Talk:History of Florida

Quality

I am concerned about the quality of this article, especially the organization. I came here looking for information about when/how Florida became a US State and in the "statehood" section I found interesting information, little of which was related to statehood. It mostly discusses the Seminoles and slaves.

This sentence was a particularly disturbing example of the content unrelated to Florida's statehood: "In Florida all the peoples created a new creole culture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.54.152 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The section was pretty bad. I've asked for citations and removed creole culture statement which was unsupported and not quite English anyway. Student7 (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

West Florida

Should West Florida be merged into this article? It would make it more clear that the southern part of the US (1650 - 1800) belonged to Spain from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Nitpyck (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there's plenty of material there to justify its own article. It of course should be discussed here as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Cow hunters

I always thought Florida was the last frontier, at least in the 48 states, with cowboys (cow hunters). If this [1] is right, cattle are a vital part of Florida's economy but aren't mentioned in the article, either as a current part of the eocnomy or as a vital part of Florida's history.Cow whips instead of lariats, 'catch dogs', etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I don't have the historical prospective (which your article may furnish). Difficult for me to perceive the changeover in crops between cotton, pineapples, cattle and citrus. Each had their day and the last two now predominate, but vegetables and other produce worked their way in as well. Cattle today is supposedly eighth in the country. They are raised here as youngsters on poor land. Then shipped out of state for fattening for market. Most of Brevard County was given over to ranchland until a few years back. Still a lot of it. Sugar predominates, thanks to subsidies, in Palm Beach County, which is mostly sugar plantations, despite appearances to the contrary along the shore. There is a thriving dairy industry for local consumption, as well. Student7 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The lack of coverage of Florida's historical "Cracker culture" in this article is definitely a problem. I could do it eventually, but it'd be a while, so hopefully somebody else gets to it first. Zeng8r (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

limited scope of article

this article gives scant to no information on the economic forces that have affected florida history--transportation, railroads, canals and roads, or the industries such as agriculture, mining and tourism--overall very weak on any historic overview other than race relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.146.130 (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can help, then, please, Be bold. --Scaletail (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

it's very strong on tourism. Rjensen (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Picking away at reconstruction

A fragment reads

"In the elections of 1867 for the constitutional convention, Southern whites tried to kill it by refraining from voting: of the total votes of 14,503, all but 1,220 votes were cast by African Americans. The freedmen did not have representation equal to their proportion of the population."

I didn't want to change it since it just may be me that finds this confusing.

This may be a summary of another article. I think we need to say that a constitutional convention was required to (what?) rewrite the constitution with rights for blacks? How can you kill a convention by not voting for representatives to it? Looks bad, but so what. All you need is one person voting, so the logic does not seem to make any sense. It explains that there were 14,503 votes. I assume the electorate was a lot larger? It seems to me that the white minority was stupid, had they turned out in droves, they could have influenced the election tremendously. Probably certain delegates were banned by the military governor? Who cares (so what?) that the freedmen did not have representation equal to their proportion of the population? It appears the reforms, such as they were, passed. Right? Student7 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It didn't make much more sense when I looked at it a second time. I rewrote it and provided links. Also, the date was wrong. It was 1865. Student7 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 1867 was the correct year, and while the previous paragraph was confusing, it was accurate. Did you have a resource handy? I'll dig out my dusty history books and fix it up later today, hopefully. Zeng8r (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I picked the first rather than the second date out of Florida_Constitution#The_1865_Florida_Constitution. The second one was 1867, we obviously skipped the first convention in our article, which is okay, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Segregation

Although the Moores were killed in nearby Titusville just 3 years earlier in 1951, in Cocoa Beach, the attorney warned the city council that blacks would probably appear on the beaches that year. If they did so (he suggested), the only alternative was to clear the beaches of everyone, white and black. The odd thing, to me, is there is no talk of arresting for trespass or "disturbing the peace" or anything. So something had happened to the Jim Crow laws in the 40s or 50s to prevent enforcement of these laws in Florida. My guess is a Florida Court or US District Court, most likely in Miami, had found the laws to be unenforceable. Whatever happened, needs to be mentioned. There is a lot of glossing over segregation and its termination in articles on the South. This needs to be remedied. It was part of the "Old South." Hard for young people nowdays to understand the extent of it. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? Legal segregation was officially declared illegal in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. It took longer to actually do away with it, but that's presumably the decision you're talking about.

Even under Jim Crow, segregated public beaches in Florida were only legal if there were designated areas where blacks could go. The earliest one of these was Manhattan Beach in Jacksonville. This requirement was often ignored; for instance at one point Fort Lauderdale simply sold off its black beach to developers. But after Brown cities paid more attention to maintaining black beaches (largely for fear that white beaches would be integrated if they didn't), and in the 60's the state's beaches were finally integrated. I can provide some sources if it would help.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In real life segregation in public places disappeared in a matter of weeks in 1964 after the passage of the Civil Rights Act that year. Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but Student7 appears to be talking about something that happened in the 1950s.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Had to be "Brown." I hadn't really appreciated that Brown applied to non-education facilities. Student7 (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Map request

I've removed the inaccurate map File:East_and_West_Florida_1810.jpg, which has been here too long. We do need an accurate map or maps of East Florida and West Florida, but this one has the boundary wrong.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you say how it is inaccurate? Is it the northern border of West Florida? If so, I thought that border changed more than once, at first, and again later, set at the 31st parallel, and for a time set farther north at 32° 22′. Also, wasn't it unclear what the border was after France ceded it back to Spain? Pfly (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Also keep in mind the date -- the map seems to reflect the boundaries of the quasi-independent Republic of West Florida. It is not, however, accurate for representing other periods. older ≠ wiser 17:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry... the inaccuracy is in the boundary between East and West Florida. The map shows the boundary at the Perdido River (the modern western border of Florida), when it was actually at the Apalachicola River. The other boundaries of West Florida did change a number of times, but the boundary between the Floridas did not change.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Perdido River WAS the boundary for the short-lived republic. That is what the map represents. The US also laid claim to West Florida up to the Perdido, which was of course disputed by Spain. Also, the West Florida article includes this statement: [a]fter years of contention the Perdido River (the modern border between Florida and Alabama) was agreed upon as the boundary between French Louisiana and Spanish Florida, which is sourced to Gannon, Michael (1996). The New History of Florida. University Press of Florida. ISBN 0813014158, pg. 122. I don't have access to the book, but it does seem that the Perdido River was a boundary for West Florida. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the map represents a boundary between West Florida and East Florida. The Perdido River was the boundary between the "Republic of West Florida" and the colony of West Florida for a few months in 1810. It had also been a boundary between Spanish Florida and French Louisiana prior to the French and Indian War. It wasn't ever a boundary between West Florida and East Florida, which were created by the British after the French and Indian War.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you are mistaken. Both the source of the map and the year indicate that the boundary indicates the US claims -- not the older boundaries (or Spain's perspective on the territory). The label "West Florida" which appears on the map has no additional markings. East Florida has the additional notation as being Spain. I think it is pretty clear that the map represents US claims over West Florida in 1810 based on the annexation of the short-lived republic. Further, the earlier adjustment between Spain and France was in large part a contributing factor to the conflicting claims over the area. Of course, I agree that a better map that does show the Apalachicola River boundary is needed. If this map is to be used, it needs to be properly contextualized as representing US claims over a disputed region. older ≠ wiser 19:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look, whatever the map is trying to show for West Florida (and I don't think I'm mistaken), the boundaries of East Florida are still wrong. East Florida's western boundary was the Apalachicola River. East Florida didn't include the territory between the Perdido and the Apalachicola (most importantly, it didn't include Pensacola), but the map shows just that. This is a common error in older maps, but it's still an error.

Additionally, in the map's source, West Florida and East Florida are the color of non-U.S. land, not the color of U.S. territories. It doesn't appear to be trying to show US claims over West Florida (and at any rate the boundaries of East Florida are still wrong).Cúchullain ^t/c 19:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair point about the colors. But my point is is that "West Florida" is an inherently ambiguous referent. It could refer to the Spanish territory, the British Territory, the short-lived republic, or the land claimed by the US as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The boundary for both of the latter two senses of "West Florida" was the Perdido River. In 1810, I think a fair number of people in the US saw West Florida with a different boundary than that recognized as the "official" boundaries by the Spanish government. The map could well have been a product of some in the US trying to spin the PR by showing the boundary as different. That in itself might be an interesting area to expand on in the article. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the map isn't from 1810, but yes, intentionally or not, the error is obviously due to the confusion about West Florida. It gives the name "West Florida" to the (a) section disputed between Spain and the U.S., and "East Florida" to the entire undisputed area of both Florida colonies, including sections that were not part of East Florida. Because the map doesn't accurately show the two colonies of East and West Florida, it's useless for illustrating the section discussing them in this article.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to mess with you on this a little, I recall reading that at one point during the second Spanish period St. Marks was placed under the jurisdiction of the governor of West Florida, although I don't know if the Spanish made any formal adjustments to the boundary. I'll have to think about where I saw that. -- Donald Albury 00:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That may well be. I doubt they would have even needed to bother changing the border, as there wasn't much else around St. Marks that would be affected. At any rate the map would be even more useless for depicting whatever the border looked like at that point.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, the capital of West Florida was always Pensacola, which is east of the Perdido. Here is a map of British West Florida (on the Mississippi HistoryNow site. I don't see source information for it, but it looks old enough to be out of copyright. It nicely shows both the 1763 boundary and the 1767 boundary. This map of East and West Florida is apparently from 1763. -- Donald Albury 23:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Invite to Viva Florida 500

I'd like to invite fellow Wikipedians interested in Florida history to join in our new project page for celebrating our state's 500th anniversay at Viva_Florida_500 Please review and join in getting this project off the ground. It's more than just about Ponce de Leon and his landing it is also about other cultures and what new content we can bring into Wiki such as adding new information about the Native Cultures that were here when this period of discovery began.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Geologic history

I don't know that I would want it in both places, but we seem to be missing the pre-historic record of past eras in both this article and Geography of Florida (which might include a history of the geography. Needs to be someplace. Student7 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Tsunami

The tsunami that struck Florida when Lisbon was wiped out, was real. The bad news is that there was no one left to "record" it as the natives close to shore were drowned. And they didn't write anyway. Just another contribution to "flood myths", oral, in this case. It needs to be in the article someplace. Geologic history?

This is pretty much like the last two tsunamis in the Pacific. If a tidal wave hits x with a y-foot wave, then the tidal wave will hit z with a n-foot wave. Science, not conjecture.

A well-meaning editor, thinking that it was mere conjecture rm it. We need to discuss it, rather. I've commented it back in until we decide where it goes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs)

If it's of significance, we could include a line explaining that significance with proper citations. I think Secret was right to remove it; the current wording doesn't indicate how this was important beyond saying it "would have hit".Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a saying "written in sand," meaning that it could be easily changed. Anyway, that is what Florida archaeologists are up against for beach domiciles, pre-Columbian. The sand leaves no record. The tides have smashed even harder relics, like arrowheads, pottery, etc. We only have such records inland. Nothing close to the beach. So a tsunami, drowning everyone beachside, would leave no record.

Pretty much the problem with fissures opening the Mediterranean Sea at Gibraltar-Africa the end of the ice age - should have drowned tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people. Something more "recent" happened in the Black Sea and is sometimes thought to have contributed to Near East Flood myths. Having said that, those are conjecture since we don't have an exact time or measure of tsunami force as we do for Lisbon.

It does not appear to have hit Mexico, Florida perhaps protecting the Gulf.

See "Except for Florida...", "Southern Florida Seems to be at risk", (Florida not protected), Okay, just 77 cm - low end estimate though, Not sure whether last study included striking land in shallow water, This is in the other direction and scary. Not sure whether researcher is using Lisbon data or creating his own "hypothetical" disaster, etc. Student7 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to maps showing the Florida peninsula before Ponce de Leon?

The maps surely prove that someone at least sailed around the peninsula before PdL landed. We may never know whether someone landed or not--but I think the early maps should be mentioned. G. Blaine (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, there are claims that some maps show the Florida peninsula but these claims aren't generally accepted. For instance, the Cantino planisphere. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there something I am misreading in looking at the map you mentioned and the Waldseemuller map (1507)? I am certainly no expert in reading maps but I seem to see the peninsula fairly clearly.

G. Blaine (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not agreed that the actually show Florida. They may be trying to show some part of the Asia that many people still assumed at the time was west of Cuba, in which case it's just coincidence that there happened to be a real landmass that vaguely looks like that. However, it could also be that some other European went to Florida earlier and returned with some information. In fact, if the Portuguese went there, they would have a reason not to admit it since it was against the Treaty of Tordesillas with Spain.[2]--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, FWIW, the accounts of De Leon's voyage claim that they met an Indian who could speak some Spanish; if this is accurate then it's probable previous Europeans had been to Florida.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.broward.org/library/bienes/lii14004.htm

This discusses the maps. Seems to mostly say they show Florida---but at end does give the counter-opinion. This looks like it is worth referencing in Wikipedia ---mentioning pro and con [I am not even an amateur historian—I will leave the decision to others.] G. Blaine (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could address the controversy somewhere? I'd tackle it. Valerie (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110326212607/http://www.floridatoday.com:80/article/20110321/NEWS01/110321001/Large-margins-safety-Florida-s-nuclear-plants to http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110321/NEWS01/110321001/Large-margins-safety-Florida-s-nuclear-plants

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425141409/http://www.coastalenv.com/sarc-27-02-202-221-e.pdf to http://www.coastalenv.com/sarc-27-02-202-221-e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409062720/http://www.newworldexplorersinc.org/FountainofYouth.pdf to http://www.newworldexplorersinc.org/FountainofYouth.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state/php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515152951/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~mjones/rosewood/rosewood.html to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~mjones/rosewood/rosewood.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515152951/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~mjones/rosewood/rosewood.html to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~mjones/rosewood/rosewood.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/state/php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012043208/http://www.clovisinthesoutheast.net/dunbar.html to http://www.clovisinthesoutheast.net/dunbar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226065206/http://www.moaacc.org/Intercomaug11.pdf to http://www.moaacc.org/Intercomaug11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403084151/http://www.trailoffloridasindianheritage.org/pdf/fw1.pdf to http://www.trailoffloridasindianheritage.org/pdf/fw1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120810134311/http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/FLAwetlands/ to http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/FLAwetlands/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Questionable material in Native Americans section

More than 6,000 bytes were added in one edit to the Native Americans section in September of last year. The material is, based on my extensive reading on Florida history prior to the first contact with Europeans and during the first Spanish period, ridiculous suspect. It is filled with what appear to be citations, but which do not link to any source. I have asked the editor who added the material for more information on the sources they used. - Donald Albury 23:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC) (edited) - Donald Albury 00:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I may have identified some of sources corresponding to citations in the above section.

• 'Hann 2003' appears to be John H. Hann (2003). Indians of Central and South Florida: 1513-1763. University of Florida Press.
• 'MacMahon and Marquardt' appears to be Darcie MacMahon and William Marquardt (2004). The Calusa and Their Legacy: South Florida People and Their Environments. University Press of Florida.
• 'Mahon' appears to be John K. Mahon (1985). History of the Second Seminole War. University of Florida Press.
• 'Marquardt 2004' appears to be the chapter "Calusa" in R. D. Fogelson (2004). Handbook of North American Indians, volumn 14, Southeast. Smithsonian Institution.
• 'Widmer' appears to Randolph J. Widmer (1988). The Evolution of the Calusa. The University of Alabama Press.

All of these are reliable sources. I have so far been able to check the citations to Hann 2003, Mahon and Widmer, and if the citations in the article are to the books listed just above, they are not supported by those books. I will need at least a couple of days to access other works in the article to verify whether or not they support the text in the article. - Donald Albury 15:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

--To the above writer: Sorry. I wasn't ignoring anyone. I do not have my own internet access and usually only go online once or twice a week.

As to what I wrote, I have been going through an ongoing process of editing the native american based info of states, many of which had been remarkably outdated before I got to it. For instance, in my own state, most historians barely seem to know any of our states history & the pages wiki pages showed. I have been learning as I go and it has been difficult from my limited resources, so I apologize for the fact that repeated edits over long periods of time occasionally produced long winded and confusing articles. Looking over what it has been changed to, I am fine with what is there. It's certainly better organized than what I had. That being said, I believe at the time I had done this, someone had edited wiki resources connected to the Jeaga & Tequesta, claiming that they were subtribes of the Calusa. That point still exists on the Tequesta page. As to the info regarding the quote-unquote Muspa Seminole, that came from a free 2006 e-book I recently discovered entitled, "Encyclopedia of Native American Tribes: Third Edition" by Carl Waldman, in it's section regarding the Calusa. I would hope that he did the correct research there, although I have found minor instances throughout the book that may be incorrect or outdated by today's standards.Bobbotronica (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorting out the story of the Calusa from everything on the Internet is a chore. But, that problem is older than the Internet. I have a copy of a little book from 1962 that argues that the Calusa were descended from Mayans who migrated from the Yucatan to Florida. Some people who write about the Calusa fail to distinguish between the Calusa chiefdom (where the Caloosahatchee culture was practiced) and the wider realm of political control, influence and alliance. The Tequesta, Jaega, and Mayaimi, at least when the Spanish were around, were more or less dominated politically by the Calusa. The Calusa, Tequesta and Mayaimi may have spoken a common language, although the evidence is very thin (about a dozen words for which historians know the meaning). The archaeological cultures of southern Florida were related, and apparently developed in place from a common culture over a period of 1,500 to 2,000 years. I haven't done much on the Calusa article; it draws a fair number of editors. I did a lot of work on the Tequesta article over 12 years ago. I suspect it needs more work, but I keep finding other things to do. I started the Jaega and Mayaimi articles, but there isn't a lot of information out there, and the articles are short. I pulled together what I could find in reliable sources in the Muspa article, but that isn't much. The Muspa of the 18th and 19th centuries remain a bit of a mystery. - Donald Albury 22:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Slavery in Spanish Florida

I just reverted an edit that claimed that the Spanish did not allow slavery in Florida in the 1700s. Slavery did exist in Spanish Florida. The Spanish crown had forbidden the enslavement of Indians, although one governor enslaved a band that had rebelled against the Spanish. He had to release those people a couple of years later on orders from the crown. The Spanish in Florida also had a policy of letting people who had escaped to Florida from slavery in English/British colonies to live free if the escapees professed or were converted to Catholicism. I am unaware of any reliable source that says slavery was forbidden in Spanish Florida Donald Albury 16:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)