Talk:Annexation Bill of 1866

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Shouldn't "Canada East" and "Canada West" be related to the present-day Quebec and Ontario? Rlquall 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - the bill called for the admission of the historical Province of Canada, which was made up of Canada East and Canada West. While they have since evolved into the modern provinces of Ontario and Quebec, it is correct from a historical context to link to the articles about their prior status. I would also suggest we link to articles about pre-confederation New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, except that I am fairly certain such articles do not exist, having looked for the Nova Scotia article in the past. --8.11.254.188 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed or not passed?

Was this bill passed or not? This reference [1] from Collections Canada says it was.

User:Rjensen has said it was not passed, and listed [2] as a reference for this. I can find nothing there to indicate what happened to the bill. The image there says it was read twice, referred to a committee, and ordered to be printed. There's nothing I can see to indicate whether it did or didn't go any further than this. Maybe someone more familiar than I am with U.S. legislative procedures could clarify this.

I'm quite prepared to believe it didn't pass if evidence is presented. As is, I'm going to leave it as saying that it did pass because the Collections Canada reference said it did, though that's not a great reference. --Saforrest 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference gives the complete history of the bill--it was referred to committee and nothing else happened. That is, it did not come back from committee and therefore was never voted upon. Rjensen 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no vote on Banks bill

In 1866, General Nathaniel P. Banks, representative from Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a bill calling for the annexation of the British provinces to the United States.... Banks' bill never came to a vote." from The Idea of Continental Union: Agitation for the Annexation of Canada to the United States, 1849-1893. by Donald Frederic Warner; University of Kentucky Press. 1960. Page 66. Rjensen 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annexation Bill of 1866. 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/20060213074652/http://www.collectionscanada.ca:80/confederation/023001-246-e.html to http://www.collectionscanada.ca/confederation/023001-246-e.html

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of the intro

The last paragraph starting with “ Its introduction and similar interest in..” seems highly speculative and, alongside being unsourced, doesn’t seem to provide and informational content beyond the conjecture of the author.

Although I’m inclined to agree with the sentiment of the paragraph, I don’t think it should be kept up as it doesn’t provide the viewer with anything substantial. Those who wear purple (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As is I’m going to omit the paragraph until it can be reworded/defended Those who wear purple (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]