Talk:House of Burgesses

Untitled

What is the proper definition of Burgesses? Is it the leader of a Borough? Keeperoftheseal 16:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Burgess, a Freeman (Colonial), IE. a Freeholder. 68.39.174.238 20:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I added an explantion where the term burgess originated. (in the top) - narwhalhistory

I corrected misinformation concerning the Raleigh Tavern. Even under Anthony Hay, the Raleigh retained its name. It was never named 'Anthony Hay's Tavern.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.195.100 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why was important information taken out?

I added historical information on medieval terminology of the ORIGINAL TERM, and its taken out.

It was marked as vandalism? are you kidding?

Can I have an explanation, why you think this is vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narwhalhistory (talk • contribs) 06:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Error

It states that changes in 1620 lead to the creation of the House. Yet, two paragraphs later it states that the House first met in 1619. This is also stated before the reference to 1620. I've corrected the error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.46.143 (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, so sorry to say, but I don`t think it had much to do with the Poles at all! And no, that`s not a racist remark, obviously, whoever wrote this was a strong Polish supperter who feels they didn`t have many rights. As a person whos done their research myself, I can tell you that you`ve got it all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.104.123 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

Can someone add info on how to pronounce "Burgesses", is it the same as Burgess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.95.89 (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done by LeCid 18:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeCid57000 (talk • contribs)

Land

The phrase "land-owning males" is used. It is not clear if non-whites were allowed to vote. The initial anti-Polish sentiment suggests that they were not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite the intro

The term is first bolded and defined in the fourth paragraph. Seriously? Not to mention that it's even mentioned in the third, without a word as to what it is. —烏Γ ^{(kaw at me)}, 10:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Would?

The 4th para in the lead says:

Similar to the British Parliament, the House of Burgesses would consist of delegates elected by the colonists, and would meet once annually at Jamestown

This implies that it didn't happen.
Similarly the 5th para:

... to this new legislative body that would come from eleven boroughs adjacent to the James River, along with eleven additional burgesses.

Yet the 6th para says: The assembly had 22 members, implying that it did happen, as does the rest of the article.
Can somebody clarify the situation, and alter the text accordingly, please? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to "Virginia House of Burgesses"

You claim there have been "other legislatures" called the House of Burgesses. Care to name one? I don't see any mentioned on Wikipedia. Rklear (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That was fast! See Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives: "The office evolved from the office of Speaker of the lower house of the legislature in the Province of Carolina, called the House of Burgesses." The members of the Lower House of Maryland's colonial legislature were called Burgesses. The official style of the house appears to have been "the Lower House", but it was commonly referred to, both colloquially and officially, as the House of Burgesses. I'm sure a search of the Web would reveal others.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

JDcrutch - I understand the logic behind the move - to avoid confusion and increase specificity. However, the normal convention is to have the article name in the most simple common name (see WP:Commonname). I grant you that there were other houses of burgesses, but the one in Virginia was the first (named simply as the "House of Burgesses") and best known. I see no great risk of confusion here, as Wikipedia has no other articles about other houses of burgesses. My thought is that the right editorial move is to move this back to House of Burgesses and perhaps add a section noting that similar legislatures in other states were created and used the name.--Kubigula (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What sticks out about the "Maryland House of Burgesses" is how transient the name was. According to the Maryland House of Delegates site, the transition from "Lower House" to "House of Delegates" took less than half a century. During that time, "House of Burgesses" was one of several colloquial usages, pretty much in the same class as calling the Virginia General Assembly the "Virginia Legislature". Rklear (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the civility of this discussion. I don't have terribly strong feelings about the subject, but it seems to me that calling the article on Virginia's House of Burgesses simply "House of Burgesses" is rather like calling the article on the Parliament of England simply "Parliament". It was the first legislature of that name, and remains the best known (even though strictly speaking it no longer exists, having been supplanted, first by the Parliament of Great Britain, and then by the Parliament of the United Kingdom); but other parliaments are entitled to equal dignity, and calling the English Parliament, "Parliament", with no qualifier, seems to put the others in the position of imitators or inferior replicas. Within England, it's certainly proper to refer to the present legislature and its predecessors simply as "Parliament", but outside the UK it would be parochial at best.

I'm a Virginian myself, and within Virginia, or in discussions of Virginia, I'm all for calling the colonial legislature "the House of Burgesses"; but in an international forum like Wikipedia it strikes me as similarly parochial, if not a bit arrogant (the way a certain class of Virginians used to speak of "the University", as if it were the only one).

Virginia didn't invent Burgesses: Members of Parliament representing boroughs already had that title in England. (And because I just stumbled across it, I'll observe that the English Petition of Right (1627) refers to the English Parliament as "the Archbishopps Bishopps Earles Barons Knights Burgesses and other the Freemen of the Comonaltie of this Realme". See Petition of Right, 1627, 3 Car. 1, c. 1.

The House of Burgesses of Virginia got that name, I imagine, because it was the natural and obvious style for an English colonial legislative body, elected by the common citizenry; which is presumably why the same style was used in other colonies. There really should be a generic article entitled "House of Burgesses", giving a history of the term "Burgess" and the evolution of that form of legislature; or else the general term should link to the article on colonial government, section on Colonial Assemblies.

The only uncertainty I had, really, with respect to renaming the article, was whether to call it "House of Burgesses of Virginia", or "Virginia House of Burgesses". The latter is certainly more common today, and more in line with American usage; but the House itself, in official publications, appears to have preferred the former. ("Virginia House of Burgesses" also strikes my ear as equivalent to "England Parliament" or "Germany Bundestag", but I recognize that's an idiosyncratic objection, and I wouldn't make changes to Wikipedia on that basis.)

As for the transience Rklear mentions, Virginia's House of Burgesses didn't bear that name much more than 150 years. Is that so much more permanent than a century for Maryland? Virginia's replacement of the title "Burgess" (which refers to a certain personal status) with "Delegate" (which signifies the agent or deputy of the people) was well in keeping with the Spirit of '76, and we should perhaps be chary of venerating too much a title which our forbears for good reason discarded. ("Burgess" was a misnomer from the start, anyway, being an adaptation of the Old French burgeis (Modern French bourgeois), a townsman. Virginia in 1619 had barely one town, and in general the Burgesses represented plantations and other rural districts, which, although sometimes ambitiously styled "city", were not towns at all.)

I think it's the best manners to specify which House of Burgesses.

Jdcrutch (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you chose the parliament article for guidance, as I also considered that as an example for how to proceed. To me, the main difference was that we have a generic article about parliamentary bodies, as well as many articles about specific parliaments - none of which are present here. I think you may be right that the best editorial solution would be to have a generic article about houses of Burgesses. You seem to have done a decent amount of research on the subject already, do you think it's enough to start a reasonable stub?--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point I recommend listing this discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The article was in place at House of Burgesses for 10 years, and a permanent move will have repercussions beyond the article itself. In particular, adding a more generic "House of Burgesses" article, or even giving that title to a disambiguation page, is going to affect numerous articles containing that particular link. Any change should be open to wider comment first. Rklear (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - good call.--Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked to see whether or not Rklear has made the change he proposes here, but I will point out that when I changed the name of the article I created a redirection link from the old title, then carefully tracked down all links to the old title, and manually changed them as well. If he has reverted the title and listed the article under "Requested moves", as he proposes, I hope he has also reverted all those links. As I said earlier, I don't feel strongly about this issue, so I'm not going to request the change, seek comments, or further advocate a change that somebody else opposes. I stand by what I wrote earlier, but if that's not persuasive to others, I feel no need to press the issue.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved the page back, pending further discussion (as noted above), since the phrasing was poor (with double "of"s) and therefore in want of strong evidence that such is the "natural disambiguation". If anything other than simply "House of Burgesses", I reason it should be titled "Virginia House of Burgesses", which I will admit having seen it written as, but not "House of Burgesses of Virginia". That said, it will likely require a consensus to move it there because the redirect was changed as a result of the earlier move, and thus will need an override to move it there.Morgan Riley (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion seems rather unnecessary, nearly a year after the change, and in the absence of further objections. I stand by my arguments above, but don't have time or energy at the moment to go through another process to move the article. "House of Burgesses of Virginia" is how that body referred to itself, double "of" or no double "of". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 22:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disbanded?

The info-box in the article says that the House of Burgesses "disbanded" in 1776. I had always understood that the House of Delegates was the continuation of the House of Burgesses, not a successor. Would it not be more accurate to say that the House of Burgesses was reorganized in 1776? I daresay the journal of the House of Burgesses will give us the answer. Anybody got time and access to look it up?

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think disbanded is the right word - see this source. I love the final flourish in the journal!--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting reference, but that seems to leave things even more unclear. Contrary to the commentator's introduction, the last meeting of the House of Burgesses neither dissolved the house nor even adjourned! One would expect a body that was disbanding to adjourn sine die, but the House of Burgesses didn't do that. I'd be interested in seeing what the first session of the House of Delegates had to say about its continuity, vel non, with the House of Burgesses. Of course, there was a revolution going on, and it wouldn't surprise me if contemporaries viewed the House of Delegates as a wholly new body, a clean break from the former, royal government. I suppose it's only in these latter days that some seek continuity between the two. Certainly today's House of Delegates regards itself as the same legislative body as that founded in 1619. (Its coat of arms, rather prosaically, reads, "Est. 1619".) When did the House of Delegates first meet as such? Was it before or after the final meeting of the House of Burgesses? How different was the membership? I can imagine all kinds of possibilities, but alas don't have time to do the research. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For a start, see Virginia Conventions and Constitution of Virginia, the section about the constitution of 1776 in particular. Since the House of Delegates was established under the 1776 Constitution, I think it might be a stretch to say it is the same legislative body as the House of Burgesses. The delegates to the 1776 convention were elected in April. Presumably many of the former Burgesses were elected. The constitution was finished in June. The articles don't give all the specifics (when was the first election to the House of Delegates; were the existing laws accepted by the first session; were some laws adopted and others rejected; how many of the members of the first House of Delegates were the same as the last House of Burgesses - that would not be determinative of anything but it would be interesting). It is too late tonight for me to look into it further but I may look into it later. Donner60 (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There was certainly a legal, if not an institutional, continuity between the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary legislatures. The Virginian Convention in 1776 declared,

That the common law of England, and all statutes, or acts of parliament made in aid of the common law, prior to the fourth year, of James the first [i.e., 1607], which are of a general nature not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the colony then in force [i.e., in 1776], so far as the same may consist with the several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the general convention, shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of the commonwealth.

The two houses never met in competing sessions, but the latter succeeded to the former (with the General Convention in between), apparently as a matter of course. I don't know what the respective qualifications for electors and members were before and after the revolution, but I imagine they weren't far different. It would be interesting to know if any business pending in the House of Burgesses in October 1775 was taken up by the House of Delegates in 1776 (or disposed of by the Convention). Somebody with time to look through the minutes of the General Convention might find that the colonial legislature was affirmatively abolished or expressly continued in reorganized form, and that would settle the question decisively. Failing that, it seems to me that the House of Delegates' own claim to have been established in 1619 ought to be credited, and that Wikipedia ought therefore to say that the House of Burgesses was reorganized in 1776, rather than disbanded.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I found the Journal for the first meeting of the House of Delegates in 1776.[1] That document does seem to suggest the House of Delegates was a new and different enterprise. However, I suspect JD is correct that much depends on the context. The Virginia legislature in 1776 wanted to show independence, while the modern legislature wants to tout its long history. I think the best solution is to simply remove the "Disbanded" paremeter from the infobox and change the next line to show that the House of Burgesses was succeeded by the Virginia House of Delegates in 1776.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I think it may be the most accurate language considering what has been found and discussed above. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks, Mojo Hand! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And thank you two for a friendly and collegial discussion, from which I actually learned something. If only all of Wikipedia could work this way.--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the context of this is also about “continuity of government” going from House of Burgesses to Conventions (still the burgesses) to the first House of Delegates (still the burgesses). The same individuals through out each of these "changes." They did meet to "dissolve" (per some sources) but in this case voluntary dissolution, vice being forced to dissolve or being dismissed by the governor (which they rejected and met in conventions). They did meet to "not adjourn" (meaning to "not meet again' or continue as a colonial legislature) and declared "FINIS" (the end), but then meet as a convention in the same chamber, same day, same body to then later compose the new Constitution of Virginia and become the House of Delegates. So I can see why the Virginia House of Delegates sees themselves as an extension of the same body (since it was the same people one day they are burgesses, then same people declare themselves delegates with no elections in between to change the composition), just as members of the colonial Continental Congress became the United States Continental Congress after the "Declaration of Independence" (same individuals the next day). First time I was in Iceland someone told me about how their Althing was the oldest, continuous parliamentary body in the world (first as independents, then as a colony under Norway, then under Denmark, then again as an independent nation) I could probably find ways to poke holds in their "continuous" existence, some name changes/composition/authority, etc., but not going to try to challenge their claim anymore than Virginia's House of Delegates, or English (British) Parliament for its continuity (Kingdom, then Republic, back to Kingdom, "legitimacy" of some parliaments, some dissolved or inactive for many years, etc.) Thorkall (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The House of Burgesses did not "adjourn sine die" but in the last entry in the House of Burgesses journal (May 1776) did record "nor adjourn, as a House of Burgesses. FINIS." They chose to not adjourn or meet again and the journal finished in a flourish with large bold capital letters "FINIS" (the end). See link showing journal entry: http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/The_General_Assembly_Adjourns_1776

The last entry is lacking in detail, and can be confusing unless you try to determine how to fill in the blanks, and of course those are subject to individual interpretations:

• "Several individuals" showed up, but since it does not discuss a quorum, can we assume there was one, versus other entries which talk about a lack of one?
• They did officially meet, but did not "proceed to business" since it was already determined beforehand there was none to discuss (business, or discussions, would be handled in the convention later that same day)?
• They did not adjourn in order to not legitimize continuance of the colonial body meeting in the King's name?

Unlike today where every word (or most) are recorded, that was not the case in past legislative bodies (e.g., we have little or at times nothing official on debates in the Continental Congress or later Constitutional Convention, instead we must heavily rely on personal notes or correspondence letters of those present to fill in the gaps). Edmund Pendelton's comments help to expand on what did occur and as the President of the Committee of Safety, and president of the past convention, he would of been the most "senior" of the several individuals, therefore can we assume other more senior and influential individuals showed up for the last meeting of the House of Burgesses)

• Edmund Pendleton, a member of the House of Burgesses (and President of the Committee of Safety) who was present at the final meeting, wrote in a letter to Richard Henry Lee on the following day, “We met in assembly yesterday, and determined not to adjourn, but let that body die.” Later the same morning, the members of the fifth and final Virginia Revolutionary Convention met in the chamber of the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg and elected Pendleton its president).

Other comments referenced an election in April 1776 so those elected then were members of the last House of Burgesses that met one last time in May and then formed the Fifth Convention and (under the new Constitution) elected Patrick Henry governor in July. The House of Delegates met for its first session in October 1776 (so unless there was another election, which I have not been able to find reference to one, then the burgesses elected in April were the same individuals who made up the first House of Delegates). Thorkall (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate Thorkall's recent revisions to the article, and hope there will be more. His or her latest remarks here on the Talk page raise some questions for me. First and most important, what is the source for her or his contention that the last House of Burgesses, the Virginia Conventions, and the first House of Delegates all consisted of precisely the same persons? I have no hard evidence to the contrary, but it would surprise me a good deal. Pendleton's letter to Lee suggests at least some difference in personnel between the House of Burgesses and the Convention, as I'm pretty sure Lee belonged to the latter, but he apparently was not a member of the former (or, at any rate, he did not attend the final session), or Pendleton would have had no occasion to write him about it.

I would be greatly surprised if the Convention had not been separately elected by the "people" of Virginia (i.e., the free, white, male residents of the colony over the age of twenty-one and otherwise entitled to vote). A convention is the highest representative body in a republic, and ordinarily exercises much broader powers than one house of a bicameral legislature—frequently including executive and judicial powers. It would be rather shocking if the Burgesses had simply declared themselves the Convention, and assumed the power to alter the government of the country. Of course, a lot of undemocratic and illiberal things get done in the name of the people during time of revolution and war, so it could have happened; but it would astonish me.

It would also surprise me a good bit to find that the Convention had simply declared itself to be the new House of Delegates. What's the point of prescribing a method for electing a legislature in the new constitution, if the Convention was just going to declare its members elected? Moreover, at least theoretically, a Burgess and a Delegate are not at all the same thing: the former title expresses a personal status, like gentleman or esquire, whereas the latter expresses an assigned role and borrowed authority. The former is a kind of master; the latter, a kind of servant. I don't know whether or not these theoretical distinctions were on the minds of the leaders of Virginia's Revolution, but I rather expect that they were.

The usual method for closing a session of an assembly that does not intend to reconvene is to adjourn sine die. The Burgesses appear (from Pendleton's letter) to have had some reason not to do that, but I don't know what it might have been. The house did not proceed to business, according to the journal, so there's no way of knowing whether or not a quorum was present. An assembly without a quorum does have the power to adjourn, so the House might have adjourned, even if it had no quorum. It may be—I speculate, having no information either way—that there remained some Burgesses not in favor of independence, who might have opposed a motion to adjourn sine die. There must have been some reason why the House did not adjourn or formally dissolve itself, but I don't know enough even to guess intelligently about it. (By the way, the Encyclopedia Virginia article formerly cited for the proposition that the House had "formally dissolved" now says, "In May 1776 the House of Burgesses ceased to meet . . . .")

In any event, I wouldn't read too much into the "FINIS" at the end of the journal. There's no way of knowing when it was written, or by whom, or with what intent. There is certainly no indication that it was put there by order of the House itself. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

As to the HoBs final journal entry:

• Monday, the 6th of May. 16 Geo. III. 1776. Several Members met, but did neither proceed to Business, nor adjourn, as a House of Burgesses. FINIS. It was written by the assistant clerk of the House of Burgesses, Jacob Bruce, and certainly “finis” could be his invention, but was it to capture the spirit of that final meeting (“nor adjourn, as House of Burgesses”) but does that imply they would instead adjourn as a convention later than morning? So they are "ending" a meeting of a royal body (and no need to adjourn or even continue to recognize its existence) and instead will reconvening as a independent convention? So guess you can pick, they ended, ceased, disbanded, dissolved, etc. (but the Journal does not give us a definitive term to use). Plus there is always the final flourish in the entry, sort of like we are out of here, or at least until after the coffee break and the next 'meeting' starts (Convention). Found one more thing:
• "but thinking that the people could not be legally represented under the ancient constitution, which had been subverted by the king, lords, and commons, they unanimously dissolved themselves accordingly." (A source citing the Virginia Gazette, but details on date, etc., not provided so trying to see if that can be traced down and rest of news article in context.)

Still researching on elections plus distinction in HoB versus members of conventions. Lots on the conventions appointing individuals to this or that committee, elected officials, etc., but not how they either got elected to convention (by being a burgess already or by some other mechanism). Conventions had the duties of the HoB and executive duties in the absence of the royal governor; legislation, committees, expenses, raising militias, etc. We do know burgesses are around but displaced from their chamber (at least initially). Are they same as members of convention (my contention) or some how different? Is one a subset of the other? Not sure I see sufficient rationale for there to be two separate slate of candidates, one for HoB and one for a convention, or did ballots eventually substitute burgess for "member" to the Convention (can't seem to find a unique label for what they called these "conventioneers"). Thorkall (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It is certainly most likely that the person who reported the last session of the House also wrote "FINIS" at the same time, but without knowing who had custody of the journal after 12 October 1775, and without (obviously) any review and approval of the final journal entry by the House, we can't be certain that it wasn't written by some other hand on some other day. That's why I say we shouldn't read too much into it: it's not good evidence of anything, except that somebody, sometime thought it appropriate to close the journal that way. I'm not arguing that it wasn't put there by Jacob Bruce immediately after the last session: only that we can't know for sure, so we shouldn't infer anything from it. I look forward to Thorkall's findings regarding the question of elections. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Some sources say the HoB was dissolved by the Governor in 1774, others say they were prorogued (under British parliamentary rules being prorogued was having the monarch (or their rep) end that session (and could also be a means of killing pending legislation or an unruly legislature) but not the body itself, while dissolving them would end the body and their existence until new elections). Since they followed parliamentary rules throughout the colonies elections were only as necessary for the legislature as opposed to a fixed schedule and could be up to 7 years between elections according to some sources (although there were special elections to fill vacancies due to deaths, resignation, retirement, etc.) The HoB were called back in 1775 (after separately meeting in conventions) so I suspect they were only prorogued by the Governor, but have not found info on elections to determine which was the case (and if he did dissolve them they rejected their dismissal and instead of going home for new elections (which would buy the Governor time) went down the street to meet and declare the First Convention). Regardless of which is the case the HoB did meet and rejected North's resolution which pretty much ended any further "royal" legislative functions by the HoB. Thorkall (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Meeting Places" Section

The section headed "Meeting Places" adds little or nothing that isn't better expressed elsewhere in the article. I have tuned it up a little, but it should really be rewritten entirely by somebody with better information than I have. For example, it says nothing about the state house at Jamestown, which is mentioned earlier in the article. The section should give a description of that building, and say when that building was constructed, who designed it (if that is known), when the House of Burgesses first met there, and whatever else may be known about it. (Recent archaeological investigations may provide considerable information.) Alternatively, if nobody will rewrite it, the section should be deleted as redundant. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added some matter from the article on the Wren Building concerning the House's meeting places in Williamsburg, but the section still needs rewriting and expansion. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Legacy Section

I have made numerous small revisions to the "Legacy" section.

• "House of Burgesses" for "Assembly": the Colonial Assembly was the House of Burgesses plus the Council. Only the House of Burgesses became the House of Delegates.
• "Commonwealth of Virginia" for "Commonwealth (State) of Virginia": the full style of Virginia is "Commonwealth of Virginia", not "Commonwealth (State) of Virginia". A commonwealth is a state, and there's no need to explain that.
• "Capitol building" for "Capitol" (Colonial Williamsburg): the building is no longer a capitol, whatever Colonial Williamsburg, Inc., may name it. The Capitol is in Richmond.
• "January 2007" for "2006": corrected date according to press release cited.
• "then-vice president" for "Vice President": with apologies to Binabik80, Mr. Cheney is no longer Vice President of the United States.
• deleted numerous superfluous instances of "Virginia" in names of institutions, since Virginia is the only State under discussion.

J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Polish Craftsmen's Strike

For reasons discussed at length on the History of Virginia Talk page, I have replaced the lengthy account of Polish craftsmen and their strike with a brief account based on reliable sources. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and edits - for my part, edits look *Excellent* - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Today @Drbogdan: added a link to the article 1619 Jamestown Polish craftsmen strike, but I have removed the link. That article is largely fictional, based on the apparently-fraudulent "Memoirs of a Mercantilist" whose existence is deeply in doubt, or on sources dependent on that supposed document. Once that article has been rewritten to reflect the actual facts available to us from reliable sources, I will be happy for the link to be restored here. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jdcrutch: - Thank you for your comments - yes - I understand and agree with you - any help you can provide to improve the 1619 Jamestown Polish craftsmen strike article would be appreciated of course - you may have a more seasoned notion, compared to many editors, of those parts of the article that may be ok and those parts that could be better - I may try to help as well at my next opportunity - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Red links

The list of members of the first session of the House of Burgesses contains a great many red links. Does somebody plan on writing articles for all those people? If so, please say so here, and give us an estimate as to when they'll be done. If not, why not remove the red links? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The redlinks are a little ugly to look at, but I seems to me that they comply with WP:RED. Having the links encourages people to write new articles. Unless there is an argument that the links do not comply with the guideline, I think the template ought to be removed.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Red links are incredibly useful, IMHO, and are no more distracting than blue links. MPS (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)