Talk:Fort Snelling, Minnesota
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Fort Saint Anthony construction predates Fort Snelling
Based upon MNHS information displayed during a personal mid-July 2006 site visit:
The original installation was begun in 1820 by LCOL Henry Leavenworth.[1] Construction of Fort Saint Anthony continued until 1825 when it received its current name upon completion in honor of Colonel Josiah Snelling. He commanded the regiment that finished building it, and oversaw most of its construction.
[edit] References
- -- geoWIZard-Passports 11:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mapping the Frontier Military Road
Fort Snelling was the northern-most outpost protecting commercial fur trading interests along the pre-1830's demarcation line of the U.S. Government's treaty-based "Indian Territory" ... The 1823 land and watershed survey expeditions supported by Fort St. Anthony helped guide future developments in the Wisconsin Territory.
[edit] See also
- Giacomo Beltrami - Upper Mississippi River Basin mapping expedition in 1823
- Fort Scott National Historic Site - Supplied by Fort Leavenworth wagon trains
- Stephen H. Long with the Permanent Indian Frontier Army's Topographical Engineers
- Patrolling the Indian Frontier
- -- geoWIZard-Passports 12:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Are there any females living there?
The census says there are 0.09. Kusma (討論) 12:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non-encyclopedic style
"Snelling was considered to be a reasonable commander—when he was sober. He was susceptible to becoming angry when ill from chronic dysentery, and he left the installation in September 1827 when recalled to Washington. He died a year later from complications due to dysentery and a "brain fever"."
I don't need to look at the wikipedia standards to know that this is not the correct style to be using. And while it is funny, and I did laugh out loud, I don't think it's what should be here... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.152.4 (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] County/counties
Look at http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/general_ref/cousub_outline/cen2k_pgsz/mn_cosub.pdf, pages 14 and 15: Fort Snelling abuts Ramsey County, but it doesn't extend into it: the entirety of the Ramsey County area is St. Paul, and an unorganized territory can't be within a city. Meanwhile, it's not at all in Dakota County; Lilydale officials would likely deny that there's any unincorporated area where their city lies. At the same time, consider this population estimates page: Fort Snelling is listed exclusively in county 53, which is Hennepin County. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think there's some confusion about what this article is about. There's Fort Snelling the unorganized territory, Fort Snelling the fort and then Fort Snelling the surrounding land including the state park. The unorganized territory might only be in Hennepin county but Appraiser is correct in that the land associated with the fort stretches into all three counties. The National Historic Landmark for example is for the fort and not the territory. I think this article might need to be split into separate articles to avoid confusion. Any thoughts? ~ Eóin (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Try to confine it to this article, and see if there's enough info for more than one article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been thinking that this article needs some work to explain the different areas of the fort. Pike Island is definitely in Ramsey County, is within Fort Snelling State Park, and is historically significant. Picnic Island is in Dakota County, is within Fort Snelling State Park, and is historically significant.[1] This discussion began due to changes to Template:Ramsey County, Minnesota and Template:Dakota County, Minnesota. It's hard to me to understand the argument that these islands shouldn't be represented in their respective county templates. Looking at detailed maps, they certainly are as I described and the islands are "unorganized territories." Why remove those areas from the county templates?--Appraiser (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anything geographically within a county should certainly be in its template. I'm just saying this article shouldn't be splintered, as I doubt there's enough material to justify it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- After looking at some maps I think I understand the issue. Fort Snelling the statistical entity is located solely in Hennepin County, however the state park and the conventional idea of Fort Snelling are in all three counties. The problem right now is this article is too focused on the statistical entity. I think the article should be split up with "Fort Snelling, Minnesota" being about the statistical entity and an article named just "Fort Snelling" about the fort and its historical significance. Thinking of Fort Snelling as a statistical entity is rather outdated, it appears the only residents are that of the VA home. I don't think the amount of material justifies a split but combing these articles is rather confusing. No one refers to Fort Snelling as a territory but rather as the fort and state park. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- When you watch their film at historic Fort Snelling, they treat all of it as a continuum. I don't see the point in splitting it out if they don't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- After looking at some maps I think I understand the issue. Fort Snelling the statistical entity is located solely in Hennepin County, however the state park and the conventional idea of Fort Snelling are in all three counties. The problem right now is this article is too focused on the statistical entity. I think the article should be split up with "Fort Snelling, Minnesota" being about the statistical entity and an article named just "Fort Snelling" about the fort and its historical significance. Thinking of Fort Snelling as a statistical entity is rather outdated, it appears the only residents are that of the VA home. I don't think the amount of material justifies a split but combing these articles is rather confusing. No one refers to Fort Snelling as a territory but rather as the fort and state park. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anything geographically within a county should certainly be in its template. I'm just saying this article shouldn't be splintered, as I doubt there's enough material to justify it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been thinking that this article needs some work to explain the different areas of the fort. Pike Island is definitely in Ramsey County, is within Fort Snelling State Park, and is historically significant. Picnic Island is in Dakota County, is within Fort Snelling State Park, and is historically significant.[1] This discussion began due to changes to Template:Ramsey County, Minnesota and Template:Dakota County, Minnesota. It's hard to me to understand the argument that these islands shouldn't be represented in their respective county templates. Looking at detailed maps, they certainly are as I described and the islands are "unorganized territories." Why remove those areas from the county templates?--Appraiser (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Try to confine it to this article, and see if there's enough info for more than one article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)