Talk:Albany Congress

Untitled
I've found the minutes of the Albany Congress online. I'd add them to the main article, but I have no idea how. http://earlytreaties.unl.edu/treaty.00005.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.229.208 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Incompletion
The list of representatives is incomplete. Depending on which source is used, there were either 21 or 23. Anybody having another name, please add it. I have an idea about the count difference. Peter Wraxall was William Johnson's secretary, and secretary to the Congress. Atkinson also brought a secretary (Dr. Joseph Moses). Neither of these two was an official 'member' of the Congress. Lou I 03:54 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

George
King George III, not King George II —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.143.174 (talk • contribs) 22 September 2006.
 * Not sure what this sentence fragment is intended to mean, but George II was king at the time of the Congress. - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Albany Plan of Union Loop
The wikified Albany Plan of Union link in the first paragraph links directly back to this page. The link should either be de-wikified, or should link to a page on the Albany Plan of Union. Matt 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's been three weeks, so I'm just gonna de-wikify the link for now. It seems like there should be a separate page for the Albany Plan of Union, though. Matt 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

DGDeL
…10:55 A.M. South Yarmouth Mass Public Library 4-5-2008

I Thought as early as 1754 we would understand that the Albany conference and or Covention was the same thing as the Albany Plan the plan was to unite, also the plan the Indians had for allowing more Commissioners to the Conference in order for a Convention to take place was the efforts in which to represent the Colonies for their advancements had been towards their own matters concerning the Fronteer and local hostilities concerning some Indian Encrouchments within.

It is also a study for me that i have read when the representatives of the Convention were to adopt their own constitutions and to be reviewed at the Conference, and for a submiting to it, it would then be reframed to a single matter this is when Benjimen Franklin was Commissioned for this Duty to Course the Legislature with one proposel and when he did the end paregraph and or sentances read that a Governor could be Vetoed and this is what lead most to be of concern which perhaps left it as a non unionized matter or Provincial.

Cheif Justice DeLancey and King George The Second recognised this and it was not submitted as a full Pledged matter until revised once again, this is what i had concluted though for sure my searching continues and then to be put in full order.

I do recognise though that Mr. Franklin did reveiw other constitutions and was permitted to converse one in full and i am in currious of why this isn't located at a degree concerning the Albany Plan, i do realise that some representatives are noticed at the bottom along with Mr. DeLancey whom is stated first and also had a form of constitutional effort or were they Declarations ofcourse there were some of those before this time of effort.

Thank You 11:11 A.M. David George DeLancey (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Albany Plan?
A discussion has just barely begun on Talk:Albany Plan with regards to whether or not Albany Plan and Albany Congress should be merged. I'm not much of a historian, but I personally don't understand why the two articles are separate, as they seem so similar. I wanted to know whether others agree or disagree with the idea of merging, and, if at all possible, why they feel that way. Thank you. Greengreengreenred (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

73.149.185.198 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This comment was made a few years ago, but I think it's worth a brief answer. These articles shouldn't be merged any more than you would merge articles on the Declaration of Independence with the Second Continental Congress, or the Constitution with the Constitutional Convention.  One is about the meetings, the sessions held, the delegates, etc., while the other is about the result of the meetings, the plan itself.  Also, the plan was not the primary purpose of the convention, discussion of defense for the French and Indian War was.  The plan was a sidebar (albeit substantial) part of the convention.

Jealous of their powers
The plan was rejected by the colonies' legislatures, which were "jealous of their powers".

What supports this assertion? In reading the "Anti-Federalist" papers, it's very evident there were well reasoned opinions that such a union was not in the "people's" best interest. True, these papers came well after the events described in this article, but you can be certain the reservations existed at the time of this proposal also. The "jealous of their powers" is found in the "Federalist papers". No such jealousy is evident in the3 "anti-federalist" papers.WithGLEE (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)