Talk:District of Columbia (until 1871)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Territory of Columbia"[edit]

The article states that before the Act of 1801, the District of Columbia was allegedly called the Territory of Columbia. Please tell us, on the basis of what law is this assumption based? In the Residence Act of 1790, it is simply called "district". In" An Act Concerning the District of Columbia " of 1801, they are talking about the division of the District of Columbia into two districts, and from the very beginning there we are talking about the District of Columbia. There is not a word in this act that previously it was not a district, but the Territory. I saw a map of the late 18th century (see here), which shows the proposed "Territory of Colombia", which was planned to be created in the future. Nowhere else have I seen any mention of the "Territory of Colombia". I think it never existed. --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need for this article - ?[edit]

I don't believe this article needs to exist. The issue was discussed at length here, and at the end, important questions remained about how an article about the "separate legal entity" of the "District of Columbia prior to 1871" would differ at all from the existing article at Washington, D.C.. Indeed the "District of Columbia" and "City of Washington" have nearly identical histories until 1871, at which point they were merged. When we were done with that discussion, my sense was that any draft article would be prepared in a sandbox or draft space and then discussed to see if creating it was worthwhile.

In any case if this article is to remain in main space, it needs references (it really has none now) and has to be rewritten as a proper encyclopedia article. As it stands there are several instances of POV / editorial phrasing and chatty tone that can't remain, like "Virginia fancied itself the most modelic of the states", "The capitol of the U.S. in Virginia? The New England states would have none of that" and "Residents of Alexandria were soon unhappy about being in the District". Thoughts, comments, welcome. JohnInDC (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Washington, D.C., the article History of Washington, D.C. likewise covers the history of the District (along with the City of Washington) from prehistoric days, through 1871 and to the present. Further, the history of retrocession, along with the reasons for it, is covered in abundant detail at District of Columbia retrocession. I think it would be a good idea to figure out what information might be presented in this article that is not already present in these three existing articles (plus whichever others may overlap). Then we can figure out whether that additional information warrants an entirely separate article, or if the existing articles can't simply be adjusted to reflect it. JohnInDC (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a request, i got into this topic through the slave trade, since Alexandria was a slave trade center. (See Franklin and Armfield Office.) And I got to find out that this was a key issue in the retrocession, and I went to look for the article on the District of Columbia — and to my enormous surprise, there wasn’t one! An article on Washington D. C. isn’t the same.
I don’t know why this is even controversial. Prior to 1871, Washington was a city and D.C. was a district. Didn’t they have separate administrations and, in details at least, separate laws (like Georgetown did as well)? And the district was pretty far from the city of Washington on slavery, wasn’t it. In fact so far apart that the District and the city of Washington split up on the issue of slavery. That section of the District that was not part of Washington wanted to preserve slavery. So the District split up, the remainder of the District that did want limitations on slavery merged with the city of Washington, and the portion of the District that did not want restrictions on slavery seceded from the District and went back to Virginia. So the District, as a separate polity, went out of existence. It’s an important chapter in our history, especially because of the slavery link. No existing article addresses it adequately, in my opinion. (There's also no article on slavery in either the District or Washington.)
The United States is made up of 50 states and the District of Columbia. Not 50 states and Washington, D.C. The District until 1871 deserves its own article. In fact that scope was suggested by somebody else in the prior discussion.
I’m going to fight this all the way if you propose deleting it.
Could this article be improved? Of course it could. But that’s a different issue. I decided it was more than adequate to post. deisenbe (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrocession and the reasons for it - including the issue of slave trade in Alexandria - are covered at District of Columbia retrocession, Washington,_D.C.#Retrocession_and_the_Civil_War, and Alexandria,_Virginia#Early_19th_century. If you think the matter of the slave trade in that history needs amplification, then amplify it in articles where it is already covered. Or - create an article on "Slavery in the District of Columbia" to shine a brighter light on that specific issue. But don't, for the sake of a single issue that can be captured in two or three sentences, create an entirely new article about a very broad subject that wholly duplicates one history that is already comprehensively covered at Washington, D.C., Retrocession, and History of Washington, D.C.. Now, if you know of differences in the way the District, and Georgetown, and the City of Washington were administered or run or operated between retrocession and 1871, and have sources that talk about them - then please offer them up so that we can talk about whether they warrant any kind of separate approach. Until then, as matters now stand, the overlap is so complete that I'm not sure why this isn't a candidate for A10 speedy deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clearer. You need to describe what issues or facts, for which you have reliable sources, aren't already covered by the Washington, D.C., History of Washington, D.C. and District of Columbia retrocession - and can't be. Please be specific. It's not enough just to say that the "District" and the "City" were separate legal entities. That may be so but why is it important? How did their separateness manifest itself? Did they argue? You need to be able to say what (sourced) things about the "City of Washington" and the "District of Columbia" reflect such differences in them that the legal distinction is important to make; and why the differences can't handled in two or three new sentences (or a new section) in any (or all) of the existing articles. Right now the article is completely redundant: You have a "choice of location" section that's already covered in History of Washington, D.C., a "retrocession" section that's covered in much greater detail in the Retrocession article, and a sentence about the Organic Act, which is in the existing DC articles. There's not a new thing in it. JohnInDC (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here’s my position:
  1. There is no article on the District of Columbia.
  2. There should be one.
  3. The history of the District of Columbia is not the same as the history of Washington D.C. (until 1871). deisenbe (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; thanks. I've nominated the page for deletion, here. We'll see what the community thinks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disagreement about a hatnote (!) — Referee needed[edit]

The first hatnote @JohnInDc put in was (only the 2nd sentence):

  • This article is about the history of the District of Columbia as a separate legal entity. For the complete history of the District of Columbia, see History of Washington, D.C.

I changed this to:

Now he has changed it to:

@JohnInDc (interesting that it's not @JohnInWashington) believes that whether this article exists or not, anyone coming to it looking for historical information should go to the Washington article.

As I see it, if the article is going to exist (and JohnInDc leads the opposition to that), it can't begin by directing people elsewhere to get the content of the article. deisenbe (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness' sake. History of Washington, D.C. includes the complete history of the District, including everything that's in this article. That article doesn't start in 1871 and is a better source for information prior to 1871 than what's here. It's misleading - and silly - to imply that it contains anything less than that. JohnInDC (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something else too. The "District of Columbia" was always a separate legal entity. It just happened that for 70 years, other municipalities were included within its boundaries. The 1871 Act didn't establish the District. It abolished two others. As I've just said at the AfD, if there's something missing in Wikipedia, it's an article about the "City of Washington", which existed separately for 70 years, and doesn't exist any more, and has no article devoted exclusively to it in the encyclopedia. That's the article that needs to be written. Not this one. JohnInDC (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the same vein. This article describes itself as concerning the "original" District of Columbia. But the existing District of Columbia - the legal, formal entity, now commonly known as "Washington, DC" - is the "original" District. Its boundaries were reduced in 1846 by retrocession, but that's just its size and shape. It's the same corporate, legal entity that was formed back in 1801. Today's District is that District. And even supposing that I'm being pedantic, that this DC is not the "original" DC - then the article still goes too far, because after 1846 the boundaries of the District didn't change at all. Washington and Georgetown were abolished in 1871, but they were always within the District (their residents had no presidential vote), and the boundaries of the District didn't change when they went away. In 1871, lots changed for Georgetown and the City but nothing happened to the District. It remained the same truncated diamond that it had become in 1846, and the same legally separate entity that it was when it was founded in 1801 and remains until the present day. Covering the period 1801 - 1871 is both wrong (nothing changed after 1846) and arbitrary (nothing changed in 1871). So many problems with the article that you want to have - but they just about all go away if you shift your focus to the City of Washington. JohnInDC (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still another possibility: "Governance within the District of Columbia, 1801-1871" (or similar). This is easy to set up: 1801, District founded, includes existing cities of Georgetown, Alexandria; City of Washington, added 1802. These four separately chartered entities each had their own governments; describe each. Alexandria was peeled off in 1846; and in 1871, Washington and Georgetown were abolished and merged into a unitary District of Columbia. Such an article could address the differences among the co-existing entities with only so much history and background as might be necessary to set up the distinctions. You don't need, for example, to repeat at length (or at all) that the District was sited where it was as a compromise among the northern and southern states, or that Geo. Washington was picked to locate the District because he knew the area (or b/c maybe it would increase the value of Mt. Vernon, hm) - none of that would need to be covered in detail in such an article, because it's not really relevant to the matters covered in this one that aren't sufficiently addressed in existing ones. The question I keep asking myself is, what is supposed to be covered in a "history of the District, 1801-1871" that isn't covered in the existing "history of the District, 1801-present"; and this is what I come up with. JohnInDC (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

let's keep this article[edit]

I worked on this article yesterday, coming to it from a pending AfD discussion. I found:

  • the District of Columbia has a history that differs in important ways from the history of the City of Washington (1802-1871) and Washington D.C. (1871-present). The City of Washington was one of three independent cities within the much larger District, three cities of roughly equal size in 1801. Its citizens were governed differently. The City always had a mayor; the District had no executive. The District once included 30 square miles and the city of Alexandria ceded from Virginia, then returned in 1847 in a split related to slavery, none of which had any effect on the political status of the City of Washington.
  • the other articles touching on the District's history (such as History of Washington, D.C., District of Columbia retrocession, District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871) are not always clear or accurate about the District's separate existence. For one example, the List of mayors of Washington, D.C. includes a list of mayors of the independent city of Georgetown from 1790-1871. That's simply and confusingly in the wrong place; those guys were never mayors of Washington or of Washington DC. They don't retroactively "belong" to Washington DC. For another example, the Timeline of Washington, D.C. is unclear about the distinction between the District and the City of Washington. Other articles are unclear or flatly wrong about the disenfranchisement of the District's citizens. Et cetera.
  • this separate article focused on the District of Columbia (1801-1871) usefully highlights these issues and errors. So, yes, it still needs work.

But let's keep this article. --Lockley (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a need for a separate article for the period of co-existence and the confusing governmental authority that reigned during that time, this article isn't it. First, the period 1801-1871 is an almost arbitrary slice of the District's history. 1871 was practically just another year. The District has had a continuous corporate existence from 1801 to today. It is the same entity. Retrocession in 1846 made it smaller but did not affect its existence or governance otherwise. The City of Washington and Port of Georgetown lost their separate corporate existence in 1871. That year was certainly significant for them, but not for the District, which, again, retained its original corporate charter and continued on as it had. The District did get a new form of government in 1871, but that's barely special, let alone a watershed event that requires splitting the District's history in half. A quick look at District_of_Columbia_home_rule#History_of_self-government reveals that the District lost any form of local government in 1874, thereafter being overseen directly by Congress for almost 100 years, when in 1967 yet another form (also all federally appointed) was installed. The government changed again in 1973 when Home Rule was effectively introduced, and that form remains essentially the same now in 2018.
I've made the point several times. If the District articles are unclear then fix the District articles. If we need to say more about the separate way in which the City of Washington was governed when it existed, let's create an article about the City of Washington that lays that out. There's no such article right now, none at all! For a city that existed for 69 years! Likewise if Georgetown (Washington, D.C.) is muddled, then let's un-muddle it rather than leave it as is and suppose to fix it by patching it with this new article whose title doesn't even say what it is trying to do.
I can go on. "Disenfranchisement" didn't end in 1871. Like both the District's corporate existence and its malleable municipal governance, disenfranchisement has been exactly the same problem from 1801 through to today. None of those three things are 1801-1871 issues vis-a-vis the District. So what are they doing in this article? Then too, if you really mean to say that the first 70 years in the District's history were so qualitatively different from what followed that it demands its own telling in a separate article, I can't see how you justify leaving that identical history in at Washington, D.C.. Even though it is, in fact and law, the "District of Columbia". So you pull it out, and now a reader comes to Wikipedia and looks up Washington, DC, and is left with the curious impression that the today's District of Columbia, which dates to 1790 and was founded in 1801, didn't meaningfully come into existence until 1871.
If you think the curious and confounding governmental operations within the District boundaries deserve more attention, make an article about "Municipal governance in the District until 1871". Or one about the City of Washington. But not this article. This article makes no sense. JohnInDC (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we could agree to rename this article “Municipal government in the District of Columbia (1801-1871)“, I would happily contribute to it. JohnInDC (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, @JohnInDC:, that's a good offer. If you're willing to rescind your AfD listing for this page, I'm sure we could constructively settle on another name here, and save somebody the time of closing the deletion discussion. I would want to invite User:Deisenbe's opinion as well. --Lockley (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I would do that. Everything that seems to be missing from the DC articles relates to the City of Washington or the other subordinate entities, and relates to local governmental authority. JohnInDC (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you make it DC's government, that would omit the slavery issue, which, as I see it, has to be included. deisenbe (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what "the slavery issue" is, that isn't covered in the existing articles, and what specifically about that one issue demands an entirely separate yet totally redundant (but for that one thing) new article on the District of Columbia, aka Washington, DC? Why not just write an article entitled, Slavery in the District of Columbia, 1801-1871? That seems like a fine and sensible undertaking. JohnInDC (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed, as I see it, is an article on the District of Columbia, not an article on municipal government. When there are articles on:

Why does an article on the District of Columbia, full stop, provoke such resistance? What's controversial about it? Are there political implications? deisenbe (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, we know how the naming works, no one is opposed to using the term "District of Columbia". The issue is that this article is REDUNDANT. There is no information that is not already at History of Washington, D.C. or cannot be easily incorporated there. My wiki-philosophy is that it is inappropriate to duplicate the same material across multiple articles when one will suffice. It does a disservice to the reader to read about establishment, government, retrocession, and the organic act in two different places written two different ways (three ways if you count District of Columbia retrocession and several other related topics). This is not a separate topic - anything relating to the pre-1871 District of Columbia is still part of Washington, District of Columbia,'s history. JohninDC's proposal to limit this article to such pre-merger municipal government is reasonable, provided that it is formulated as a clear subarticle of History of Washington, D.C. without the significant overlap and duplication there is currently. Reywas92Talk 01:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at this collection of subsidiary articles on the District (retrocession, 1801 act, 1871 act, etc), that supposedly already contains a complete and correct District history if you take them together. If these articles were in good condition, there wouldn't be anything wrong with establishing a central backbone article, for this valid historical placename, discussing its general history, each section pointing to further detail. These subsidiary articles aren't in great condition though. They're often misleading about this key difference between these two entities and placenames, talking interchangeably about the city and the district. Forty years' worth of mayors of Alexandria D.C. [were entirely missing from the encyclopedia], presumably because of the lack of clarity about the city's political status. There's more to say about Alexandria's frustrated history within the District that has little or nothing to do with the City of Washington. (Which also deserves its own page.) I understand there's going to be overlap with existing articles. In good humor and good fiath I still believe DC 1801-1871 is a valid focus for an article. --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Complaining about the state of other articles is not justification to create another article. You're saying the others are not "in good condition", so why not improve them first, and then split (not duplicate) from a subsection when necessary? Yes there will be some overlap when using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE but that does not appear to be the case here. This is just another article to be maintained, rather than allowing contributors to focus on more consolidated pages. I highly doubt the mayor article was missing that because people had no idea it had a mayor during that time, more likely that it's a low-trafficked page without an obvious source for a list such as the city's website – what is the reason you did not include a citation with the list you just added?? Reywas92Talk 03:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no information that is not already at History of Washington, D.C. or cannot be easily incorporated there. My wiki-philosophy is that it is inappropriate to duplicate the same material across multiple articles when one will suffice". I'm not proposing duplicating material in different articles. But it seems clear now, from the discussion, that some of the information in the History of Washington DC article does not belong there, because it’s not about Washington, and should be moved to an article on the History of the District of Columbia. "Anything relating to the pre-1871 District of Columbia is still part of Washington, District of Columbia,'s history." I disagree. That's like saying there's no need for an article on Brooklyn because the history of Brooklyn is part of the history of New York City.
Alexandria was in the District of Columbia. It has never been in Washington.deisenbe (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for God's sake. We have an article on "The District of Columbia". A Good Article no less. This article resides at Washington, D.C., which is the commonname for the political subdivision that is legally and formally today, "The District of Columbia". The existing article gives the complete history of the District of Columbia, which was founded in 1801, shrunken a bit in 1846, and given its first (of a long series) local governments in 1871, and up to the present day. We don't need another article on that very same political entity. The District has been the same District since 1801. Same constitutional origin, same charter, same boundaries (save 1846) throughout. It was always the seat of the Federal government as well - 1801 all the way up to present day. If there is confusion about the respective roles of the different entities included within it - their powers, their responsibilities, etc., then clear up the confusion in the (existing, comprehensive) article on the District of Columbia, and say whatever else needs to be said in collateral articles - Alexandria, Georgetown (which have articles here) and the City of Washington, 1802-1871, which - huh, doesn't! At all! If the (existing) District article muddies up the difference between "Washington" and "the District" then clear the mud. And then write a City of Washington article about that entity, and state clearly within it how it differed during its existence from the District of Columbia. As deisenbe points out, we have dozens of articles on the District. None on the City of Washington. Why wouldn't we add that one instead of adding yet another on the District? And finally the Brooklyn analogy is false. The correct analog is to the "City of Washington", which was a subdivision of the District of Columbia, just like Brooklyn is a subdivision of New York City. Making a new, separate article on the "District of Columbia" when we have one on "Washington, DC" is like making a new article on "NYC" when we have one on "New York City". It's the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnInDC (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So after all this back and forth, I see three things that (may be) need to be highlighted, or brought into better relief, or cleaned up in the encyclopedia, insofar as the District of Columbia is concerned.

  • One is the nature and scope of the different municipal authorities that existed within the District of Columbia until the internal entities were abolished and government of the territory unified under District authority.
  • Two is, or might be, confusion in existing articles about whether at different points the articles are properly referring to "the District", the "City of Washington", "Georgetown" or (less commonly) "Alexandria" when those entities existed separately within the District.
  • Three is "slavery in the District".

As to (1) - the solution seems pretty straightforward. If these issues are not well-addressed here already, make an article that addresses them. This happens all the time - something needs deeper treatment than it can expect in the main article. Retrocession is a good example. It's in the main article and it has its own. So let's write, "Governments within the District, 1801-1871". Also "City of Washington". Right? It used to exist, and yet there's - weirdly - no article about it! As to (2) - clean up existing articles (I mean, if they're wrong or confusing, then fix them!), and link to the article that got written for (1). As for (3) - well, write the article. What I don't understand, what totally mystifies me, is why we need another article about every single thing that happened in the District of Columbia between 1801 and 1871 to address these few matters. And no one has explained it with anything approaching clarity. JohnInDC (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cast this another way. What's the narrative for the 1801-1871 article? If there's something special about that period in the District's history that isn't sufficiently captured in the various other articles, what is it? The article (as presented) expressly begins in 1801. Why? It ends in 1871. Why? It isn't that, DC passed out of existence in 1871, or that disenfranchisement ended, or that the seat of the federal government moved, or that slavery in the District ended (that was 1862). Is it, maybe, that "during the period 1801-1871, the political entity DC included within it several other separate political entities, which raised a variety of intergovernmental issues"? If so then let's give the article a more descriptive name than "1801-1871". If that's not it, then what is the theme sentence, what do we say to a reader who comes to the article and wonders what's here that's not already in the existing articles? I've been struggling with this since the article came into being. JohnInDC (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedeia is not complete without an article on the District of Columbia, called District of Columbia. There is none. End of story. No article on Washington DC, no matter how thorough, does or can replace it. IMHO deisenbe (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that but never explain it. If we just renamed "Washington, DC" as "District of Columbia" - because, that's what it is, what would be missing? What would be so grievously omitted that we would need a new article - and what would you propose to call it, knowing that "District of Columbia" (from inception through to today) was already taken? JohnInDC (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what about "City of Washington"? There's your "no article"! JohnInDC (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JohnInDC:, how are you? Couple of things for you directly. I see and appreciate your statement that the collection of supporting articles on the District do indeed need some work. They do. I see and appreciate your offer, on my talk page, to rescind the AfD if we could rename this article "Municipal government in the District of Columbia (1801-1871)". Thank you. I'm personally open to a name change of some kind..... consensus would be good.... but that gets to your question about, "What is this article supposed to be?" My opinion is that this article is supposed to be the main article for the history of the District of Columbia. Wikipedia should have an article like that. After 1871, the District of Columbia and Washington and Washington D.C. are obviously the same entity, and that's fine, no problems with names. Before 1871, the history of the District is a very different animal than Washington, look at the map, with a bigger territory, separate and very weird governance, a 3x or 4x larger population, city-county tensions over slavery on both sides of the Potomac, and finally a miniature seccession on its hands. Before 1871 the District is BIGGER than any of its three cities. You talk about the District as if it's a mere synonym, just the empty box Washington came in. So..... as to the name change -- how about "History of the District of Columbia (1801-1871)"? --Lockley (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've put that very well, and I agree with you. But there also needs to be an article just on the District. deisenbe (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:District_of_Columbia_(until_1871)&oldid=1201563462"