Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of New Hampshire

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 08:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of New Hampshire

Documented facts:

• New Hampshire Declared its Independence on January 5th, 1776, six months before the Continental Congress issued its Declaration of Independence.
• New Hampshire adopted its Constitution on January 5th 1776, long before the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781 and more than a decade before the US Constitution was ratified (by the independent Republic of New Hampshire, as the ninth ratifying state) on June 21, 1788.
• New Hampshire functioned as an entirely independent country between January 5, 1776 and Jun 21, 1788, with a republican form of government, under the title and seal of "Rei-pub Neo Hantoni" and "Republica Neo Hantoniensis" (as of 1784, when the state Constitution was revised).
• During its period of total independence, it issued passports, collected tariffs, raised armies and activated militias (which operated independently of the Continental Army), coined money, held elections, issued letters of marque, constructed naval vessels for combat, etc.
• The period of the independence of New Hampshire was at least as long as those experienced by the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii, and almost as long as the Republic of Vermont.
• It appears that The Commonwealth of Virginia and the Republic of South Carolina also declared their independence prior to the joint declaration of the Continental Congress.Citizenposse 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this page. There absolutely was a Republic of NH! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.238.62 (talk • contribs) .

there never was a so-called "Republic of New Hampshire" see Revolutionary New Hampshire: An Account of the Social and Political Forces Underlying the Transition from Royal Province to American Commonwealth Dartmouth College Publications. Hanover. 1936. Page 180 says: "On September 10, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was read before the legislature, whereupon an act was passed by the provisions of which the province assumed the name of the "State of New Hampshire."

The notion of a so-called "Republic of NH" is therefore a fraud concocted by militia groups in the 21st century. --Rjensen

• Question: I figured it was some sort of hoax. But my question is: is there enough info available to rewrite the article to describe the fraud, and what the militia groups say about this topic? --JW1805 (Talk) 19:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I can't find a single internet site with this term used in this context (although perhaps this is one (see post 1459). --JW1805 (Talk) 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Rjensen. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Of the two links provided, neither uses the word "republic". I'm no scholar, so I can't extrapolate a meaning to that, but it was worth mentioning. Danny Lilithborne 02:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am currently researching further, however the original Seal of New Hampshire held the title "Rei-pub Neo Hantoni", which is "Republic of New Hampshire". This version of the Seal remains in existence and is published by the state government on the cover of its official copies of the State Constitution. I can document this further if people are not in such a huff to jump the gun with their prejudices on this topic. Please do not be precipitous, allow a researcher to find further references. I can say that New Hampshire declared its own independence and named itself a Republic BEFORE the Continental Congress issued its own Declaration of Independence. When the US D of I was read before the New Hampshire Congress, it was accepted and the Congress voted for statehood. If you look at the dates here, you'll see I'm right: NH was an independent Republic before the US Declaration of Independence even existed. For the record, I am not and never have been a member of any militia group, so Rjensens aspersions are pure libel and slander. Citizenposse 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • South Carolina also declared independence before July 4th. What does that matter? All the 13 colonies were independent states until they ratified the Articles of Confederation in 1781. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Does Republic of Texas or Republic of Hawaii redirect to Texas or Hawaii? No, they do not. That someone has shafted the Republic of South Carolina is not an excuse to continue the injustice here. It is not the purpose of encyclopedias to bury, hide, suppress, or revise history to suit a left wing political agenda. Document it all, and let the people decide. Citizenposse 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is bog-standard "original research" -- Citizenposse is coming to his own conclusions based on his own research, not reporting on what scholars, legal experts, or even random joes are saying. And at least one of those cites relies upon on obvious typo to back up his claims (see Grand Army of the Republic). --Calton | Talk 07:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per the Commonwealth of Virginia comment below MLA 09:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to redirect per Virginia, then you must also redirect Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii as well. Are you prepared for the firestorm of THAT action?Citizenposse 23:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. They were both speedy kept. If this is a hoax, you'd best stop playing games. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No games are intended. I'm trying to point out that Republic of New Hampshire is being held to a double standard.Citizenposse 00:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii are recognized political entities by all historians. Do a Google search and you will find lots of links. "Republic of New Hampshire", I can't find a single relevant link for. That's the difference. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is you are terrible at searching. I did a google and quickly came up with the references below. Thus, you apparently have an agenda here. Citizenposse 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research and because there is strong evidence of a barrow being pushed, which is not what we ar here for. The comment that Carolina was "shafted" indicates an agenda being promoted, and the article as written shows strong evidence of that. Just zis Guy you know? 11:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"original research" is an excuse, not a justification. I need to find other documentation, which I do not have here at present, but which I've read in the past. What is the rush? Why the steamroller? Saying SC was "shafted" is merely a term, in that they didn't get the same treatment that Republic of Texas and Republic of Hawaii enjoy. Citizenposse 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: pure OR. --Hetar 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite and keep. Article as is - is a mess. And have people get the image from the first state seal and the documentation from the state congress then. Keep it NPOV and trim. - Sparky 02:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: There is a flag and a seal. Let editors find more references. Justforasecond 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• And if they do not? Do we go through this again? And in how much time? Air on the side of academic caution, delete it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge Political history should go into the New Hampshire article. New Hampshire's postcolonial period should be treated consistently with that of the other thirteen colonies. Of those, none are treated as if they were separate republics during that period. The Republic of South Carolina article refers to the state's status during 1860/1861, while Republic of Maryland and Republic of Georgia each refer to countries on different continents. Alternately, create articles for each of the other Thirteen Colonies during their post-Independence, pre-Confederation phase. -Ben 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

• House Bill 1641 of the New Hampshire Legislature

"I. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the general court by the people and expressed in article 4, part II, of the constitution for the Republic of New Hampshire, the general court shall reestablish and constitute a superior court of common law having general jurisdiction to provide justice for all and immunity for none. The common law court shall hear all actions arising out of the common law as usually practiced on in the courts of law prior to 1784, with strict adherence to all guaranteed rights reserved by the people and enumerated in the New Hampshire bill of rights and pursuant to part II, article 87 of the constitution for the Republic of New Hampshire." I can find hundreds of other bills dating back to 1989 on the state legislative database: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/index/ which also use the term "Republic of New Hampshire". It stands to reason that if the state of New Hampshire uses the term in its legislation that it must be accepted. Citizenposse 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• • So, in this context, it seems like the "Republic of New Hampshire" is some sort of official name for the state of New Hampshire? So why shouldn't the page redirect there? --JW1805 (Talk) 03:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, as I've told you before, the Republic is a different entity from the State. The State is an artificial corporate person which is governed by the legislators. The legislature brings the corporate State into being through its Acts, but it not itself the State, any more than the stockholders of Pepsico are the corporation. An artificial person cannot be made up of natural persons. It is a legal impossibility. Citizenposse 04:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Just out of curiosity, what else are artificial persons made up of? Septentrionalis 16:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
        • It's a distinction found at law, actually, even if Citizenposse is mucking up the meaning and confused on the applications. A corporation, for instance, is deemed an "artificial person" under the law. RGTraynor 16:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Not my question: In any sense in which NH can be said to be "made up" of natural persons, so is any corporation. So what is Citizenposse's point? Septentrionalis 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• History of the Town of Goffstown, NH 1880-1919

"At 1.30 o'clock the procession formed in front of the town hall, headed by the Hopkinton Band, Robert M. Gordon of Goffstown, Chief Marshal, Capt. Charles Stinson Post as escort, and marched to Carr's Corner on the southerly side of the river, and then returned to Monument Square. The monument was presented to the town of Goffstown by the donor, Henry W. Parker, and accepted by George L. Eaton, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. The dedicatory ceremony was performed by the officers of the Department of the Grand Army Republic of New Hampshire.

• • This is almost certainly a reference to the Grand Army of the Republic subject to a transcription error, not some reference to a century-old revival of a post-colonial organization. -Ben 15:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• The original Constitution of New Hampshire was framed by a convention, or "congress," which assembled at Exeter, December 21, 1775, (in accordance with a recommendation from the Continental Congress,) and completed its labors January 5, 1776. This was 9 months before the events referred to by User:Rjensen.
• NH Secty of State's Records of the Seal of New Hampshire See page 41, depicts the First State Seal (of 1776) with the title: "Sigill Rei-Pub Neo Hantoni". The Seal of 1784 also says "Republica Neo Hantoniensis" (Page 42). The 1848 to 1870 seal also says "Republicae Neo Hantoniensis" (page 43). So does every other Seal in the document up to 1916, when the current Seal was adopted. I believe that this conclusively proves my point. Citizenposse 03:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't. Your evidence seems to prove that the "Republic of New Hampshire" the same entity as New Hampshire, in which case it should just be a redirect. Just like Commonwealth of Virginia is a redirect to Virginia. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, as I've told you before, the Republic is a different entity from the State. The State is an artificial corporate person which is governed by the legislators. The legislature brings the corporate State into being through its Acts, but it not itself the State, any more than the stockholders of Pepsico are the corporation. An artificial person cannot be made up of natural persons. It is a legal impossibility. What is your bug?Citizenposse 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • How is the Republic of Texas any different from Texas? How is Republic of Hawaii any different from Hawaii? You are arguing for a double standard.Citizenposse 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I can prove that the legislators are not the state: Legislators do not, and cannot be made to pay any taxes, or have any deductions taken from their $200 per session pay. They are not servants of the State, the State is a servant of the legislature.Citizenposse 04:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • There is a double standard between NH and TX/HI, and correctly so. Texas and Hawaii each had a long existence as totally independent political entities with diplomatic recognition by European powers. None of the original colonies had such an existence, and New Hampshire's postcolonial existence should be consistent with how Wikipedia treats them, not with how it treats Texas or Hawaii. -Ben 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• 1784 NH militia flag bearing "Republicae Neo Hantoniensis"

"Framed Fragment of a Rare New Hampshire Militia Flag, hand-painted silk with central oval medallion with a wooden-hulled ship in dry dock on beach. Flag hanging at aft has garter surround in blue with gold lettering 1784 SIGILLUM REPUBLICAE NEO HANTONIENSIS. Second oval panel below also has blue ground with gold lettering 1st BATTN. N-H 2d REGT.. All with laurel wreath surround and 5-pointed rayed star surmount, framed in oval mahogany frame 26.75" x 32.5". "

• NH Secretary of State's office description of new and old Seals

"The old Latin phrase "Neo Hantoniensis 1784 Sigillum Republica" around the circular seal was replaced with "Seal of the state of New Hampshire 1776." "

• Delete this. OR. Is this envy of the Republic of Vermont? Septentrionalis 05:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. I am persuaded by the arguments of those who argue that there was a "Republic of New Hampshire." ---Tim Condon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.92.196.164 (talk • contribs) .

• Comment There was, and is, a republic of New Hampshire. It was formed January 5, 1776; it is guaranteed a republican form of government under the Constitution; its capital is Concord, and it is fully described in the article New Hampshire. Septentrionalis 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like original research. Most of the references given do not conclusively prove anything; they are used as part of the editor's own effort in trying to interpret New Hampshire's various seals. Other references only contain references to "Republic of New Hampshire" as a typo, rendering them completely irrelevant; this can possibly imply that the editor is grasping at straws. There is a single reference to "Republic of New Hampshire" in one document, but it seems to barely call for a merge to the main state history, as it still doesn't imply that the Republic was a recognized entity by historians, other nations, or other reliable sources. It was but a fleeting part of state history, which should be laid out like the rest of the histories of the other 13 colonies are, and per Ben's comment. I do not support a merge, however, as it is original research. Comparisons to the Republic of Texas and the Republic of Hawaii are ludicrous and the editor's nomination of those two articles for AfD are a blatant violation of WP:POINT. I will be happy to argue for a keep if more conclusive evidence can be provided. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Calling this fantasy pseudo-history "original research" glorifies it beyond its merits. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Possibly we might wish to consider why, in the most conservative and libertarian state in the Northeast, no one has ever heard of Mr. Posse's intriguing interpretation of the record, but that is beyond the scope of the AfD. RGTraynor 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete as not very verifiable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When a major government entity is created there always is a record, and a date when it happened. In this case there is no record, no date, no document, no citation in any history book. During the Revolution the Province of NH changed its name to the State of NH and never called itself the Republic of NH. All the history books agree on that. In recent years there is a militia group that is trying to set up a "republic of New Hampshire" -- try a google search. They talk about posse's a lot. Rjensen 19:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research and novel interpretations shouldn't be introduced into Wikipedia. Also, a pet peeve of mine, is people who argue there is proof of something in AFD, but don't bother to show the proof in the article. A properly sourced article, rarely needs such a lengthy defense in an AFD. --Rob 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor FinFangFoom 23:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm convinced there is something to the notion that New Hampshire had a separate existance for a period between the start of the war of independence and the ratification of the constitution. The material in the article, and the material presented here, are convincing enough evidence of that, assuming they're backed up with cites (which ought to be easy). I would oppose outright deletion of this material. What I'm not clear on is why this needs to be a separate article rather than a section of the main New Hampshire article. I'm also not clear on why Citizenposse needs to be so vehement, as his vehemence does his cause a disservice (sorry, but that's the way it is... if two exactly equal cases are presented, consensus here more often seems to go with the case that is presented more softly and reasonably ). I think Merge to New Hampshire with a redirect left behind is the right course of action. (For the record I wish redirects could target article sections, but I digress) ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article, merge into History of New Hampshire any information relevant to the few years prior to ratification of the constitution that isn't already there. The term "Republic of New Hampshire" was never used historically. - DavidWBrooks 00:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Data: The George Washington Papers in the Library of Congress are searchable.[1] he corresponded with NH officials because he commanded some of their militia regiments There are 5 letters containing the words "province of New Hampshire"; There are 35 letters containing "state of New Hampshire"' and zero containing "republic of New Hampshire" So if there was such a Republic, the commanding general was sending his mail to the wrong address Rjensen 01:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say delete. If nothing else, it's a combination of an (allegedly) historical article and a commentary on modern-day politics. GMcGath 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.