Talk:Henry Laurens

I removed the following portion:

Some aspects of the life of Henry Laurens were used in creating the fictional character Benjamin Martin in the 2000 motion picture The Patriot. Like Martin, he maintained a residence in Charleston and was a reluctant rebel. While he didn't see military service, his home was burned and his oldest son died in battle.

This seems to be OR; I can't find any reference to it elsewhere. The The Patriot article says "Benjamin Martin is a combination of Brig. Gen. Francis "Swamp Fox" Marion and Col. Daniel Morgan," And this website [1] makes no mention of Henry Laurens. The facts that his house burned and his son died in battle seem to coincidental and common to the era. Also, as president of the continental congress, I highly doubt he was a reluctant rebel. Anyway, if there is actual evidence that Henry Laurens was an inspiration for the character, please source and reinsert. —pfahlstrom 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Henry Laurens was slow to support American independence in the 1760s, during the initial era of riots and boycotts, but he became an enthusiastic patriot in the 1770s. Drfryer 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Henry Laurens were black Huguenots and his true likeness is in England and South Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.220.175.130 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The sentences regarding John Laurens's plan to enlist slaves in the armed services, as an eventual step to freedom, were essentially true but exaggerated so I toned them down and added a reference. I have never seen evidence that Henry Laurens supported this plan. His letters about it to his son are gentle, but make it clear that he did not think it was likely to succeed. Needless to say, most other South Carolina property-holders found the plan laughable. Drfryer 22:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Henry was born to John and Esther Grasset Laurens in Charleston, South Carolina. According to the Julian calendar, Laurens was born on February 24, 1724; according to the Gregorian calendar, which was adopted in Britain and its colonies during Laurens' lifetime, he was born on March 6, 1724."

• How can this be explained please?Zigzig20s 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is to explain? Have you looked at the linked articles for Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar or the related Old Style and New Style dates? England began using a different calendar in 1752. In American history, tradition is to convert the dates to the new style. Laurens was born on February 24 old style. The conversion to the new style means adding eleven days, hence March 6. (1724 was a leap year, so there was a February 29.) The only questionable aspect as far as I'm concerned is the year. In addition to adding eleven days, the change to the new calendar also changed the beginning of the new year. Prior to the change in England and English colonies, the new year began on March 25. After the change the new year began on January 1. While there are reliable sources that give February 24 as his birth date, I've not come across any that give the year as 1723. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Laurens never made it to Holland to negotiate a loan. He was captured by the British on 3 September 1780, en route to Holland and was replaced by John Adams.Fightinchickin (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If he was born in 1724 and died in 1792 he was obviously not 71 when he died. Don't know how to fix it, though.Closedthursday (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I mean, you could edit it. {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I know who added Alexander Hamilton as Henry Laurens's son-in-law (edit history). So just let me say this. No matter how much you think John Laurens and Alexander Hamilton had a relationship beyond a friendship, Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens did not get married. Stop your vandalism, Monsatluv (talk · contribs) and 72.161.250.87 (talk · contribs). {{SUBST:JackOfTrades1776}} (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

You too, 2602:306:ce05:99d0:a10e:d4a6:2d61:5f48 (talk · contribs)

There appears to be a question over sourcing on the main page about Laurens' cremation. Stephen Prothero's book Purified by Fire: A History of Cremation in America on page 9 has Henry Laurens was first black European to be cremated in the United States. AnneofKeys (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added the source and information from the book into the section. AnneofKeys (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

In legal parlance, one does NOT bequeath real property. The term bequeath is reserved for transferring personal property. If the author wishes to use the legal word for transferring real property, it is "devise." Thus, consider the WAS and RECOMMENDED:

WAS: This took place in the company of Richard Oswald.[3] John Laurens died in 1747, bequeathing a considerable estate to 23-year-old Henry.[2]

RECOMMENDED: This took place in the company of Richard Oswald.[3] John Laurens died in 1747, devising a considerable estate to 23-year-old Henry.[2] Danhegner (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: This language matches the source used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@User:Randy Kryn: Henry Laurens is considered a Founding Father by whom? Since you didn't add a citation, we have no way of telling. So please apply one so we can discuss what your source is and then what other sources have to say. Allreet (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

According to WP:VER, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Thank you. Allreet (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Randy Kryn and Allreet: — The idea that Laurens is not a founding father is a bit ridiculous. The lede in the Founding Fathers of the United States, article, where Laurens is listed, explicitly states that...

...the Founding Fathers or Founders, were a group of American revolutionary leaders who united the Thirteen Colonies, led the war for independence from Great Britain, and built a frame of government for the new United States of America ... (emphassis added)

Laurens was an American revolutionary leader, the President of the Continental Congress, which soon became the US Congress, which united the colonies. Laurens was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and United States Constitution. We don't need a source that refers to Laurens as a "founding father" verbatim because this is simply not a "dubious" idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

All information added to Wikipedia requires verification. For more, read WP:VER, which says that verification must be explicit, or in simpler terms, "clear and direct". So if someone is to be labeled a "founding father", a source must include that phrase or a close equivalent thereof, such as "founder". The same is true of "revolutionary leader". A source is needed that either says this or an equivalent such as "revolutionary who led the movement". And because someone is a revolutionary leader or built a frame of government or united the Thirteen Colonies or satisfies all three conditions and more, we cannot put the pieces together and on our own reach the conclusion that the subject "is considered a founder". Someone else must consider him one. By the way, that last process, the act of drawing a specific conclusion from different pieces of information, is WP:Synthesis.

What I don't get is wny an experienced editor wouldn't bother to provide a reference when another editor disputes his edit. Especially considering how easy it is to do. The proper response would be to do a little research and then enter a citation for Henry Laurens, the Founding Father Who Was Imprisoned in the Tower of London or The Tragedy of Henry Laurens or Review of Founders by Ray Raphael or some other reference that calls him a "founding father" or "founder". That way we assure ourselves the information we've entered is correct, and we assure our readers of the same. Allreet (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Having looked at your Ulysses S. Grant article, I'm surprised you'd be arguing this. With 600+ citations, I'm sure every i is dotted and t crossed. Why wouldn't that apply here?

Thanks to you both. Gwillhickers for pointing out the obvious per established Wikipedia Founding Father criteria (maybe have a look at the ongoing RfC Survey and Discussion - Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States#RFC on Continental Association - where this exact question is being discussed in the first response in the Survey and in the first posting in the Discussion section). And to Allreet for providing very good sources establishing Laurens' Founder status. By the way, a slight mistake above, Founding Father Laurens signed only the Articles of Confederation and not the Declaration or Constitution. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

"point out the obvious - per established Wikipedia Founding Fathers criteria" I suppose it's obvious Henry Laurens is an American revolutionary leader who united the 13 Colonies and built a frame of government. Everyone knows that and therefore by definition he must be a founding father. As for the last part about established criteria. Where do you get this stuff? Be sure to bring up the subject again on the RFC page. Allreet (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Allreet, Yes, citations are in order in virtually every case. I was just a little miffed when I saw the "dubious" tag on a statement that was so well established. You really didn't have to mull through my edit history to make the point. I was in the process of getting a couple of citations, and when I went to include them I got an 'edit-conflict' as Randy beat me to the punch. Thanks to you both for looking out. A point about Synthesis and Original Research. At least from my experience, these are seldomly an issue unless someone is trying to advance a point that is highly unusual, fringe, etc, and not supported by the sources. If a statement included the phrase , 'when the sun rose in the East that morning' , I like to think that, even if the source didn't say "east", no one would demand a citation for that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Gwillhickers: Thanks. I've dug up a half dozen citations but most are already being used so past editors did their job. OR and SYNTH have been in play in interpreting Werther who is an excellent source on analyzing signers of the four documents but did not call them all "founding fathers" as was being alleged. Regarding your last point, which is covered under WP:BLUE (as in the sky), I once worked for a local TV news operation where a woman called in a "tip" that the sun was rising in the West. Turns out she overslept 12 hours - otherwise, it would have been a great story. Allreet (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Richard Werther’s "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". So yes, he called them Founders, which means 'founding fathers' in the context of these discussions (per common sense as well as the first few words establishing criteria in the U.S. Founding Fathers article). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Randy Kryn: Not one editor in the RFC has agreed with your claim that the title of Werther's article explains his text. As others have pointed out, besides violating WP:VER's "clear and direct" requirement, this is WP:SYNTH (WP:NOR), "combining different parts of one source to reach...a conclusion". As for your concept of "establishing criteria", that's WP:CIRC, citing Wikipedia instead of a source. And finally, Werther has no academic credentials qualifying him as a WP:RS on founding documents and founders. Allreet (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Werther, an amateur historian (a group often years, if not decades, ahead of their time), entitled his now seemingly pioneering paper "Analyzing the Founders: A Closer Look at the Signers of Four Founding Documents". Can't be clearer and more direct than that. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

As for a quote from the Werther paper showing that he meant what he said in the title, please read (boldface mine):

"What this illustrates is how many others were involved besides the most famous involved in the founding. It was a wide array of men who brought differing skills to bear. In a piece entitled “The World of the Founding Fathers,” historian and political scientist Saul K. Padover, writing in the journal Social Research in 1958, amplified this point in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents), stating:

The answer [as to whether the framers were geniuses] is not to be found in any extremes. A few of the Founding Fathers, to be sure, were towering figures to whom the term genius has been applied [Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington]…Others were persons of uncommon talents as thinkers, writers, or orators [among them were John and Samuel Adams, Dickinson, Hamilton, Henry, Madison, and Mason]…

But the great majority, possibly four-fifths or more, were not particularly outstanding men. They were, rather, persons of generally average ability and character…In general, the Founding Fathers were what one may call solid citizens, respected by their neighbors, usually of good family and well-to-do.”[18]

To repeat: "in reference to the signers of the Constitution (though the same statement could be made for the other three documents)". @Allreet:, somehow both of us overlooked this sentence and its following quoted-descriptor during our discussion. It seems very clear and direct in naming the signers of the four documents as founders, exactly as he says in the title. How would you describe it (it doesn't read as if it can be explained away)? Will ping @The Gnome: and @Binksternet: as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The first paragraph of this section is taken word for word from its source, Encyclopedia.com, as is most of the second paragraph. I came across this in researching Henry's background and believe the source may not be correct. According to Wallace's biography, Henry's grandfather was Jean Laurent (an early spelling) and his father was Andre. The Encyclopedia.com bio says the grandfather's name was Andre. So this needs to be sorted out, which I'll do as time allows. Meanwhile, I've applied a copyright violation template to the first paragraph. Allreet (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The confusion stems from the Laurens being French and then the fact that some of their names were anglicized. Henry's grandfather was Andrew, originally André; his father John, originally Jean. Their original surname was Laurent. I believe the forename translations are notable enough to mention because their French heritage sets Henry apart from the other founders who were predominantly Anglo-Scotch-Irish. I don't know if this influenced his politics in anyway, though that bears looking into. The family's transition from France to New York to Charleston is also worth mentioning, and more detail is needed on Henry's business career, particularly regarding his firm's involvement in the slave trade. Allreet (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article may have copyright violations, but it may be the websites used Wikipedia instead of the author using those sources. What should I do? Helloheart (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’ve added a brief description to the Commons file giving the date of the portrait and the fact that it is a crop of a full length painting. That painting can be viewed at the following link: https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.65.45?destination=edan-search/default_search%3Fedan_local%3D1%26edan_q%3D%2525E2%252580%25259CHenry%252Blaurens%2525E2%252580%25259D Could someone with the skills figure out a shorter URL for that and add it as a reference to the caption? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks for the direction on improving the article Humphrey Tribble, and LMK if you need anything else. jengod (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The northwest Iowa town of Laurens also was named after Henry Laurens, and his son John. Robert Elliott Flickinger (1904), The Pioneer History of Pocahontas County, Iowa. G. Sanborn. pp. 752. 134.197.0.22 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply