only the last 300 years or so, after all. So the change from one of the most important figures in world history to one of the most important figures in modern history narrows the scope by a few millennia.

How important is Washington to the history of the world in the last 300 years? The article makes the claim that he is important for establishing the precedent of voluntarily relinquishing military power to civil democratic authorities. Upon hearing this, King George III is said to have exclaimed, "If true, then he is the greatest man in the world." (Or so a popular quote in US history claims.)

Was King George right? Maybe the article should not try to answer this question, especially using, as you point out, weasel terms. But saying George Washington is one of the most important people in American history is a bit like saying Jesus is one of the most important people in Christianity. ;-) --Kevin Myers 04:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've got to agree that the following (present text) is excessive for WORLD history. His refusal to be made king does have some international importance as setting a significant example, but that is not what the sentence gives as grounds --JimWae 20:09, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

For the role he played in winning and securing American independence, George Washington is generally recognized as one of the most important figures in modern history.

Tecumseh

Hi Kevin. I've started a request for discussion on the Talk page of the Tecumseh article, regarding your recent edits, and I'd very much welcome your thoughts. Please join in! Cheers, Madmagic 05:30, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln

Kevin, I think there is much to be lost & little gained by paring the text too much - more headway will be made reducing filesize of photos. It's pretty standard to have inaugural addresses, for example, in "See also" & cumbersome for people to have to go back & hunt for the link.--JimWae 22:32, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Okay; if you put that second inaugural link back into the "see also" section, I won't object. --Kevin Myers 03:32, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Category: Good job!

• I like what you did with the intro text on List of U.S. Presidential religious affiliations. I had left things the way they were too much in that part. Good work. --JimWae 07:06, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Thank you! --Kevin Myers 07:09, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on articles on American Indians. You have really improved them. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much -- and Merry Christmas, or Happy Holidays! Check local listings for holidays in your area ;-) --Kevin Myers 01:11, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've much appreciated the work you've been doing on Population history of American indigenous peoples. I haven't had the time to do the research for this and am extremely glad that someone who is conversant with the subject is giving the article a good grounding. Zora 03:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I've enjoyed doing research for the article -- I now know more about the subject than I ever thought I would, that's for sure. --Kevin Myers 03:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the compliment, Kevin -- I liked the article also. I'm afraid I only did as thorough a job as was accomplished because I had delivered a lecture to my high school class on the Trail of Tears a few weeks ago, and still had most of the notes I'd prepared. Still, though I am unlikely to be as knowledgable in other areas, I'd love to have a list of unwritten articles that I can work on. If you feel like dropping me suggestions (or pointing me to a list of red links on a page somewhere) I'd be very happy. Thanks again for the kind words: keep up the good work, yourself! Jwrosenzweig 15:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1812

Thanks Kevin for your update! Very interesting. Any idea where the bounders that John Quincy Adams was complaining about get these (presumably American) slaves that they liberated? --Daedelus 18:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- Alexander Cochrane issued appeals to American slaves to runaway and join the British cause, and many did so, and served as marines and such for the Royal Navy. This was essentially the same tactic used by the British in the American Revolutionary War, particularly in Virginia by Lord Dunmore. In the earlier conflict it was less ideology and more military necessity, I think. This time, with the Royal Navy emerging as the "world police" against the slave trade on the high seas, humanitarian ideology was now more of a factor. In both wars, American slave owners protested loudly, of course.

This topic should be covered in the War of 1812 article, and I hope you continue working on it! --Kevin Myers 19:30, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin: Great additions to the War of 1812 article! I've added a note on the talk page about condensing the article somewhat. That seems to me to be a good next step in the cleanup process. What do you think? Sunray 16:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with your outline. The article American Revolutionary War was condensed by describing important battles in only one or two sentences. Even the ultimate Battle of Yorktown gets only two sentences, I believe. Readers who want more can click on the battle to get more details. The same approach should be taken with the War of 1812. --Kevin Myers 23:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rock on

Great job expanding Tecumseh's War. jengod 00:50, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and keep on rockin' yourself! --Kevin Myers 01:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Northwest Indian War

Hey Kevin, I've answered your questions at Talk:Northwest Indian War. Sorry for the four-month delay, but I'm afraid I haven't kept the Wabash Confederacy on my watch list. Bravo on your fine work; I couldn't agree more, American Indian history is dreadfully neglected. Don't hesitate to leave messages for me on my talk page. QuartierLatin1968 16:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fourth Great Awakening

I saw your note on the Fourth Great Awakening article. As the creator of the article, I confess, it does tap-dance on the line of the original research ban.

There is some existing research out there, but not much. I became interested in the concept when I read that Fogel book, The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism. However, Fogel stated that the 4GA happened in the 50s, in the form of an uptick in Fundamentalism. It seemed odd to me that he completely ignored the hippie movement right next door. The timing seems to fit, and the hippie movement did have some heavy religious overtones. In Fogel's defense, he's a economist first, historian second.

So I created the article, skirting the original research ban. I figured that, worst come to worst, and the article got put up for deletion, it might scare up some real historians, who might be able to flesh it out with existing research.

To that extent, the experiment failed - you're the first to notice!

However, Ungtss came along with some collaborating research. (Warning - Ungtss is apparently one of the most notorious creationist POV warriors around!) I haven't read any of the Strauss and Howe books yet. From the articles on them, it sounds like their idea of the 4GA and mine line up pretty closely. But I'm not sure how far to trust them. Since I'm only a armchair historian, with a technical background, I have a tendency to over-simplify history. But, even to me, it looks like Stauss and Howe are overextending the Great Awakening cycle. It's nice to have confirmation - but I'd like for it to come from somebody a little less looney.

I've been planning on working on the article some more - establishing a chronology of events, for example. But this would push the original research line even further. I'm quite willing to shove this mess into a real historian's lap. Or take some advice on how to proceed. Let me know what you think. crazyeddie 08:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My advice is to revise the article, covering much the same ground, but taking the approach that the 4GA is a theory proposed by such and such writers, referring to their specific claims as you go. You're not alone in thinking that the counter-culture movement of the 60s could be interpreted as a part of another Great Awakening, as seen here: [3]. Intriguing is this writer's view that "In many respects the rock concerts and festivals deserve comparison to the old camp meetings." I'd add that link, and find that book if you're game. Good luck! --Kevin Myers 14:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't know how much time I have to spare in the near future, but I'll get to it eventually... crazyeddie 18:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Smallpox and Amherst

Thanks for the Native Population link on the Smallpox/ Amherst article -- but people still keep putting the dispute box up. Maybe the topic is in everyone's intro history class or something. Perhaps we should think about a separate article on it after all. Title: Amherst and Biological Warfare? Amherst and Smallpox Infection? Also, I've been working on articles on the Prehistoric Southwest and added some prehistoric info (identical originally) to Navajo and Apache. As an Indiophile -- perhaps you could look them over. Comments welcome. WBardwin 01:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on revising Pontiac's Rebellion, and hope to expand the coverage there about the smallpox blanket incident. There's certainly enough room in that article to cover the incident in detail. I wonder if having a separate article about the incident will be of use? Maybe it will. Maybe having "Amherst", "smallpox", and "blankets" in the title of an article will help bring it near the top on google searches. There certainly is a plethora of inaccurate or incomplete or misleading web articles about the incident; maybe we can create the definitive web article (which of course will then attract vandals like flies; such is Wikipedia). We need a good title, which is the hard part. Amherst and smallpox blankets ? Amherst and smallpox ? Smallpox blankets ? (which could include the Churchill/Mandan allegations. --Kevin Myers 06:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC) (BTW, I don't know enough about Southwest Indians to be of much use in that area.)

Pontiac's Rebellion looks very good! I put the reference I found -- with those quotes -- on the talk page. The suspect Parkman book is probably the source. It would be wonderful to find some microfilm of the primary documents themselves. Will watch that page and help if I can. WBardwin 10:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)\

Carter Doctrine

The Carter clearly warns other powers, and not the Soviet Union by name; this according to all sources was done specifically & deliberately. It is a rewrite of history to categorically state the Carter Doctrine was singularly & solely addressed to the Soviet Union.

Go to the Carter Presidential Center for the evidence if you need to. --nobs

While I can support the validity of my edit with

(1) transcript of State of the Union Address 1980

(2) video clips

(3) policy discussion papers from the Carter Presidential Center Atlanta Georgia

to support President Carter's Presidential declaration that the security of the Persian Gulf was a vital strategic national interest that America would defend by force if necessary. The Carter Doctrine, like the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine was not limited to the Presidential term of those presidents, but was a stated Presidential foreign policy directive all presidential sucessors, of both partys, actively adhered to.

Nevertheless I would be interested in working out some compromise language, for example:

"While the Carter Doctrine was addressed to other powers, it was widely accepted at the time this meant the Soviet Union, (coming on the heals of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). Subsequent presidents, namely G.H.W. Bush used the Carter Doctrine declaration of Persian Gulf security as being vital to U.S. strategic national interests as the basis for Gulf War of 1991." thx--nobs

See my comments at Talk:Carter Doctrine --Kevin Myers 02:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

For your comments

The Carter Doctrine was proclaimed by President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980. In it he said:

"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Though the foreign policy statement warned any outside side, it was widely regarded as directed at the Soviet Union, prompted by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the previous December. The major articulation of American strategic foreign policy interests also was intended to assure American allies in the Persian Gulf of American protection.

The problem at the time was a retracted U.S. force structure as a result of the Vietnam build down , and there was concern the United States did not have the military forces necessary to counterman a movement upon the oil wells or disruption of shipping within the region. Also the question of whether the NATO alliance was prepared or willing to participate in actions outside of Europe. If Amercian forces were withdrawn from Europe to counterbalance a threat in the Gulf, that would leave Europe vulnerable to Soviet expansion. Thus it became alarmingly clear that American vital interests, alliance commitments, and fighting capability was almost solely dependent on nuclear weapons moreso than conventional fighting capability.

So a concensus emerged to rebuild America's conventional fighting capability, beginning with a Rapid Deployment Force which could be deployed from the United States to the Persian Gulf in the event of an emergency, without drawing down manpower from the NATO frontline.

Subsequent presidents have used the Carter Doctrine to safeguard America's vital interests since it was first articulated.

Referances

• National Security Directive-63

• As you can see, a page needs to be started on vital interests , perhaps we couild do a joint effort on that. This is the flaw of the current posting, it purports that Iran, a country to which the United Strates severed diplomatic relations with the year prior, and was not importing oil from on 23 January 1980, was of vital interest to the United States, of which America was prepared to use any mean necessary, i.e. a vailed referance to nuclear force, to defend against Soviet invasion. This I beleive is an incorrect reading of the policy stance. Need your input. --nobs