Talk:Grand Union Flag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Grand Union Flag is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
"The flag could be seen as the precursor to the flags of other former British colonies, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada."
The above change was added 11th July 2007. This statement is unfounded and incorrect. The flags mentioned (Australia, NZ and pre-Maple leaf Canada) are based on the colonial flags of the UK. These were always based on the Red Ensign or Blue Ensign (dependant upon geographical location) and contained local identifying markers in the main field.
The Grand Union Flag 'may' have been based on the Red Ensign (white stripes added).
Dbnull 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a revert to bring back the above comment after it was deleted 'rv. It's in the article that the flags were probably made by defacing the Brithish white ensign and as all flags mntioned were also defaced ensigns, it could be seen as a spiritually precursor.)'
I still don't think that this comment should be in the article. Any flag older than the Australian, New Zealand or Canadian flags are precursors (i.e. they came before). If the intent is to relate the Grand Union Flag as influencing or being behind the creation of these other flags then that is not true. The true ancestory would be something like the following:
UK navy had 3 squadrons, each had their own colour and associated ensign:
1. Red (Red ensign) 2. White (White ensign) 3. Blue (Blue ensign)
The East India Company flag may have been derived from the Red Ensign (adding white stripes), as, possibly, later did the Grand Union Flag. Alternatively, there was a previously used plain red and white striped ensign that may have had the Union flag added as a canton. We really don't know which.
The colonial Canadian Flag was a defaced Red Ensign. So, arguably, both the Canadian Flag and the Grand Union Flag may both be derived from the Red Ensign. However, for certain, the Grand Union Flag did not form the basis of the Canadian Flag.
Both the Australian and New Zealand flags are defaced Blue Ensigns. These flags were certainly not based upon the Grand Union Flag.
Given this information, I feel as though the statement re: 'the precursor to...' is inapplicable and misleading. A casual reader will view this to mean that the Grand Union Flag formed the basis of the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand flag. Dbnull 17:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, there was an incredible amount of rewrite to this article back in March which changes a lot of the previous article content and dramatically alters the reading of this article. It seems as though this was based upon the interpretation of a single author that does not confer with many historically published records. The article currently gives this flag a mythical status by referring to its history as 'tradition'.
The evidence for the existance and use of this flag and its usage is overwhelming and I believe that the earlier changes have been to the great detriment of this article. I don't want this to turn into a battle of opinions but, I do not currently believe that the article as it stands truely represents the real history and useage of this flag. Dbnull 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- What appears to be a myth isn't the existence of such a flag, but its status and its name (at the time in which it was used). I don't think there is any question that this flag was used as an ensign by the Continental Navy. But Ansoff, I think, is quite convincing in pointing to a lack of any primary evidence that it was used in other contexts, including the view (I think personally well characterized as "myth") that it was flown on land, raised by Washington at Prospect Hill, etc. If you have verifiable sources to the contrary, by all means, bring them forward and let's improve the article. --ScottMainwaring 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Amongst respected and usually noted sources on this topic include:
- National Geographic 1917 and 1934.
- The Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries, 1877, "Our National Flag"
- History of the Flag of the United States of America, Preble 1880 (pg 217 onwards)
- Benson J. Lossing discovered drawing from 1776
- A Brief History of the United States, JD Steele & EB Steele, 1871 (old School book stating flag as "First National Flag")
- Mariners Mirror Vol. XXIII. No. 4 OCTOBER 1937, Sir Charles Fawcett
- Mural in Freemasons hall in Boston (no date, but 'old' and difficult to get access to)
- Painting in John Hancock foyer in Boston
- Letter to Congress re: John Paul Jones raising flag in Dec 1775
There are various other sources. The only contention that I can see would be in the interpretation of Preble that can be interpreted in many ways. Historically (for over the last 230 years), it has *never* been interpreted as the article now states. Specifically, all sources that I have seen agree with:
1. Grand Union Flag raised on Prospect Hill by Washington 2. Considered first National Flag (not relegated to naval ensign)
Dbnull 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the bulk of these are re-presentations of Preble's work, and Ansoff's argument is that Preble got it wrong when it came to interpreting 18th century source material. That's the nature of a national mythology: many sources retelling stories that resonate with the readership, but which when critically analyzed are hard to support with evidence. I think as Wikipedia editors it's certainly not our place to uncover the facts, but it is our responsibility to critically assess secondary sources and not simply repeat the "respected and usually noted sources", at least when there is a compelling argument to the contrary. To honestly represent the current state (post 19th and 20th century) state of scholarship, I think the article needs to indicate the conventional/traditional/historically held/national mythological/whatever we want to call it view espoused by your sources, but also to highlight the serious challenge that Ansoff's peer reviewed, published work in one of the top journals of vexillological research poses to this view. --ScottMainwaring 16:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I admit to not having seen Ansoff's work, I'm going to have to search it out. I assume it to be astounding piece of work to overturn over 230 years of accepted Vexillogical history. I'm assuming he is not simply re-interpreting Preble himself.
Dbnull 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I have a problem with the gravitas assigned to 'Ansoff's' work in this article. I've been trying to find the actual article to review it and am having trouble finding any place to access this work. 99%+ references from any decent search engine return references to this page and the Stars and Stripes article in Wikipedia. For such an enormous over-turning of established received opinion reflecting over 200 years of research it would seem that this 'research' would be more widely received and available in the vexillogical community than it currently is. I'd be fine for a foot-note to this work to be included but the current text is a gross mis-representation of general received opinion in this. The inclusion of the current text almost seems to be an attempt at promotion of one individual's pet theory. Thoughts, please.Dbnull 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It would obviously be improper for me to get involved in this discussion. However, I'd be glad to make arrangements to provide a copy of my article for review, and to further discuss the subject offline. My contact information is on the NAVA web site at www.nava.org. Peter Ansoff 15:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Update: The article in question is now available on the NAVA web site (www.nava.org), under the "Flag Information" tab. Click on the "NAVA News and Raven Articles" link. Peter Ansoff 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I've read Peter's article, it represents a well researched and thorough examination of the primary sources for the story behind the GUF. I'm still digesting the content and am undecided on where I stand re: the conclusions. It presents some good arguments and I look forward to seeing the reception that this receives in the community. Dbnull 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I said earlier that I didn't want to get involved in the discussion, because I'm a "party to the dispute" as it were. However, there's a statement currently in this article that is, at best, very misleading: "Historical documents report that the flag was flown by George Washington and was first raised by his troops on New Year's Day in 1776 at Prospect Hill." As I showed in my Raven article, that statement is factually wrong. The primary sources do *not* report that, at least not without some fairly imaginative interpretation. It would be more correct to say "It is commonly believed that the flag . . ." Peter Ansoff 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I enjoyed your "Prospect Hill" article in the Raven. It was nice to read a fresh perspective on the Grand Union. I'm glad to see it's already listed at the end of this article. Mingusboodle 19:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you! I actually didn't start out to challenge the Prospect Hill story. The article was just supposed to be an investigation of how the name "Grand Union Flag" originated. When I started to read the primary sources, however, there was a "hey, wait a minute" moment -- they didn't say what everybody has always said that they said!
-
- I think that a followup article is needed to definitively debunk the story of Franklin and the "flag committee." It's really just folklore, but it keeps resurfacing.Peter Ansoff 13:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
"The stripes signify the "uniqueness and unity" of the Thirteen Colonies" My understanding is that this is appropriated meaning, after the striped flag was used people began to apply meanings after the event. In the same way that the colors of the Stars and Stripes are assigned meanings, yet these are not the reason for the colors (the colors are Red, White and Blue because of the Grand Union Flag). Dbnull 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dbnull. There are a couple of contemporary references to the fact that the 13 stripes represented the 13 colonies, but the "uniqueness and unity" seems to be a post-hoc invention. Peter Ansoff 12:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I just read that the Grand Union design was actually authorized by the 2nd Continental Congress in 1775. I have never read that before and suspect it to be bull. Can anyone enlighten me? Mingusboodle 22:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's no mention of it in the Journals of the Congress, which were the official record of its decisions. Does what you read cite a source?Peter Ansoff 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, there was no source cited. If I ever come across such a source I'll mention it, but I'm not holding my breath that I'll find it. Thanks. Mingusboodle 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Salute?
Questions: I've read several times that the Grand Union was (likely) the first flag/ensign to receive a salute from another government. That seems significant, but the fact that it isn't in this article makes me suspicious that it's another piece of lore passed down as history. Can it be documented? Has it been disproven? Did the salut-er realize the ship was of the united American colonies, or was the ship mistaken for a British (perhaps EIC) merchant? Mingusboodle 02:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it was, sort of. The earliest incident that I'm aware of was at St. Croix (Danish, at the time) on 25 October 1776. A British spy reported that an American merchant ship was leaving port, saluted the fort and had the salute returned. A 16 November 1776 incident at St. Eustatius (Dutch) is more famous because the ship involved was the Andrew Doria, a brig of the Continental Navy. She fired a salute to the fort and had it returned. However, it appears that the Dutch authorities did not know that she was an American warship, and thought that they were just welcoming a new customer. The British protested nevertheless, and the Dutch governor was relieved.
- The St. Croix incident is discussed in Furlong and McCandless, So Proudly We Hail, 1981. I'm not sure offhand what the definitive source is for the St. Eustatius incident.
- It's extremely unlikely that anyone would mistake the Continental Colours for the EIC flag. The EIC did not trade in North America or the Caribbean, and its ships were not allowed to fly the EIC ensign north of St. Helena in the Atlantic. Peter Ansoff 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- That seems like a significant piece of trivia. Could it be added to this article? Mingusboodle 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I just read this, available on the Library of Congress' website. I find it interesting because: 1) it predates the St. Croix event 2) it gives an example of an American ship flying the new (but unrecognized) American flag 3) a foreign port actually fired on a British frigate to defend an American ship before the St. Croix event
30 August 1776
By a vessel arived here yesterday we are Informd from the Master, who lately sailed from this port for Cape Francois, that on his arrival there under American Colours, the curiosity of his flag drew Such numbers on board as almost Sunk his vessel. They enquired whence he came, what news &c. He told them he carried the flag of the Independant States of America, & gave them the declaration of Independance which they carried on Shore Soon after which the Govr Sent his Compliments to the Capt with permission to hoist his flag in that harbour. The Capt farther says that three days before he left the Cape, which is thirteen days Since, dispatches arrived from old France acquainting the Governor that Twenty Ships of war with a number of Troops were coming to that port in Consequence of which people were Set to work in repairing the barracks there to receive the Troops.
By authentic accounts from Martinique as late as the 3rd Instt. we are Advised the Commandant there had Just received Orders to protect all American vessels that came there, that an English Frigate chasing an American vessel into Port Royal came So near the fort they fired upon the Frigate & beat her off.
Mingusboodle 15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Presidential inaugurations?
Today the Grand Union flag is often included as the "first flag" in displays of U.S. flag history, such as on the backdrop of Presidential inaugurations.
Does anyone have a picture we can use to support this statement? I found the image below on Wikimedia of the latest inauguration in 2005. The enormous Betsy Rosses are plainly visible on either side above the Capitol steps, but I can't make out a Grand Union. Mingusboodle (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 
[edit] Unclear sentence
The following sentence starts clearly, but then descends into confusion: "The overlap of crosses in the canton was symbolic of two kingdoms, England and Scotland; this practice of displaying the equal components called states in America, was adopted in the form of stars, suggesting universalism, aside from the rather limiting usage to be had from continually adding crosses, no crosses being distinctly representative per colony-cum-commonwealth/state (unlike St. George for England, St. Andrew for Scotland and, later St. Patrick for Ireland)." Teemu Leisti (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
