Talk:New England Confederation

Confederation's ending date
There is a problem with this sentence:

"The confederation disintegrated in 1684 after Massachusetts refused to join the war against the Netherlands during the First Anglo-Dutch War."

The First Anglo-Dutch War ended in 1654. The New England attack on the New Netherlands was aborted in June of that year. So either the 1684 breakup date is wrong or the date is correct and the cause is wrong. I suspect it is the former (the Massachusetts and, IIRC, Plymouth colonies both stayed out) but my currently available sources don't tell me.

209.175.55.70 19:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record: This appears to have been fixed. The NEC was weakened in 1654, dissolved in the 1680s, so says the current text. Allreet (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of New Hampshire?
The map appears to be inaccurate by not including the 4 towns that made up New Hampshire at the time. In 1641 the towns - today called Portsmouth, Dover, Hampton, and Exeter - merged with Massachusetts. New Hampshire was not separated from Massachusetts until 1679. Thus, that part of New Hampshire would have been included in the New England Confederation, as part of Massachusetts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.56.21 (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Needs research...New Hampshire still unmentioned. Whatever the resolution, please put this comment to rest (update it). Allreet (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Confederation's start date
The Avalon project gives May 19th as the initiation date. The source I added gives May 29th (Biographies and Legens of New England Indians, VIII). This source states August 29th. Anyone got anything else?radek (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=tj4WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false (The History of Connecticut: From Its Earliest Settlement to the Present Time) gives May 19th Thisdaytrivia (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Twelve clauses
The source used for this article outlines twelve clauses in the treaty, not ten, as the article previously stated. Seeing as you're the contributing and knowledgeable editor, could you summarize the two clauses still missing. Thanx for your efforts btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, Sure thing. The reason why I did't include them is because the two other clauses (The first being a preamble and the last being a summary of what seems to be clerical signatory requirements) do not function in the same way as the others. The middle 10 are the rules which govern the treaty. I can do some slight reformatting to make this more clear. Thank you for your comment. Tpwissaa (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just looked at numbers which count up to twelve. While the first paragraph/clause doesn't have an actual numeral '1', the following clause is numbered 2, and so forth. I'll leave the matter up to you. Also I've been trying to restore the opening statement in the Treaty section which was pointlessly removed by another editor. Your original opening statement mentions that the colonies were expanding which is what prompted the call for a treaty. I've restored the statement, but if it's deleted again, I'd recommend it be restored. I'll leave that up to you also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing the numbers and adjusting the list to bullet points. Like I said I don't really think the opening of the treaty, which is effectively a justification and preamble justifies a clause, but thank you for being diligent. As for the treaty section deletion I agree with you. The source literally says that the purpose of the treaty is because they are expanding more than they intended and they need a more effective method of defense and communication. I'm not sure what is prompting the other user's deletions. Thank you for your comment and ongoing work.Tpwissaa (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem was with the vague and lengthy initial dependent clause. I have attempted to make sense of it, but a problem remains which I cannot address: they "sought an alliance and further integration". What on earth does that mean? Integration of what? Integration into what? And why?? This is why I was simply deleting previously, but I'm happy to keep the material in—provided that it is meaningful and clear. At present it is neither. Can one of you please clarify the meaning of that final phrase? —Dilidor (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Insert) Well, I fail to see any confusion about this straight forward idea of "further integration". The idea was to integrate the colonies in terms of the treaty, laws that "coordinate" the defense of the colonies. The 'why' of it all was and is explained. What's not to get here? In any case "coordinate" works just as well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dilidor. As always I appreciate your input, I am well aware of your abilities as a wiki editor. The references show the colonial leaders sought further integration of the New England colonies into some sort of united political entity. They are not overtly clear in what their final political project would be. What is certain, based on the founding of this confederation and the texts, is their desire to centralize aspects (collective defense and communication with other colonies) of their colonies into a more integrated political entity. Their colonial expansion and contact with the colonies of other nations put them in what they saw as a precarious situation. As they said in the "preamble" to this treaty they see themselves as a separate entity/nation to the other colonies in the new world and they sought to preserve their Puritan way of life. I don't know if this helps explain my thinking, I hope it does. I am more than willing to do a rewrite of the paragraph that removes any vague information.Tpwissaa (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your excellent clarification. I think it makes a much fuller explanation of the background, and have used it as such in that section. Let me know if it needs any adjustment. —Dilidor (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. Just a reminder that if anything is vague it's usually because not enough was written. Simply chopping away info rarely accomplishes increased clarity, unless of course it involves removing lengthy, tangential and off topic prose, which certainly was not the case here. My main contention, as you know, was that the idea of colonial expansion was removed.  I've no problems with a particular wording so long as we are not chopping away basic facts as was initially done. IMO, clarity comes by including the basic premise about a particular topic and then building on that. Cheers.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Single-source, questionable NPOV, bordering original research
I really appreciate the in-depth analysis that you have added in the new subsections on "confrontation with England". I've done a copy edit, but I'm a little concerned about a few issues: 1) it's a single-source for all the new material; 2) what you've written strongly reflects the viewpoints of that single source; 3) the entirety borders on original research. I don't want to just cut it out because it is helpful explication, but I'm wondering if we can address these concerns. Thoughts? —Dilidor (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Dilidor. Thank you for your comment, I appreciate your concerns. I am currently working with a few different sources dealing with the time period and hope to continue to update the section shortly. Would these continued edits from different sources help? The other texts are consistent with the source already used.Tpwissaa (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good grief! I have no idea how I managed to post this here instead of where it belonged on the Mass. Bay Colony article. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste this to that talk page so that we can continue it where it's pertinent. A real brain fart here. –Dilidor (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggested source for updates, other POVs
The following, from 2018, may provide additional information to supplement Ward and J.Q. Adams: Repairing the Breach: Puritan Expansion, Commonwealth Formation, and the Origins of the United Colonies of New England, 1630-1643.

To make life easy, here's a completed "Further Reading" or Sources item:

Dugre, Neal T. "Repairing the Breach: Puritan Expansion, Commonwealth Formation, and the Origins of the United Colonies of New England, 1630–1643." The New England Quarterly, vol. 91, no. 3, The New England Quarterly, Inc., 2018, pp. 382–417.

And a completed citation (commented out to prevent display). Allreet (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)