text:
United States occupation of Haiti

The United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 U.S. Marines landed at Port-au-Prince, Haiti, after the National City Bank of New York convinced the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, to take control of Haiti's political and financial interests. The July 1915 invasion took place following years of socioeconomic instability within Haiti that culminated with the lynching of President of Haiti Vilbrun Guillaume Sam by a mob angered by his decision to order the executions of political prisoners.

During the occupation, Haiti had three new presidents while the United States ruled as a military regime through martial law led by Marines and the Gendarmerie. A corvée system of forced labor was used by the United States for infrastructure projects, that resulted in hundreds to thousands of deaths. Under the occupation, most Haitians continued to live in poverty, while American personnel were well-compensated. The American occupation ended the constitutional ban on foreign ownership of land, which had existed since the foundation of Haiti.

The occupation ended on August 1, 1934, after President Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of marines departed on August 15, 1934, after a formal transfer of authority to the American-created Gendarmerie of Haiti.

Background
In the late 1700s, the relationship between Haitians and the United States began when some Haitians fought beside Americans in the American Revolutionary War. Originally the wealthiest region in the Americas when it was the French colony of Saint-Domingue, a slave revolt at the colony beginning in 1791 that led to the successful Haitian Revolution in 1804 frightened those living in the Southern United States who supported slavery, raising fears that it would inspire other slaves. Such sentiments among wealthy slaveholding Americans strained relations between the United States and Haiti, with the United States initially refusing to recognize Haitian independence while slaveholders advocated for a trade embargo with the newly created Caribbean nation. The Haiti indemnity controversy – which France forced upon Haiti through gunboat diplomacy in 1825 due to France's financial loss following Haiti's independence – resulted with Haiti using much of its revenue to pay debt to foreign nations by the late-1800s. The United States had been interested in controlling Haiti in the decades following its independence from France. As a way "to secure a U.S. defensive and economic stake in the West Indies", according to the United States Department of State, President Andrew Johnson of the United States began the pursuit of annexing Hispaniola, including Haiti, in 1868. In 1890, the Môle Saint-Nicolas affair occurred when President Benjamin Harrison, on the advice of Secretary of State James G. Blaine, ordered Rear-Admiral Bancroft Gherardi to persuade newly assumed President of Haiti Florvil Hyppolite to lease the port to the United States. Enforcing gunboat diplomacy upon Haiti, Gherardi aboard USS Philadelphia (C-4) along with his fleet arrived in the capital city of Port-au-Prince to demand the acquisition of Môle Saint-Nicolas. President Hyppolite refused any agreement as Haitians grew angered by the presence of the fleet, with The New York Times writing that the Haitians' "semi-barbaric minds saw in it a threat of violence". Upon returning to the United States in 1891, Gherardi said in an interview with The New York Times that in a short time Haiti would experience further instability, suggesting that future governments in Haiti would abide by the demands of the United States.

By the 1890s, Haiti became reliant on importing most of its goods from the United States while it exported the majority of its production to France. The Roosevelt Corollary also affected Haiti's relationship with the United States. By 1910, President William Howard Taft attempted to introduce American businesses to Haiti in order to deter European influence and granted a large loan to Haiti to pay off foreign debts, though this proved to be fruitless due to the size of the debt.

German presence

The United States was not concerned by France's influence, though German influence in Haiti raised concern. Germany had intervened in Haiti, including the Lüders affair in 1897, and had been influencing other Caribbean nations during the previous few decades. Germany had also become increasingly hostile to United States domination of the region under the Monroe Doctrine.

The United States' concern over Germany's ambitions was mirrored by apprehension and rivalry between American businessmen and the small German community in Haiti, which, although numbering only about 200 in 1910, wielded a disproportionate amount of economic power. German nationals controlled about eighty percent of the country's international commerce. They owned and operated utilities in Cap-Haïten and Port-au-Prince, including the main wharf and a tramway in the capital, and also had built the railway serving the Plain of the Cul-de-Sac.

The German community was more willing to integrate into Haitian society than any other group of Caucasian foreigners, including the more numerous French. Some Germans had married into Haiti's most prominent mixed-race families of African-French descent. This enabled them to bypass the constitutional prohibition against foreigners owning land. The German residents retained strong ties to their homeland and sometimes aided the German military and intelligence networks in Haiti. They also served as the principal financiers of the nation's numerous revolutions, floating loans at high interest rates to the competing political factions.

In the lead-up to World War I, the strategic importance of Haiti, along with the German influence there, worried President Wilson, who feared a German presence near the Panama Canal Zone.

Haitian instability
In the first decades of the 20th century, Haiti experienced great political instability and was heavily in debt to France, Germany, and the United States. The Wilson administration viewed Haiti's instability as a national security threat to the United States. Political tensions were often between two groups; wealthy French-speaking mulatto Haitians who represented the minority of the population and poor Afro-Haitians who spoke Haitian Creole. Various revolutionary armies carried out the coups. Each was formed by cacos, peasant militias from the mountains of the north, who stayed along the porous Dominican border and were often funded by foreign governments to stage revolts.

In 1902, a civil war was fought between the government of Pierre Théoma Boisrond-Canal and General Pierre Nord Alexis against rebels of Anténor Firmin, which led to Pierre Nord Alexis becoming president. In 1908, he was forced from power and a series of short lived presidencies came and went: his successor François C. Antoine Simon in 1911; President Cincinnatus Leconte (1911–1912) was killed in a (possibly deliberate) explosion at the National Palace; Michel Oreste (1913–1914) was ousted in a coup, as was his successor Oreste Zamor in 1914. Between 1911 and 1915, Haiti had seven presidents because of political assassinations, coups and forced exiles.

American financial interests
Prior to the intervention of the United States, Haiti's large debt was 80 percent of its annual revenue, though it was able to meet financial obligations, especially when compared to Ecuador, Honduras, and Mexico at that time. In the twentieth century, the United States had become Haiti's largest trade partner, replacing France, with American businesses expanding their presence in Haiti. Due to the influence of Germans within Haiti, they were regarded as a threat to American financial interests, with businesses ultimately advocating for policies of invading Haiti. Haitian authorities in 1903 began to accuse the National Bank of Haiti of fraud and by 1908, Haitian Minister of Finance Frédéric Marcelin pushed for the bank to work on the behalf of Haitians, though French officials began to devise plans to reorganize their financial interests. French envoy to Haiti Pierre Carteron wrote following Marcelin's objections that "It is of the highest importance that we study how to set up a new French credit establishment in Port-au-Prince ... Without any close link to the Haitian government."

Businesses from the United States had pursued the control of Haiti for years and in 1909, the new president of National City Bank of New York, Frank A. Vanderlip, began to plan the bank's take over of Haiti's finances as part of his larger role of making the bank grow in international markets. In early 1909, Speyer & Co. promoted a stock to Vanderlip and the bank to invest in the National Railroad of Haiti, which held a monopoly of importing in the Port-au-Prince area. The Haitian government faced conflict with the National City Bank over the railroad regarding payments to creditors, later leading to the bank seeking to control the entirety of Haiti's finances. Vanderlip wrote to Chairman of National City Bank James Stillman in 1910, "In the future, this stock will give us a foothold [in Haiti] and I think we will perhaps later undertake the reorganization of the Government’s currency system, which, I believe, I see my way clear to do with practically no monetary risk". From 1910 to 1911, the United States Department of State backed a consortium of American investors – headed by the National City Bank of New York – to acquire a managing stake of the National Bank of Haiti to create the Bank of the Republic of Haiti (BNRH), with the new bank often holding payments from the Haitian government, leading to unrest. France would also keep a stake in the BNRH. The BNRH was the country's sole commercial bank and served as the Haitian government's treasury.

Officials of the Wilson administration were not knowledgeable about Haiti and often relied on information from American businessmen. United States Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan fired established Latin American experts upon his nomination and instead replaced them with political allies. Bryan initially proposed forgiving the debt of Caribbean nations, though President Wilson viewed this as too radical. With his ideas facing rejection, Bryan, who had little information on Haiti, instead relied on the vice president of National City Bank, Roger Leslie Farnham, for information regarding Haiti. Farnham had an extensive background working as a financial advisor, lobbyist, journalis, and purchasing agent between the United States and the Caribbean, with American historian Brenda Gayle Plummer writing "Farnham ... is often portrayed by historians as the deus ex machina single-handedly plotting the American intervention of 1915". Throughout the 1910s, Farnham demanded successive Haitian governments to grant him control of the nation's customs, the only source of revenue, threatening American intervention when Haiti refused citing national sovereignty. John H. Allen, manager of the BNRH, also met with Bryan for consultation in 1912, with Allen later sharing an account of Bryan being surprised about Haitian culture and stating "Dear me, think of it! Niggers speaking French".

In 1914, France began to lose its ties to Haiti as it was focusing its efforts on World War I and Farnham suggested to the United States Congress that the BNRH's "active management has been from New York". Allen later stated that if the United States permanently occupied Haiti, he supported National City Bank acquiring all shares of BNRH, believing that it would "pay 20% or better". Farnham persuaded Secretary Bryan to have the United States invade Haiti during a telephone call on January 22, 1914. Farnham argued that Haiti was not improving due to continuous internal conflict, that Haitians were not interested in the revolts occurring and that American troops would be welcomed in Haiti. Farnham also exaggerated the role of European influence, even convincing Secretary Bryan that France and Germany – two nations then at war with each other – were plotting in cooperation to obtain the harbor of Môle Saint-Nicholas in northern Haiti. The businessman concluded that Haiti would not improve "until such time as some stronger outside power steps in". American diplomats would ultimately draft plans to take over Haiti's finances, dubbed the "Farnham Plan".

After American officials travelled to Haiti to propose the "Farnham Plan", Haitian legislators denounced their minister of foreign affairs, saying he was "endeavoring to sell the country to the United States" according to a telegram of the US State Department. Due to Haitian opposition to the plan, the BNRH withheld funds from the Haitian government and funded rebels to destabilize the Haitian government in order to justify American intervention, generating 12% gains in interest by holding on to the funds. On January 27, 1914, Haitian President Michel Oreste was deposed in a coup. Two generals, Charles and Oreste Zamor, seized control. In response, the USS Montana sent a marine detachment on January 29 into Port-au Prince to protect American interests. On February 5, 1914, military forces from the French cruiser Conde and British HMS Lancaster also landed troops. These units agreed to leave the city and boarded their ships on February 9, 1914.

BNRH's Allen telegrammed the State Department on April 8, 1914, requesting that the U.S. Navy sail to Port-au-Prince to deter possible rebellions. In the summer of 1914, the BNRH began to threaten the Haitian government that it would no longer provide payments. Simultaneously, Secretary Bryan telegrammed the United States consul in Cap-Haïtien, writing that the State Department agreed with invading Haiti, telling the consul that the United States "earnestly desires successfully carrying out of Farnham's plan".

American bankers raised fears that Haiti would default on debt payments despite consistent compliance by Haiti with loan conditions, calling for the seizure of Haiti's national bank. National City Bank officials – acting on behalf of Farnham – demanded the State Department to provide military support to acquire Haiti's national reserves, with the bank arguing that Haiti had become too unstable to safeguard the assets. Urged by the National City Bank and the BNRH, with the latter of the two already under direction of American business interests, eight United States marines walked into the national bank and took custody of Haiti's gold reserve of about US$500,000 – about the – on December 17, 1914. The Marines packed the gold into wooden boxes, loaded them into a wagon, and transported the gold under the protection of plainclothes clandestine soldiers lining the route to the USS Machias, which transferred its load to the National City Bank's New York City vault on 55 Wall Street. The robbery of the gold provided the United States with a large amount of control over the Haitian government, though American businesses demanded further intervention. National City Bank would go on to acquire some of its largest gains in the 1920s due to debt payments from Haiti, according to later filings to the Senate Finance Committee, with debt payments to the bank comprising 25% of Haiti's revenue.

American invasion
In February 1915, Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, son of a former Haitian president, took power as President of Haiti. The culmination of his repressive measures came on July 27, 1915, when he ordered the execution of 167 political prisoners, including former president Zamor, who was being held in a Port-au-Prince jail. This infuriated the population, which rose up against Sam's government as soon as news of the executions reached them. Sam, who had taken refuge in the French embassy, was lynched by an enraged mob in Port-au-Prince as soon as they learned of the executions. The United States regarded the anti-American revolt against Sam as a threat to American business interests in the country, especially the Haitian American Sugar Company (HASCO). When the caco-supported anti-American Rosalvo Bobo emerged as the next president of Haiti, the United States government decided to act quickly to preserve its economic dominance.

In April 1915, Secretary Bryan expressed support for invading Haiti to President Wilson, writing "The American interests are willing to remain there, with a view of purchasing a controlling interest and making the bank a branch of the American bank – they are willing to do this provided this government takes the steps necessary to protect them and their idea seems to be that no protection will be sufficient that does not include control of the Customs House."

On July 28, 1915, United States President Woodrow Wilson ordered 340 United States marines to occupy Port-au-Prince and the invasion took place the same day. The Secretary of the Navy instructed the invasion commander, Rear Admiral William Banks Caperton, to "protect American and foreign" interests. Wilson also wanted to rewrite the Haitian constitution, which banned foreign ownership of land, to replace it with one that guaranteed American financial control. To avoid public criticism, Wilson claimed the occupation was a mission to "re-establish peace and order ... [and] has nothing to do with any diplomatic negotiations of the past or the future," as disclosed by Rear Admiral Caperton. Only one Haitian soldier, Pierre Sully, tried to resist the invasion, and he was shot dead by the Marines.

U.S. installs Dartiguenave as president
Haitian presidents were not elected by universal suffrage but rather chosen by the Senate. The American occupying authorities therefore looked to find a presidential candidate ready to cooperate with them. Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave, president of the Senate and among the mulatto Haitian elite who supported the United States, agreed to accept the presidency of Haiti in August 1915 after several other candidates had refused. The United States would later go on to install more wealthy mulatto Haitians in positions of power.

U.S. takeover of Haitian institutions

For several decades, the Haitian government had been receiving large loans from both American and French banks, and with the political chaos was growing increasingly incapable of repaying their debts. If the anti-American government of Rosalvo Bobo prevailed, there was no guarantee of debt repayment, and American businesses refused to continue investing there. Within six weeks of the occupation, U.S. government representatives seized control of Haiti's customs houses and administrative institutions, including the banks and the national treasury. Under U.S. government control, 40% of Haiti's national income was designated to repay debts to American and French banks. In September 1915, the United States Senate ratified the Haitian-American Convention, a treaty granting the United States security and economic oversight of Haiti for a 10-year period. Haiti's legislature initially refused to ratify the treaty, though Admiral Caperton threatened hold payments from Haiti until the treaty was signed. The treaty gave the President of the United States the power to appoint a customs receiver general, economic advisors, public works engineers; and to assign American military officers to oversee a Haitian gendarmerie. Haiti's economic functions were overseen by the United States Department of State, while the United States Navy was tasked with infrastructure and healthcare works, though the Navy ultimately held more authority. Officials from the United States then wielded veto power over all governmental decisions in Haiti, and Marine Corps commanders served as administrators in the departments. The original treaty was to be in effect for ten years, though an additional agreement in 1917 expanded the United States' power for twenty years. For the next nineteen years, U.S. State Department advisers ruled Haiti, their authority enforced by the United States Marine Corps.

The Gendarmerie of Haiti, now known as the Garde d'Haïti, was also created and controlled by U.S. Marines throughout the occupation, initially led by Major Smedley D. Butler. Rear Admiral Caperton ordered his 2,500 Marines to occupy all of Haiti's districts, equipping them with airplanes, cars, and trucks. Five airfields were constructed and at least three airplanes were present in Haiti. Marines were tasked with multiple duties for their districts; law enforcement, tax collection, medicine distribution, and overseeing arbitration.

Economically and politically, the Haitian government relied on American approval for most projects. The 1915 treaty with the United States proved expensive; the Haitian government had such a limited income that it was difficult to hire public workers and officials. Before utilizing any money, the Haitian government had to obtain approval from an American financial advisor and by 1918, would rely on American officials for approval of any laws due to fears of violating the treaty.

First Caco War
The installation of a president without the consent of Haitians and the forced labor of the corvée system enforced upon Haitians by American forces led to opposition of the U.S. occupation began immediately after the marines entered Haiti, creating rebel groups of Haitians who felt they were returning to slavery. The rebels (called "Cacos", after a local bird sharing their ambush tactics) strongly resisted American control of Haiti. The U.S. and Haitian governments began a vigorous campaign to destroy the rebel armies. Perhaps the best-known account of this skirmishing came from Marine Major Smedley Butler, awarded a Medal of Honor for his exploits. He was appointed to serve as commanding officer of the Haitian gendarmerie. He later expressed his disapproval of the U.S. intervention in his 1935 book War Is a Racket.

On November 17, 1915, the Marines captured Fort Rivière, a stronghold of the Caco rebels, which marked the end of the First Caco War. The United States military issued two Haitian Campaign Medals to U.S. Marine and naval personnel for service in the country during the periods 1915 and 1919–1920.

U.S. forces new Haitian constitution
Shortly after installing Dartiguenave as president of Haiti, President Wilson pursued the rewriting of the Constitution of Haiti. One of the main concerns for the United States was the ban of foreigners from owning Haitian land. Early leader Jean-Jacques Dessalines had forbidden land ownership by foreigners when Haiti became independent to deter foreign influence, and since 1804, some Haitians had viewed foreign ownership as anathema. Fearing impeachment and due to opposition of the legislature, Dartiguenave ordered the dissolution of the senate on April 6, 1916, with Major Butler and Colonel Waller enforcing new legislative elections. Colonel Eli K. Cole would later assume Waller's position as commander of the Marines.

The newly elected legislature of Haiti immediately rejected the constitution proposed by the United States. Instead, the legislative body began drafting a new constitution of its own that was in contrast to the interests of the United States. Under orders from the United States, President Dartiguenave dissolved the legislature in 1917 after its members refused to approve the proposed constitution, with Major Butler forcing the closing of the senate at gunpoint.

Haiti's new constitution was drafted under the supervision of Franklin D. Roosevelt, then Assistant Secretary of the Navy. A referendum in Haiti subsequently approved the new constitution in 1918 (by a vote of 98,225 to 768). In Roosevelt's new constitution, Haiti explicitly allowed foreigners to control Haitian land for the first time since Haiti's creation. As a result of opposing the United States' effort of rewriting its constitution, Haiti would remain without a legislative branch until 1929.

Second Caco War

The end of the First World War in 1918 deprived the Haitians of their main ally in the guerrilla struggle. Germany's defeat meant its end as a menace to the U.S. in the Caribbean, as it lost control of Tortuga. Nevertheless, the U.S. continued its occupation of Haiti after the war, despite President Woodrow Wilson's claims at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 that he supported self-determination among other peoples.

At one time, at least twenty percent of Haitians had been involved in the rebellion against occupation according to Africanologist Patrick Bellegarde-Smith. The strongest period of unrest culminated in a 1918 rebellion by up to 40,000 former cacos and other members of the opposition led by Charlemagne Péralte, a former officer of the dissolved Haitian army. The scale of the uprising overwhelmed the Gendarmerie, but U.S. Marine reinforcements helped put down the revolt. For their part, the Haitians resorted to non-conventional tactics, being severely outmatched by their occupiers. Prior to his death, Péralte launched an attack on Port-au-Prince. The assassination of Péralte in 1919 solidified US Marine power over the Cacos. The Second Caco War ended with the death of Benoît Batraville in 1920, who had commanded an assault on the Haitian capital that year. An estimated 2,004 Cacos were killed in the fighting, as well as several dozens of US Marines and Haitian gendarmes.

Congressional investigation

The educated elite in Haiti was L'Union Patriotique, which established ties with opponents of the occupation in the U.S. They found allies in the NAACP and among both white and African-American leaders. The NAACP sent civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson, its field secretary, to investigate conditions in Haiti. He published his account in 1920, decrying "the economic corruption, forced labor, press censorship, racial segregation, and wanton violence introduced to Haiti by the U.S. occupation encouraged numerous African Americans to flood the State Department and the offices of Republican Party officials with letters" calling for an end to the abuses and to remove troops. Academic W. E. B. Du Bois, who had Haitian ancestry, demanded a response for the Wilson administration's actions and wrote that U.S. troops "have no designs on the political independence of the island and no desire to exploit it ruthlessly for the take of selfish business interests".

Based on Johnson's investigation, NAACP executive secretary Herbert J. Seligman wrote in the July 10, 1920, The Nation:

"'Military camps have been built throughout the island. The property of natives has been taken for military use. Haitians carrying a gun were for a time shot on sight. Machine guns have been turned on crowds of unarmed natives, and United States Marines have, by accounts which several of them gave me in casual conversation, not troubled to investigate how many were killed or wounded.'"According to Johnson, there was only one reason why the United States occupied Haiti:

Two years after Johnson published his findings, a congressional investigation began in the United States in 1922. The report from Congress did not include testimony from Haitians and ignored allegations involving National City Bank of New York and U.S. Marines. Congress concluded the report by defending a continued occupation of Haiti, arguing that "chronic revolution, anarchy, barbarism, and ruin" would befall upon Haiti if the United States withdrew. Johnson described the congressional investigation as "on the whole, a whitewash".

Borno presidency

In 1922, Dartiguenave was replaced by Louis Borno, with the US-appointed General John H. Russell, Jr. serving as High Commissioner. General Russell worked on the behalf of the United States Department of State and was authorized as the representative to carry out treaty works.

National City Bank acquires BNRH
On August 17, 1922, BNRH was completely acquired by National City Bank, its headquarters was moved to New York City and Haiti's debt to France was moved to be paid to American investors. Following the acquisition of BNRH, the November 1922 issue of National City Bank's employee journal No. 8 exclaimed "Bank of Haiti is Ours!" According to professor Peter James Hudson, "such control represented the end of independence and, as the BNRH and the republic's gold reserve became mere entries on the ledgers of the City Bank, a sign of a return to colonial servitude".

Forced labor
The Borno-Russell government oversaw the use of forced labor to expand the economy and to complete infrastructure projects. Sisal was introduced to Haiti as a commodity crop, and sugar and cotton became significant exports. However, efforts to develop commercial agriculture met with limited success, in part because much of Haiti's labor force was employed as seasonal workers in the more-established sugar industries of Cuba and the Dominican Republic. An estimated 30,000–40,000 Haitian laborers, known in Cuba as braceros, went annually to the Oriente Province between 1913 and 1931. The Great Depression disastrously affected the prices of Haiti's exports and destroyed the tenuous gains of the previous decade. Under press laws, Borno frequently imprisoned newspaper press that criticized his government.

Les Cayes massacre
President Herbert Hoover had become increasingly pressured about the effects of occupying Haiti at the time and began inquiring about a withdrawal strategy. By 1929, Haitians had grown angered with the Borno-Russell government and American occupation, with demands for direct elections increasing. In early December 1929, protests against the American occupation began at the Service Technique de l’Agriculture et de l’Enseignement Professionnel's main school. On December 6, 1929, about 1,500 Haitians peacefully protesting local economic conditions in Les Cayes were fired upon by U.S. Marines, with the massacre resulting in 12 to 22 Haitians dead and 51 injured. The massacre resulted in international outrage, with President Hoover calling on Congress to investigate conditions in Haiti the following day.

Forbes Commission, Borno's resignation
President Hoover would later appoint two commissions, including one headed by a former U.S. governor of the Philippines William Cameron Forbes. The commission arrived in Haiti on February 28, 1930, with President Hoover demanding the commission to determine "when and how we are to withdraw from Haiti" and "what we shall do in the meantime". The Forbes Commission praised the material improvements that the U.S. administration had achieved, but it criticized the continued exclusion of Haitian nationals from positions of real authority in the government and the gendarmerie. In more general terms, the commission asserted that "the social forces that created [instability] still remain – poverty, ignorance, and the lack of a tradition or desire for orderly free government." The commission concluded that occupation of Haiti was a failure and that the United States did not "understand the social problems of Haiti".

With increased calls for direct elections, American officials feared violence if demands were not met. An agreement was made that resulted with President Borno's resignation and the establishment of Haitian banker Louis Eugène Roy as an interim president. In the agreement proposed by the Forbes Commission, Roy would be elected by Congress to serve as president until a direct election for Congress was held, which is when Roy would resign. American officials said that if Congress were to refuse, Roy would be installed as president forcibly.

Vincent presidency
Under orders to not interfere with elections, the United States observed elections on October 14, 1930, that resulted with Haitian nationalist candidates being elected. Sténio Vincent was elected President of Haiti by the Congress of Haiti in November 1930. The new nationalist government had a tense relationship with American officials. By the end of 1930, Haitians were being trained by Americans for administration roles of their own nation. When additional American commissions began to arrive in Haiti, popular unrest broke out and President Vincent reached a secret agreement to ease tensions with the United States in exchange to grant more power to American officials to enact their "Haitianization" policies.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who as Assistant Secretary of the Navy said he was responsible for drafting the 1918 constitution, was a proponent of the "Good Neighbor policy" for the US role in the Caribbean and Latin America. The United States and Haiti agreed on August 7, 1933, to end the occupation. On a visit to Cap-Haïtien in July 1934, Roosevelt reaffirmed the August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of US Marines departed on August 15, 1934, after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde. The U.S. retained influence on Haiti's external finances until 1947, as per the 1919 treaty that required an American financial advisor through the life of Haiti's acquired loan.

Economy
The occupation was costly for the Haitian government; American advisors collected about 5% of Haiti's revenue while the 1915 treaty with the United States limited Haiti's income, resulting with fewer jobs for the government to assign. Numerous agricultural changes included the introduction of sisal. Sugarcane and cotton became significant exports, boosting prosperity. However, efforts to develop commercial agriculture produced limited results while American agricultural businesses removed the property from thousands of Haitian peasants to produce bananas, sisal and rubber for export, resulting with lower domestic food production.

Haitian traditionalists, based in rural areas, were highly resistant to U.S.-backed changes, while the urban elites, typically mixed-race, welcomed the growing economy, but wanted more political control. Following the end of the occupation in 1934, under the Presidency of Sténio Vincent (1930–1941), debts were still outstanding and the U.S. financial advisor-general receiver handled the budget until 1941 when three American and three Haitian directors headed by an American manager assumed the role. Haiti's loan debt to the United States was about twenty percent of the nation's annual revenue.

Formal American influence on Haiti's economy would conclude in 1947. The United Nations and the United States Department of State would report at the time that Haitian rural peasants, who comprised 90% of the nation's population, lived "close to starvation level".

Infrastructure
The occupation improved some of Haiti's infrastructure and centralized power in Port-au-Prince, though much of the funds collected by the United States was not used to modernize Haiti. Corvée forced labor of Haitians, that was enforced by the US-operated gendarmerie, was used for infrastructure projects, particularly for road building. Forced labor would ultimately result in the deaths of hundreds to thousands of Haitians. Infrastructure improvements included 1700 km of roads being made usable, 189 bridges built, the rehabilitation of irrigation canals, the construction of hospitals, schools, and public buildings, and drinking water was brought to the main cities. Port-au-Prince became the first Caribbean city to have a phone service with automatic dialing. Agricultural education was organized, with a central school of agriculture and 69 farms in the country.

The majority of Haitians believed that the public works projects enforced by the US Marines were unsatisfactory. American officers who controlled Haiti at the time spent more on their own salaries than on the public health budget for two million Haitians. A 1949 report by the United States Department of State wrote that irrigation systems that were recently constructed were "not in good condition".

Education
The United States redesigned the education system. It dismantled the liberal arts education which the Haitians had inherited (and adapted) from the French system. With the Service Technique de l’Agriculture et de l’Enseignement Professionnel, Americans emphasized agricultural and vocational training, similar to its industrial education for minorities and immigrants in the United States. Dr. Robert Russa Moton was tasked with assessing the Service Technique, concluding that though the objectives were admirable, performance was not satisfactory and criticized the large amount of funding it received compared to average Haitian public schools, which were in poor condition.

Elite Haitians despised the system, believing it was discriminatory against their people. The mulatto elite also feared the creation of an educated middle class that would potentially lead to the loss of their influence.

Human rights abuses

The United States Marines ruled Haiti as a military regime using a constant state of martial law, operating the newly created Haitian gendarmerie to suppress Haitians who opposed occupation. Between 1915 and 1930, Haitians represented only about 35–40% of officers in the gendarmes. During the occupation of Haiti by the United States, human rights abuses were committed against the native Haitian population. Such actions involved censorship, concentration camps, forced labor, racial segregation, religious persecution of Haitian Vodou practitioners and torture.

Overall, American troops and the Haitian gendarmerie killed several thousand Haitian civilians during the rebellions between 1915 and 1920, though the exact death toll is unknown. During Senate hearings in 1921, the commandant of the Marine Corps reported that, in the 20 months of active unrest, 2,250 Haitian rebels had been killed. However, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy, he reported the death toll as being 3,250. According to Haitian American academic Michel-Rolph Trouillot, about 5,500 Haitians died in labor camps alone. Haitian historian Roger Gaillard, estimated that in total, including rebel combatants and civilians, at least 15,000 Haitians were killed throughout the occupation. According to Paul Farmer, the higher estimates are not supported by most historians outside Haiti.

American troops also performed union-busting actions, often for American businesses like the Haitian American Sugar Company, the Haitian American Development Corporation and National City Bank of New York.

Executions and killings

Under American occupation, extrajudicial executions were committed against Haitians. During the second Caco war of 1918–1919, many Caco prisoners were summarily executed by Marines and the gendarmerie on orders from their superiors. On June 4, 1916, Marines executed Caco General Mizrael Codio and ten others captured in Fonds-Verrettes. In Hinche in January 1919, Captain Ernest Lavoie of the gendarmerie, a former United States Marine, allegedly ordered the killing of nineteen Caco rebels according to American officers, though no charges were placed due to no physical evidence being presented. During the investigation of two marines accused of illegally executing Haitians, the attorney of the soldiers minimized their actions, saying that such killings were common, prompting larger investigations into the matter.

One controversial event occurred when in an attempt to discourage rebel support from the Haitian population, the US troops took a photograph of Charlemagne Péralte's body tied to a door following his assassination in 1919, and distributed it in the country. However, it had the opposite effect, with the image's resemblance to a crucifixion making it an icon of the resistance and establishing Péralte as a martyr.

Mass killings of civilians were allegedly committed by United States Marines and their Haitian gendarmerie subordinates. According to Haitian historian Roger Gaillard, such killings involved rape, lynchings, summary executions, burning villages and deaths by burning. Internal documents of the United States Army justified the killing of women and children, describing them as "auxiliaries" of rebels. A private memorandum of the Secretary of the Navy criticized "indiscriminate killings against natives". American officers responsible for acts of violence were given names in Creole such as "Linx" for Commandant Freeman Lang and "Ouiliyanm" for Sergeant Dorcas Lee Williams. According to American journalist H. J. Seligman, Marines would practice "bumping off Gooks", describing the shooting of civilians in a similar manner as killing for sport.

Beginning in 1919, American troops began attacking rural villages. In November 1919, villagers in Thomazeau hiding in a nearby forest sent a letter – the only surviving testament of the event – to a French priest asking for protection. In the letter, survivors wrote that at least two American planes bombed and shot at two villages, killing half of the population, including men, women, children and the elderly. On December 5, 1919, American planes bombed Les Cayes in a possible act of intimidation. American pilots were investigated for their actions, though none were condemned. These actions were described by anthropologist Jean-Philippe Belleau as possibly "the first ever carried out by air on civilian populations".

Forced labor
A corvée policy of forced labor was enacted upon Haitians, enforced by the U.S.-operated Haitian gendarmerie in the interest of improving economic conditions to fulfill foreign debts – including payments to the United States – and to improve the nation's infrastructure. The corvée system was found in Haiti's rural code by Major Smedley D. Butler, who testified that forced labor cut the cost of 1 mi of road construction from $51,000 per mile to $205 per mile.

The corvée resulted in the deaths of hundreds to thousands of Haitians. Haitians were tied together in rope and those fleeing labor projects were often shot. According to Haitian American academic Michel-Rolph Trouillot, about 5,500 Haitians died in labor camps. In addition, Roger Gaillard writes that some Haitians were killed fleeing the camps or if they did not work satisfactorily. Many of the deaths and killings attributed to forced labor occurred during the extensive construction of roads in Haiti. In some instances, Haitians were forced to work on projects without pay and while shackled to chains. The corvée system's treatment of Haitians has been compared to the system of bondage labor enforced upon black Americans during the Reconstruction era following the American Civil War.

Racism
Many of those tasked with the occupation of Haiti espoused racist beliefs. The first Marine commander ashore assigned was Colonel Littleton Waller, who had a history of racism against mulattos, describing them as "real nigger ... real nigs beneath the surface". Wilson's Secretary of State Robert Lansing also held racist beliefs, writing at the time that "the African race are devoid of any capacity for political organization". The United States introduced Jim Crow laws to Haiti with racist attitudes towards the Haitian people by the American occupation forces that were blatant and widespread. Many of the Marines chosen to occupy Haiti were from the Southern United States, specifically Alabama and Louisiana, resulting in increased racial tensions. Racism has been recognized as a factor leading to increased violence by American troops against Haitians. One general described Haitians as "niggers who pretend to speak French".

Initially, officers and the elites intermingled at social gatherings and clubs. Such gatherings were minimized when families of American forces began arriving. Relations degraded rapidly upon departure of officers for World War I. The Haitian elite found the American junior and non-commissioned officers to be ignorant and uneducated. There were numerous reports of remaining Marines drinking to excess, fighting, and sexually assaulting women. The situation was so bad that Marine general John A. Lejeune, based in Washington, D.C., banned the sale of alcohol to any military personnel.

The Americans inhabited neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince in high-quality housing. This neighborhood was called the "millionaires' row". Hans Schmidt recounted a navy officer's opinion on the matter of segregation: "I can't see why they wouldn't have a better time with their crowd, just as I do with mine." American racial intolerance provoked indignation and resentment – and eventually a racial pride that was reflected in the work of a new generation of Haitian historians, ethnologists, writers, artists, and others. Many of these later became active in politics and government. The elite Haitians, mostly mixed-race with higher levels of education and capital, continued to dominate the country's bureaucracy and to strengthen its role in national affairs.

Colorism, which had existed since French colonization, had also become prevalent once more under American occupation and racial segregation became common. All three rulers during the occupation came from the country's mixed-race elite. At the same time, many in the growing black professional classes departed from the traditional veneration of Haiti's French cultural heritage and emphasized the nation's African roots. Among these were ethnologist Jean Price-Mars and François Duvalier, editor of the journal Les Griots (the title referred to traditional African oral historians, the storytellers) and future totalitarian president of Haiti. The racism and violence that occurred during the United States occupation of Haiti, inspired black nationalism among Haitians and left a powerful impression on the young Duvalier.

Torture
The torture of Haitian rebels or those suspected of rebelling against the United States was common among occupying Marines. Some methods of torture included the use of water cure, hanging prisoners by their genitals and ceps, which involved pushing both sides of the tibia with the butts of two guns.

20th century
Haitian writers and public figures also responded to the occupation. For example, a minister of public education, Dantès Bellegarde raised issues with the events in his book, La Résistance Haïtienne (l'Occupation Américaine d'Haïti). Bellegarde outlines the contradictions of the occupation with the realities. He accused President Wilson of writing the new Haitian Constitution to benefit the Americans, and wrote that Wilson's main purpose was to remove the previous Haitian clause that stated foreigners could not own land in the country. The original clause was designed to protect Haiti's independence from foreign powers. With the clause removed, Americans (including whites and other foreigners) could now own land. Furthermore, Bellegarde discusses the powerlessness of Haitian officials in the eyes of the Occupation because nothing could be done without the consent of the Americans. However, the main issue that Bellegarde articulates is that the Americans tried to change the education system of Haiti from one that was French based to that of the Americans. Even though Bellegarde was resistant he had a plan to build a university in Haiti that was based on the American system. He wanted a university with various schools of science, business, art, medicine, law, agriculture, and languages all connected by a common area and library. However, that dream was never realized because of the new direction the Haitian government was forced to take.

Jean Price-Mars associated the reasons behind the Occupation to the division between the Haitian elite and the poorer people of the country. He noted that the groups were divided over the practice of Haitian Vodou, with the implication that the elites did not recognize Vodou because they connected it to an evil practice.

21st century
Pezullo writes in his 2006 book Plunging Into Haiti: Clinton, Aristide, and the Defeat of Diplomacy that the racism similar to Jim Crow laws in the United States inspired black nationalism within Haiti and ignited future support for Haitian dictator François Duvalier.

In a 2013 article by Peter James Hudson published in Radical History Review, Hudson wrote: "Ostensibly initiated on humane grounds, the occupation had not fulfilled any of its stated goals of building infrastructure, expanding education, or providing internal or regional stability. Repressive violence emerged as its only purpose and logic." Hudson further stated that the motives of American businessmen to become involved in Haiti were due to racial capitalism motivated by white supremacy.

According to a 2020 study which contrasts the American occupations of both Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the United States had a longer and more domineering occupation of Haiti because of perceived racial differences between the two populations. Dominican elites articulated a European–Spanish identity – in contrast to Haitian blackness – which led U.S. policymakers to accept leaving the territory in the population's hands.

title: United States occupation of Haiti


text:
User:Node ue

ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk)

ʼAñi ʼañ wud si haʼicu.

Localities - Ki:khim

 * Ciudad Miguel Alemán, Tamaulipas
 * Andrade, California
 * El Berrendo, Chihuahua - translated from Spanish
 * San Jerónimo, Chihuahua
 * Práxedis G. Guerrero Municipality - translated from Spanish
 * Komadk
 * Aguila, Arizona
 * Dryopida - translated from Greek
 * Saddlebrooke, Arizona
 * Roosevelt, Arizona
 * Vícam, Sonora - translated from Spanish
 * Citrus Park, Arizona
 * Kuiwa
 * Gʼodva
 * B&C Colonia, Arizona
 * Gagka
 * Maricopa Colony
 * St. Johns (Gila River)
 * Cactus Forest, Arizona
 * Campo Bonito, Arizona
 * Casa Blanca, Arizona
 * Walin Dak
 * Kohadk
 * Ha:ṣañ Ke:k
 * Hia-t-ab
 * S-totoñigk
 * S-iʼowĭ Ṣu:dagĭ

People - ʼoʼodham

 * La Factoria
 * Lupe Gómez - translated from Galician
 * Rafa Villar - translated from Galician
 * Athina Krikeli - translated from Greek
 * Stefanie Sun
 * Lluis Antón González - translated from Spanish
 * Abi Kusno Nachran - translated from German
 * Mach and Daddy - translated from Spanish
 * Inspector (band) - translated from Spanish
 * Sonidero Nacional
 * Lucille Watahomigie

Peoples - Hehemajkam

 * Hia C-ed O'odham

Languages - Ñeñeʼokĭ

 * Moriori language
 * Cocopah language
 * Crow language
 * Mojave language
 * Amami language
 * Yaeyama language
 * Yonaguni language
 * Ryukyuan languages
 * Miyako language
 * Kunigami language
 * Kiliwa language

Publications, Prizes, Schools, Concepts, Events

 * New Sparta - translated from Greek
 * Premio Eusebio Lorenzo Baleirón - translated from Galician
 * Premios Juventud
 * Sandfood
 * Üüs Söl’ring Lön’
 * Leew Eilun Feer
 * Lemon Grove Incident
 * Moldovenism
 * La Bressola - translated from Spanish
 * Anstituto de la Lhéngua Mirandesa - translated from Spanish
 * College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica - translated from Spanish
 * Avanzada Regia - translated from Spanish

Nations

 * Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
 * Fort Yuma Indian Reservation
 * Cocopah Indian Reservation

En español

 * Douglas (Arizona)
 * San Luis (Arizona)
 * Puerto Peñasco
 * Mach & Daddy
 * Kali iugá
 * Arturo Merzario
 * Código Postal Brasileño
 * Yuma
 * Teo Fabi
 * JJ Lehto
 * Lo que tú quieras oír
 * Fuzûlî
 * Barreiras
 * Camila (banda)
 * Idioma pima bajo
 * Emma Heming
 * Sonidero Nacional
 * Franja de Arizona
 * Meseta de Coconino
 * Meseta de Kaibab
 * Borde Mogollón
 * Economía de Arizona
 * Pueblo hualapai
 * Cultura Salado
 * Cultura Sinagua
 * Valle Verde (Arizona)

うるまぬ　あらむん しまくとぅばぬ　あらむん

4 4283 2336 2228733 63 *26841*76626426 2284667 263 73684636871 4693871 8447 2228728466 427 668 2336 222533 87 9484 384336231 4 9681

nv:Choyoołʼįįhí:Node_ue ja:%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:Node_ue es:Usuario:Node_ue fr:Utilisateur:Node_ue it:User:Node_ue mo:User:Node_ue got:User:Node_ue haw:User:Node_ue sm:User:Node_ue mi:User:Node_ue bo:User:Node_ue hy:User:Node_ue {

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Node ue


text:
Williamstown Pier railway station

Williamstown Pier was the original terminus of the Williamstown railway line, on the Melbourne suburban rail system. It was in the suburb of Williamstown, to the west of central Melbourne. The station existed primarily to serve the Williamstown docks precinct.

History
Originally named Pier, it opened on 17 January 1859. It opened to passengers on 15 May 1881, and relocated to a new site on 8 January 1905.

The station contained a goods yard that was used for grain shipments, up until the 1960s.

By mid-1978, the station building was demolished and was replaced with two smaller brick structures. The last services terminated at the station on 25 March 1987, following a derailment on the sharply curved track leading to the station. All rails, sleepers, overhead wires and signals were removed by October 1988, with the platform track and overhead currently ending just under the Ann Street footbridge, at the down end of Williamstown station. The station was subsequently demolished, and replaced with a car park and a parkland.

Today little remains of Williamstown Pier remain mostly demolished aforementioned in the late 1980s until the early 1990s. A short section of disused tracks beyond Williamstown station is the only remains of the old line.

title: Williamstown Pier railway station


text:
Historical regions of the United States

The territory of the United States and its overseas possessions has evolved over time, from the colonial era to the present day. It includes formally organized territories, proposed and failed states, unrecognized breakaway states, international and interstate purchases, cessions, and land grants, and historical military departments and administrative districts. The last section lists informal regions from American vernacular geography known by popular nicknames and linked by geographical, cultural, or economic similarities, some of which are still in use today.

For a more complete list of regions and subdivisions of the United States used in modern times, see List of regions of the United States.

Thirteen Colonies

 * Connecticut Colony
 * Delaware Colony
 * Province of Georgia
 * Province of Maryland
 * Province of Massachusetts Bay
 * Province of New Hampshire
 * Province of New Jersey
 * Province of New York
 * Province of North Carolina
 * Province of Pennsylvania
 * Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
 * Province of South Carolina
 * Colony and Dominion of Virginia

Pre-Revolutionary War regions
† - indicates failed legal entities

New England

 * Acadia
 * Dominion of New England†
 * Equivalent Lands
 * King's College Tract
 * Provinces of Maine†
 * Territory of Sagadahock
 * Popham Colony (or Sagadahoc Colony)†
 * Gorges-Mason Grant†
 * Mason Lands
 * Gorges Patent†
 * Lygonia Patent†
 * New Somersetshire†
 * Muscongus Patent (also known as the Waldo Patent and, eventually, the Bingham Purchase)
 * Massachusetts Bay Colony
 * Narragansett Country†
 * New Hampshire Grants
 * New Haven Colony
 * Plymouth Colony
 * Saybrook Colony
 * Wessagusset Colony†

Mid-Atlantic

 * Granville District
 * East Jersey
 * West Jersey
 * New Netherland and its settlements
 * New Sweden†

Southern

 * Province of Carolina
 * Fort Caroline†
 * Charlesfort†
 * La Florida
 * San Agustín (St. Augustine)
 * San Miguel de Gualdape† (in present-day South Carolina)
 * Mocama Province†
 * Jamestown
 * Northern Neck Proprietary (or "Fairfax Grant")
 * The Lost Colony of Roanoke†
 * Stuarts Town†

Interior

 * District of West Augusta
 * Illinois Country
 * Indiana Company
 * The Indian Reserve
 * Ohio Country (or The Ohio Company of Virginia)†
 * Province of Quebec (lower portion below the Great Lakes)

Far West
Unlike the land to the east, most of the land west of the Mississippi River was under French or Spanish rule until the first years of the 19th century.
 * La Louisiane (French Louisiana, 1682–1762 and 1802–1803)
 * Arkansas Post
 * The German Coast
 * Luisiana (Spanish Louisiana, 1762–1802)
 * Tejas
 * Fort Saint Louis†
 * Santa Fe de Nuevo México
 * Las Californias

Colonies settled but unrecognized

 * Transylvania†
 * Watauga Republic

Colonies proposed but unrealized

 * Charlotina Colony
 * Mississippi Colony
 * Vandalia Colony
 * Westsylvania

Independent entities later joined to the Union

 * Vermont Republic (also known as the Republic of New Connecticut), 1791
 * Republic of Texas (disputed with Mexico), 1846
 * Republic of Hawaii, 1898 (after U.S. immigrant and military involvement in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom)

Regions purchased from foreign powers

 * Louisiana Purchase, 1803, from France, for $15,000,000
 * Florida Purchase (or the Spanish Cession), 1819 (effective 1821), from Spain, for $5,000,000; included: East Florida, West Florida, and Sabine Free State or Neutral Ground
 * Gadsden Purchase, 1853, from Mexico, for $10,000,000
 * Alaska Purchase (also called "Seward's Folly"), 1867, from Russia, for $7,200,000
 * Virgin Islands, 1917, from Denmark, for $25,000,000

Regions annexed from or ceded by foreign powers

 * Republic of West Florida Annexation; seceded from Spain, 1810; disputed with Spain until 1821
 * Baton Rouge District (annexed by the U.S., 1810)
 * Mobile District (annexed by the U.S., 1812)
 * Pembina Region, formerly part of Rupert's Land and the Red River Colony; (often referred to as the British Cession of 1818) to U.S. in an exchange for the unorganized territory of the original Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 49th parallel
 * The Aroostook War Compromise Lands; 1842, split jointly claimed areas with the UK
 * Maine–New Brunswick Border
 * Republic of Indian Stream
 * South Acadia
 * Northwest Angle
 * Rupert's Land south of the 49th parallel
 * Oregon Country (U.S.); the 1846 Oregon Treaty finally split the jointly governed region (called Columbia by the English) between the U.S. and United Kingdom at the 49th parallel
 * Mexican Cession; effective 1848, from Mexico, including:
 * Alta California (California, Nevada, Utah)
 * Nuevo México (New Mexico, Arizona, parts of Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas)
 * Provisional New Mexico
 * Texas annexation; annexed from Mexico in 1846, including most of present-day Texas and parts of Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming and No Man's Land; disputed with Mexico until the end of the Mexican–American War in 1848
 * included old Coahuila y Tejas areas
 * United States Minor Outlying Islands; most claimed under the Guano Islands Act as outside the jurisdiction of other nations (1856 and later)
 * After victory in the Spanish–American War in 1898, from Spain:
 * The Philippine Islands; became a U.S. Territory (1900–1935) and a U.S. commonwealth (1935–1946)
 * Puerto Rico
 * Guam
 * American Samoa; 1899, from Germany

Ceded or purchased Native American regions

 * Black Hawk Purchase; $640,000; purchased 1832; Michigan Territory (eventually Iowa)
 * California Indian Reservations and Cessions; 1851–52; unratified treaties; California
 * Cherokee Outlet; $7,000,000; purchased 1893; Oklahoma Territory (eventually Oklahoma)
 * Cherokee Strip; a disputed two-mile wide tract of land between the Cherokee Nation and Kansas that was eventually ceded to Kansas in 1866
 * Jackson Purchase; $300,000; purchased by Tennessee and Kentucky from the Chickasaw Nation in 1818
 * Lovely's Purchase; 1816 land purchase from the Osage Nation
 * Platte Purchase; $7,500; purchased 1836; Missouri
 * Saginaw Cession; ceded 1819; Michigan Territory (eventually Michigan)

Interstate, territorial, and federal cessions
The following are state cessions made during the building of the U.S.
 * The Delaware Wedge, dispute with Pennsylvania settled in 1921; now a part of the state of Delaware.
 * Washington, D.C.; to the Federal Government from Virginia and Maryland, 1790.
 * District of Columbia retrocession; the return to Virginia of the District of Columbia lands which Virginia had originally ceded for its creation, 1847.
 * Greer County, Texas; a disputed county claimed both by Texas and the Federal Government; to Oklahoma Territory, 1896.
 * The Honey Lands; a disputed tract of land between the Territory of Iowa and State of Missouri; to State of Iowa, 1851
 * District of Kentucky; from Virginia; became the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 1792.
 * Illinois County; from Virginia; became Northwest Territory, 1784.
 * District of Maine; from Massachusetts; became the State of Maine, 1820.
 * The Toledo Strip; the object of the nearly bloodless Toledo War between Ohio and Michigan; to Ohio, 1837.
 * Washington District; from North Carolina; became the Southwest Territory, 1790.
 * West Virginia; from Virginia; separating itself from the Confederacy, declared 1861; admitted to the Union in 1863.
 * The Western Reserve; from Connecticut to the Northwest Territory (Ohio), 1800.
 * The Yazoo lands; from Georgia to the Mississippi Territory, 1802.

Former organized territories
The following is a list of the 31 U.S. territories that have become states, in the order of the date organized. (All were considered incorporated.)
 * Northwest Territory (1787–1803), became the state of Ohio and the Territory of Indiana.
 * Territory South of the River Ohio (also known as the Southwest Territory) (1790–1796) became the State of Tennessee.
 * Territory of Mississippi (1798–1817) became the State of Mississippi and the Territory of Alabama.
 * Territory of Indiana (1800–1816) split into the Illinois Territory, the Michigan Territory, and the State of Indiana.
 * Territory of Orleans (1804–1812) became the State of Louisiana.
 * Territory of Michigan (1805–1837) became State of Michigan and the Territory of Wisconsin.
 * Territory of Louisiana (1805–1812) (preceded by the District of Louisiana), then renamed the Territory of Missouri.
 * Territory of Illinois (1809–1818) split into the State of Illinois and additions to the Michigan Territory.
 * Territory of Missouri (1812–1821) became the State of Missouri and Unorganized Territory (the eastern part of which was attached to the Territory of Michigan in 1834).
 * Territory of Alabama (1817–1819) became State of Alabama.
 * Territory of Arkansaw (1819–1836) became the State of Arkansas, additions to the unorganized territory of the original Louisiana Purchase, and the unorganized Indian Territory (which eventually spawned Indian Territory, Oklahoma Territory and No Man's Land).
 * Territory of Florida (1822–1845) became the State of Florida.
 * Territory of Wisconsin (1836–1848) split into the State of Wisconsin, the Iowa Territory and Unorganized Territory.
 * Territory of Iowa (1838–1846) split into the State of Iowa and unorganized territory of the original Louisiana Purchase.
 * Territory of Oregon (1848–1859) preceded by the unrecognized Oregon Country; split into the State of Oregon and Washington Territory.
 * Territory of Minnesota (1849–1858) preceded by unorganized territory of the original Northwest Territory (remnant of former Wisconsin Territory) and original Louisiana Purchase; split into the State of Minnesota and unorganized territory of the original Louisiana Purchase.
 * Territory of New Mexico (1850–1912) preceded by Nuevo Mexico (the southern part was known as the Arizona Territory (1861–1864) by the Confederate States of America); split into the Arizona Territory and the State of New Mexico.
 * Territory of Utah (1850–1896) preceded by Alta California and the unrecognized State of Deseret; split into the State of Utah, the Nevada Territory, additions to the Colorado Territory and additions to the Wyoming Territory.
 * Territory of Washington (1853–1889) became the State of Washington and additions to the Idaho Territory.
 * Territory of Kansas (1854–1861) preceded by unorganized territory of the original Louisiana Purchase. Part became the modern State of Kansas; the western part became part of the Colorado Territory.
 * Territory of Nebraska (1854–1867) preceded by unorganized territory of the original Louisiana Purchase; split into the State of Nebraska, the Dakota Territory, additions to the Idaho Territory and additions to the Colorado Territory.
 * Territory of Colorado (1861–1876) preceded by parts of the territories of Kansas, Utah, New Mexico and Nebraska; became the State of Colorado. (See also Jefferson Territory.)
 * Territory of Nevada (1861–1864) preceded by the Utah Territory and the unrecognized State of Deseret; became the State of Nevada.
 * Territory of Dakota (1861–1889) became the State of North Dakota, the State of South Dakota, additions to the Idaho Territory and additions to the Wyoming Territory.
 * Territory of Arizona (1863–1912) became the State of Arizona and an addition to the State of Nevada.
 * Territory of Idaho (1863–1890) preceded by parts of the territories of Washington, Dakota, and Nebraska; became the State of Idaho, the Montana Territory, additions to the Dakota Territory and additions to the Wyoming Territory.
 * Territory of Montana (1864–1889) became the State of Montana.
 * Territory of Wyoming (1868–1890) preceded by parts of the territories of: Dakota, Utah and Idaho; became the State of Wyoming.
 * Territory of Oklahoma (1890–1907) (preceded by the unorganized Indian Territory (1834–1907) and the Neutral Strip; became the State of Oklahoma.
 * Territory of Hawaii (1900–1959) preceded by the Republic of Hawaii; became the State of Hawaii.
 * Territory of Alaska (1912–1959) (preceded by the Department of Alaska and the District of Alaska); became the State of Alaska.

Internal land grants, cessions, districts, departments, claims and settlements
The following are land grants, cessions, defined districts (official or otherwise) or named settlements made within an area that was already part of a U.S. state or territory that did not involve international treaties or Native American cessions or land purchases.

 * Cumberland District, North Carolina (also called the District of Miro); Tennessee.
 * District of Louisiana; Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Montana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming; renamed Missouri Territory in 1812.
 * Military Tract of 1812; Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Missouri.
 * Ohio Country; parts of Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia.

Alaska

 * District of Alaska; renamed the Alaska Territory in 1912.

Colorado

 * Pike's Peak Country

Iowa

 * Half-Breed Tract
 * Keokuk's Reserve

Nebraska

 * Nemaha Half-Breed Reservation

New York

 * Central New York Military Tract
 * The Holland Purchase
 * Macomb's Purchase
 * Mill Yard Tract
 * The Morris Reserve
 * Phelps and Gorham Purchase
 * The Triangle Tract

Ohio

 * Canal Lands
 * College Lands
 * College Township
 * Congress Lands (or Congressional Lands, 1798–1821)
 * Congress Lands North of Old Seven Ranges
 * Congress Lands West of Miami River
 * Congress Lands East of Scioto River
 * North and East of First Principal Meridian
 * South and East of the First Principal Meridian
 * Dohrman Tract
 * Ephraim Kimberly Grant
 * Firelands or Sufferers' Lands
 * French Grant
 * Indian Land Grants
 * Maumee Road Lands
 * Michigan meridian (or Michigan Meridian Survey; also Toledo Tract)
 * Miami & Erie Canal Lands
 * Ministerial Lands
 * Moravian Indian Grants
 * Gnadenhutten Tract
 * Salem Tract
 * Schoenbrunn Tract
 * Ohio & Erie Canal Lands
 * The Ohio Company
 * Donation Tract
 * First Purchase
 * Purchase on the Muskingum (or Second Purchase)
 * Refugee Tract
 * Salt Reservations (or Salt Lands)
 * School Lands
 * Seven Ranges (or Old Seven Ranges)
 * Symmes Purchase (or Miami Purchase; also the Land Between the Miamis)
 * Turnpike Lands
 * Twelve Mile Square Reservation
 * Two Mile Square Reservation
 * United States Military District
 * Virginia Military District
 * Zane's Tracts (or Zane's Grant; also Ebenezer Zane Tract)

Oklahoma

 * Big Pasture
 * Indian Territory or The Oklahoma Indian Country
 * Neutral Strip (or No Man's Land)
 * Unassigned Lands

Indian reserves

 * The original and current Cherokee Nation
 * Cheyenne–Arapaho Reserve
 * Chickasaw Reserve
 * Choctaw Reserve
 * Comanche, Kiowa and Apache Reserve
 * Creek Reserve
 * Iowa Reserve
 * Kaw Reserve
 * Kickapoo Reserve
 * Osage Reserve
 * Ponca and Otoe–Missouria Reserve
 * Citizen Potawatomi and Absentee Shawnee Reserve
 * Sac and Fox Reserve
 * Seminole Reserve
 * Tonkawa Reserve
 * Wichita and Caddo Reserve

Pennsylvania

 * Erie Triangle
 * New Purchase
 * Walking Purchase
 * Welsh Tract

Federal military districts and departments
These entities were sometimes the only governmental authority in the listed areas, although they often co-existed with civil governments in scarcely populated states and territories. Civilian administered "military" tracts, districts, departments, etc., will be listed elsewhere.

Central United States

 * Department of the Northwest (1862–1865) Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
 * District of Minnesota (1862–1865)
 * District of Wisconsin (1862–1865)
 * District of Iowa (1862–1865)
 * District of Dakota (1862–1866)
 * District of Montana (1864–1866)
 * Department of the Missouri (1861–1865) Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, part of Kentucky, and later Kansas; re-configured in 1865 as part of the Division of the Missouri.
 * Division of the Missouri (1865–1891).
 * Department of Dakota (1866–1911) Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and parts of Idaho, South Dakota and the Yellowstone portion of Wyoming.
 * Department of the Missouri (1865–1891) Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Indian Territory, and Territory of Oklahoma.
 * Department of the Platte (1866–1898) Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Dakota Territory, Utah Territory, Wyoming (except Yellowstone), and a portion of Idaho.
 * Department of Texas (1871–1880) (originally part of the Department of the Gulf) Texas after 1865.
 * Department of New Mexico (1854–65) New Mexico Territory; previously part of the District of California and the Department of the West.

Pacific area

 * Pacific Division (1848–1853) lands won in the Mexican–American War; became the original Department of the Pacific in 1853.
 * Military Department 10 (1848–1851) California.
 * Military Department 11 (1848–1851) Oregon Territory.
 * Department of the Pacific (1853–1858; and 1861–1865); separated into the Department of California and the Department of Oregon in 1858.
 * District of Oregon (1853–1858) Washington Territory, Oregon Territory.
 * District of California (1853–1858) California, New Mexico Territory; Utah added 1858

During the American Civil War, the Department of the Pacific had six subordinate military districts:
 * District of Oregon (headquarters at Fort Vancouver) January 15, 1861 – July 27, 1865
 * District of California (headquarters at San Francisco, co-located with Department of the Pacific). Independent command from Department from (July 1, 1864 – July 27, 1865); those parts of California not in other districts.
 * District of Southern California (September 25, 1861 – July 27, 1865); Counties of Southern California (southward from San Luis Obispo and Tulare Counties).
 * District of Humboldt (December 12, 1861 – July 27, 1865); Del Norte, Humboldt, Klamath, Mendocino Counties of California.
 * District of Utah (August 6, 1862 – July 27, 1865); Utah Territory, Nevada Territory, later State of Nevada.
 * District of Arizona (March 7, 1865 – July 27, 1865); Territory of Arizona

The Department of California (1858–1861) comprised the southern part of the Department of the Pacific: California, Nevada, and southern part of Oregon Territory; merged into the Department of the Pacific as the District of California.

The Department of Oregon (1858–1861) comprised the northern part of the Department of the Pacific: Washington Territory and Oregon Territory.
 * Military Division of the Pacific (1865–1891).
 * Department of Alaska (1868–1884) became the civilian-ruled District of Alaska.
 * Department of Arizona (1865–1891) Arizona Territory; included New Mexico Territory after 1885.
 * Department of the Columbia (1865–1891) Oregon, Washington Territory, part of Idaho Territory, and Alaska after 1870.
 * District of Oregon (1865–1867) Washington Territory, Oregon Territory and Idaho Territory.
 * New Department of California (1865–1891) California, Nevada Territory, Arizona Territory, and part of New Mexico Territory.

The south

 * Department of the Gulf (1862–1865; created by the U.S. for the Civil War) Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas.
 * Trans-Mississippi (or Trans-Mississippi Department; CSA) (1862–1865). Formerly "Military Dept. 2"; Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Indian Territory (now Oklahoma), Kansas, and Louisiana west of the Mississippi River.

The west

 * Department of the West (1853–1861): all U.S. lands between the Mississippi River and the Military District of the Pacific not included in other Districts or Departments.

Retroceded possessions and overseas territories

 * The Milk River and Poplar River cessions to the United Kingdom (Treaty of 1818)
 * Commonwealth of the Philippines to Republic of the Philippines (1946)
 * Chamizal, Texas, to Mexico (1964)
 * Swan Islands to Honduras (1971)
 * Rio Rico, Texas, (Horcón Tract) to Mexico (1977)
 * Panama Canal Zone to Panama (1979)
 * Canton and Enderbury Islands (administered jointly with the UK) to Kiribati (1979)

Functioning but non-sanctioned territories
These "territories" had actual, functioning governments (recognized or not):
 * Cimarron Territory
 * State of Deseret
 * State of Frankland / Franklin
 * Jefferson Territory
 * Kansas Territory (1854–1861) had two different governments in different cities, pro-slavery and anti-slavery, each claiming to be the real, lawful government of the entire territory. Since Kansas entered the union as a free state in 1861, there has only been one capital, Topeka, Kansas. It entered as a free state in 1861 because the entire pro-slavery block in Congress, which would not have allowed this, had left to become the Confederacy.
 * Long Republic
 * Nataqua Territory
 * Trans-Oconee Republic

Civil War-related
These are functioning governments created as a result of the attempted secession of the Confederacy during the American Civil War (1861–1865). Some were enclaves within enemy-held territories:
 * Confederate States of America (CSA) – see map.
 * Confederate Arizona (parts of the territories of Arizona and New Mexico)
 * State of Dade
 * Second Republic of South Carolina

These were regions disassociated from neighboring areas due to opposing views:
 * Nickajack
 * Free State of Jones
 * Republic of Winston (see Winston County, Alabama)
 * State of Scott, seceded from Tennessee and became a Union enclave (see Scott County, Tennessee)
 * Town Line, New York
 * Free State of Van Zandt, seceded from Texas to be its own republic.

Regional nicknames

 * Regions of the United States:
 * Eastern United States
 * The East Coast
 * The Northeast
 * New England
 * Mid-Atlantic States
 * The Burnt-Over District
 * South Atlantic States
 * Appalachia
 * East North Central States
 * The South
 * Border States
 * The Deep South
 * Dixie
 * The Midwest
 * The Great Plains
 * The Dust Bowl
 * The West
 * Mountain States
 * The Rockies
 * Inland Empire (Washington and Idaho)
 * Great Basin
 * The Southwest
 * The Four Corners
 * The West Coast
 * The Pacific Northwest

Belts
Belts are loosely defined sub-regions found throughout the United States that are named for a perceived commonality among the included areas, which is often related to the region's economy or climate.

 * Bible Belt
 * Black Belt
 * Borscht Belt
 * Breadbasket of the United States
 * Cotton Belt
 * Grain Belt or Corn Belt
 * Mormon Corridor or "Jello Belt"
 * Lead Belt
 * Rust Belt
 * Snow Belt
 * Sun Belt
 * Tornado Alley

title: Historical regions of the United States


text:
Public holidays in Latvia

This is a list of holidays in Latvia.

title: Public holidays in Latvia


text:
Talk:Formula for primes

Atiyolil Venugopalan
I found out another published work done by Mr. A.Venugopalan aka Atiyolil Venugopalan on Prime numbers. The paper was published in the Hardy-Ramanujan Journal Vol.6 (1983) 45-48. It could be viewed at the link: https://hrj.episciences.org/99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.21.85 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The following four formulas were published in the Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Volume 92, No.1 September 1983 edition, pages 49-52.

 * I have LaTeX translated Venugopalan's formula. It is given below:
 * $$P_{n+1}^{2}\text{ = 1 + }\left| \text{ }-{{\log }_{X}}\left( {\scriptscriptstyle 1\!/\!{ }_2}\text{ }\sum\limits_{{{a}_{1}}=1}^{{{p}_{1}}-1}{...\sum\limits_{{{a}_{n}}-1}^{{{p}_{n}}-1}{\sum\limits_{b=1}^{n}}}-\text{ 1/X } \right) \right|$$
 * He says X could be any number (not an integer). I guess, we could use Euler's constant "e" in place of X so that $$Lo{{g}_{x}}$$ will be Natural logarithm for ease of computation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.225.161 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2014

For P differs from zero, P is the first Twin prime between $${{p}_{n}}$$ and $$p{{_{n}^{2}}_ – }$$ and it is given by the formula below:

$$P\text{ = Y}\sqrt{\left( 1-\left| {{\sin }^{2}}\left( \frac{\pi }{2}-\left[ {{2}^{-\left( {{Y}^{2}}\_{{p}^{4}}_{n} \right)}} \right] \right) \right| \right)}$$

where,

$${{Y}^{2}}=\text{ }\left( 1+\left| -{{\log }_{x}}\left( \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{{{a}^{'}}_{1}\ne \text{ }{{a}_{1}}=1}^{\left( {{p}_{1}}-1 \right)}{...}\text{ }\sum\limits_{{{a}_{n}}^{'}\ne {{a}_{n}}=1}^{\left( {{p}_{n}}-1 \right)}{\sum\limits_{b=1}^{n}{{{X}^{-{{\left( \sum\nolimits_{1}^{n}{{{a}_{i}}{{Q}_{i}}-bQ} \right)}^{2}}}}\_\left( \frac{1}{X} \right)}} \right) \right| \right)$$

$$X=any\text{ }positive\text{ number, }\left( {{a}^{'}}_{1},{{a}^{'}}_{2},...,{{a}^{'}}_{n} \right)be\text{ unique solution of}$$

$$-\text{2}\equiv \text{ }\sum\nolimits_{1}^{n}{{Q}_{i}}\bmod Q\text{ with 0}\le {{\text{a}}_{i}}\le \left( {{p}_{i}}-1 \right)\text{ ,}$$

$$i=1,2,3..,n\text{ and n}>1$$

$$\begin{align} & \text{For any integer x in }\left( {{p}_{n}},p_{n}^{2} \right),\text{ the number of primes not greater than x,} \\ & \text{is given by the formula below:} \\ & \\  & \prod{\left( x \right)}=\text{ }\frac{1}{2\pi }\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi }{\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{\sin \left( \left( \left( Q-{{Q}_{i}} \right)/2 \right)\theta  \right).\sin \left( \left( n-1 \right)Q\theta /2 \right).\sin \left( x\theta /2 \right)\cos \left( \left( x+1 \right)\theta /2 \right)}{\sin \left( {{Q}_{i}}\theta /2 \right).\sin \left( Q\theta /2 \right)\sin \left( \theta /2 \right)}}}d\theta +n \\ & where, \\ & {{Q}_{i}}\text{ = }Q/{{p}_{i}}\text{ for }i=1,2,3,...,n \\ \end{align}$$

$$\begin{align} & \text{If }\prod\nolimits_{2}{\left( x \right)\text{ represents }}\text{the number of twin-primes not exceeding integer x } \\ & \text{for }{{\text{p}}_{n}}\langle \text{ x }\langle p_{n}^{2}\text{, then,} \\ & \prod\nolimits_{2}{\left( x \right)}\text{ = }\frac{1}{2\pi }\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi }{\sum\limits_{{{a}_{1}}\ne a_{1}^{'}}^ – {...\sum\limits_{{{a}_{n}}\ne a_{n}^{'}}{\sum\limits_{b=1}^{\left( n-1 \right)}{\sum\limits_{t=1}^{x}{\cos \left( \sum\nolimits_{1}^{n}{{{a}_{i}}{{Q}_{i}}-bQ} \right)}}}}}\theta \cos \left( t\theta \right)\text{ }d\theta +\prod\nolimits_{2} \\ & where, \\ & Q=\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}\text{ for }i=1,2,3...,n\text{ and }{{Q}_{i}}=Q/{{p}_{i}} \\ & \text{Since all twin-primes upto and including }{{\text{p}}_{n}}\text{ are known }\prod\nolimits_{2}{\left( {{p}_{n}} \right)}\text{ is known}\text{.} \\ & \text{Twin-prime conjecture follows immediately if}\prod\nolimits_{2}{\left( x \right)}\text{ is greater than } \\ & \prod\nolimits_{2}\text{ for any integer x}\text{.} \\ \end{align}$$

 * It would help if you would describe the formulae here and say why they are as significant as any of the very many others that might be included in this article. Have they been the subject of extensive published commentary by other mathematicians?  Are they taught in standard text books?  Are they cited as the foundation of subsequent research?  See above under WNFFP for a similar proposal.  Deltahedron (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The paper in question has no citations in MathSciNet. I would say that it is extremely unlikely that a result from such a paper would belong in a general article on the subject.  In any event, at a minimum we would need an independent secondary source about this formula, per WP:PSTS.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Venugopalan's paper is referenced in a text book entitled. "The Development of Prime Number Theory: From Euclid to Hardy and Littlewood. 2601:19A:27F:DFE0:487F:1B8E:AC92:DC05 (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What is MathSciNet? Please look at the Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences. Volume 92, No.1 September 1983 edition, pages 49-52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.225.161 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Re MathSciNet: it is a database of mathematics papers, with reviews or abstracts, and also including links from papers to others that cite them. Yours has no such links. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 * It appears that Venugopalan's paper reprints are sold for $44.95. There is a link to buy on MatSciNet of the ams.org/. Why can't they, at least, make the paper simpler by writing a review on it before linking it for sale. You may write to other number theoreticians who could comment on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.47.51 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a link from MathSciNet to the officual web site of the journal that published the paper. It is the journal publisher, a different organization, that is charging ridiculous amounts of money to look at the paper. This is what commercial academic publishers do, and why the open access movement (and preprint servers like arXiv) are important. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Instead of justifying the addition of the content to the article, per the request of at least two editors, an anonymous editor has added yet more formulas here. It is not the content of the formula or formulas that was being discussed anyway, but rather whether there are secondary sources demonstrating the notability of these formulas.  If not, then they do not belong in an encyclopedia.  If so, then we can begin discuss content.  But posting more formulas here, some of which are only peripherally related to the subject of this article, is not likely to be constructive until this original criticism has been answered satisfactorily.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The formulas published by Venugopalan are correct. I had downloaded the reprints from the Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences(Math. Sci.), Vol.92, No.1, September 1983 pp 49-52. The best way to understand the paper easily is to read the errata published first as the paper has a few printing or some sort of errors. I would recommend to move all the formulas to topic section of the encyclopedia as they are all correct and interesting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.56.236 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Correctness is not the relevant criterion, though. What's needed are secondary sources, like textbooks that use the formula, other papers in number theory that attest to the significance if these formulae.  Not every result that is published and correct belongs in an encyclopedia.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The importance of Mr. Venugopalan's formulas for prime numbers is that he is the first person who discovered explicit formulas for prime numbers, especially, for twin prime numbers and number of twin primes(emphasis added)! It is very surprising to note that to this day, no proof has been found to show there exists infinite number of twin primes even though Mr. Venugopalan brought us to the verge of showing whether or not there are infinite twin primes with his explicit formulas in 1983. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.7.42 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the section "A function that represents all primes" relevant?
The recurrence $$ f_n = \left\lfloor f_{n-1} \right\rfloor (f_{n-1} - \left\lfloor f_{n-1} \right\rfloor + 1 ) $$ does generate all the primes, but this is entirely dependent on $$f_1$$ being an encoding of the sequence of primes. Unlike with other formulas on the page, this formula has little to do with prime numbers. In fact, many sequences $$p_n$$ can be generated with this formula with the right choice of $$f_1$$. For example, using $$f_1 = e = 2.71828182845\ldots $$ will generate the sequence $$p_n=n+1$$, and using
 * $$f_1 = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left((n+2)^2 - 1\right) \left(\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} (i+2)^2 \right)^{-1} = 9.84343604644290\ldots $$

will generate the sequence $$p_n=(n+2)^2$$. If this section is not removed, I think the section should at least note that many arbitrary sequences can be generated with this formula. Rzvhkon (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"2.9200..." listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2.9200.... The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

False formula
Some different IPs have recently been trying to add the text
 * Another similar formula is $$f(n) = \left\lfloor \frac{(2^n-2) \bmod (n+1)}{n} \right\rfloor (n-1) + 2$$

to the article. This formula does not produce only prime numbers. When $$n+1$$ is a composite pseudoprime for the base 2 (the numbers 341 = 11 x 31, 561 = 3 x 187, 645 = 3 x 5 x 43, 1105 = 5 × 13 × 17, etc as listed in A001567) it will be produced by this formula, even though it is a composite number. If additional attempts at adding this material are made, they should be reverted on sight. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I don't know, who posted "false" formula, but... thank you for your comment/discussion, David. Calculation of $(2^n-2)$ is faster than $(n!)$ . After getting pseudoprime numbers $$f_n = f(n)$$ you can make Primality test: slow Wilson's theorem $$f_{n-1}!\ \equiv\; -1 \pmod{f_n}$$, slow Trial division or fast APR-CL (Adleman–Pomerance–Rumely + Cohen–Lenstra). Mvitaminus (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Rowland's prime-generating recurrence relation
The section gives the formula for Rowland's prime-generating sequence, with the first term a1 set to 7, the first differences of which give "1, 1, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 3, 1, ..." . It then goes on to explain that this sequence will not produce 2.

However, via the OEIS page for A132199 I came upon, which is the same idea but with a1 set to 4. It is observed that this sequence is identical to A132199 (a1=7), except for the first two terms: A134734 (a1=4) starts with "2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 11, 3, 1, ...". The base sequence (, "4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, ...") from which the differences are calculated is identical to the base sequence of the a1=7 case ("7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, ...") after the first two indices, and there's no offset in the subscript n (a3=9 in both, etc).

So, is there a particular reason why this article explains the a1=7 case and its lack of 2, instead of the a1=4 case, which starts with 2? I can see merits for both cases, I'm just curious whether there's a reason for this. oatco (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 * there are superior algorithms akin to Rowland's, at least in terms of distinct primes found in X evaluated terms, as well as computing speed. Several are at the OEIS, A135508 is one, another was just published by Bouras https://easychair.org/publications/preprint/k83H Billymac00 (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

comments on diophantine equations
I suggest to state that the solution is in non-negative integers rather than in natural numbers, as M. says in his article (also because the link gives TWO different definitions of natural numbers).

I suppose that no solutions are known; if true I would feel more relaxed (excuse my poor english) in reading this explicitly.

The text says that the set may be in 9 variables, then says that the polynomial is in 10 variables. Surely it is right because refer to different items, but it is possible to be more explicit on these two items?

Thanks. Pietro. 151.29.150.78 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 * ✅. This seems pretty obvious, since the nonnegative integers are referred to later in the section. Thank you for pointing this out.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

what does efficiently computable mean in this context?
The article lead says no formula for computing primes is known which is efficiently computable. What does "efficiently computable" mean in this context? The linked article lists a bunch of asymptotic classes, but it doesn't say which classes count as "efficiently computable". Does it mean not formula computable in polynomial time? -lethe talk [ +] contribs 18:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Plouffe's formulas
Plouffe's formulas are conjectural and have not been proven. Does this section really belong here? MathPerson (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Since no practical formula has been found and this section is sourced, I think it should stay.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Diophantine represenatation
Is the polynomial at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_for_primes#Formula_based_on_a_system_of_Diophantine_equations correct? It looks like it has (k+2)as a factor, and the other factor, while lengthy, has no divisions, so is necessarily an integer also. Gordon Findlay (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Note that it says that the integer $$(k+2)$$ is prime if and only if $$ (k+2)(1-\alpha_0^2-\alpha_1^2-\cdots-\alpha_{13}^2) > 0$$. (Actually, when this happens and the expression $$(k+2)(1-\alpha_0^2-\alpha_1^2-\cdots-\alpha_{13}^2)$$ is strictly positive, it means that each $$\alpha_i$$ is $$0$$, so the expression will be equal to $$(k+2)$$, the prime number.) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Formula for primes


text:
Talk:Jürgen Habermas

Habermas on rational action
I have summarized his contribution to the meaning of terms Instrumental and value-rational action. I welcome comments.TBR-qed (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jürgen Habermas. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160108181837/http://www.uclm.es:80/actividades0304/seminarios/spinoza/pdf/cuadernos/22.pdf to http://www.uclm.es/actividades0304/seminarios/spinoza/pdf/cuadernos/22.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jürgen Habermas. 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/20080601125221/http://www.jesus.cam.ac.uk/contacts/fellows/profiles/thompson.html to http://www.jesus.cam.ac.uk/contacts/fellows/profiles/thompson.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Habermas discredited?
There a number of editors who kept insisting on the pages of Ernst Nolte and the Historikerstreit that the conservatives like Nolte won the Historikerstreit and the leftists like Habermas has been "discredited" since the 1980s. Indeed, any criticism of Nolte gets deleted on the grounds that he is the mainstream of German historiography and this is a BLP violation. I cannot find any RS, but editors like Tadeusz Nowak keep attacking me as a Stalinist for saying that historians like Andreas Hillgruber were discredited in the Historikerstreit with edit summaries like "the ones discredited in the Historikerstreit were the Soviet apologists according to most modern historians". Since if that is indeed the case, why doesn't the article say this about Habermas?--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your position is perfectly correct and generally accepted. But those right-wing bots have never cared about the truth, have they? --89.0.48.195 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section
The section on criticism here really needs some attention.

As it currently stands it has no citations is largely useless to a reader.

Aldorath (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 * Three years later, there is still not a single source for the criticisms. The only sources are to establish the credentials of the critics. I have removed the section. The text should be restored with sources. 85.149.13.48 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * It doesn't seem necessary. For me the religion § was sufficient in the context of the whole article to characterize the individual's thought as basically an unoriginal reprocessing of culture rather than a significant contribution to it. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jürgen Habermas


text:
Talk:Westsylvania

Comment
This article states that the settlers petitioned "the federal government" in October 1775. There was no such thing as a "federal government" in 1775 -- there weren't even the Articles of Confederation yet. Is this supposed to refer to the Second Continental Congress instead? -- Dan Carlson 00:54, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's right. I'll make the change to the article. -- Djinn112 01:03, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Year of the Petition
This entry says that the date of the petition to create Westsylvania was October 1775. However, this article: http://www.shire.net/osl/westsylvania.htm  says that there was a petition dated January 1783. I do not know if that information is reliable, but is it possible there were two petitions to create a state in the Southwestern PA area?

 * I think some more research into this is needed. I've found various references that indicate there may have been two petitions regarding the area and that the first petition may have referred to the area as Vandalia rather than Westsylvania. I wasn't able to see any reference to Westsylvania in the Library of Congress records for the Continental Congress or early U.S. Congresses, but there were a few to Vandalia--but I'm not sure what to make of it just yet. I wanted to stash this link for anyone interested--it has a lot of detail that could be summarized in either this article or a new one on Vandalia. The sketch indicating an area named "Indiana" in what is now West Virginia is precious. I'd love to get that in an article. older ≠ wiser 21:43, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Here's more on both Vandalia and Westsylvania   Seems there is a connection between the two, but I have to read these all over more carefully before committing an opinion as to the dates. older ≠ wiser 22:04, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Westsylvania ≠ Pittsylvania
This article equates Westslyvania and Pittsylvania, but to the best of my knowledge this is not exactly correct. Pittsylvania was a early suggested name for what became the proposed Vandalia colony (a land speculation scheme), while Westsylvania was a frontier independence movement. There's some overlap here, but the circumstances were different. Westsylvania and Pittsylvania were once separate articles: I'll separate them again using the sources I have. —Kevin Myers 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Westsylvania