Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of New Hampshire

I have officially requested mediation. Rjensen has violated WP:NPA in personal attacks, slander against me, accusing me here on this page of committing fraud and being associated with militia groups, both on this page, and in comments on the editing history of the History of the United States Republican Party. He has also violated the reversion limit rule in reverting that page 4 times in one day. This is to notify Rjensen of this dispute.Citizenposse 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm missing something; how is this pertinent to the AfD? RGTraynor 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rjensen made one of his personal attacks here on this page. Policy requires posting notification on all affected pages.Citizenposse 21:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you must discuss this on an AFD page, please don't create another enormous header for it. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ poll 21:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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! - &lt;*&gt; 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. &middot; 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! - &lt;*&gt; 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)