Montgomery's 1716 claim is from a single Scots trader that settled there then. Richmond, Virginia, seems to have stronger, earlier claims. A "Fort Charles" was established there in 1644. Wikipedia says: ". . . in 1676, [William Byrd I] established the James River Fort on the south bank of the James River in what is now known as the Manchester District of Richmond." On the "Timeline of Richmond" on Wikipedia it talks of this same William Byrd establishing: "a trading post and small settlement" in 1673.
looking into this... yeah, have to agree... makes no sense to date Montgomery back to the one Scottish guy and then later the French fort that neither had anything to do with the settlement of Montgomery a century later.
How is this determined? The answers seem inconsistent with American History. For example, when was Richmond, Virginia first settled by white people? If your answer is after 1719, I'd like to know how whatever logic used to determine that would apply to Montgomery.
putting aside the fact that "white people" aren't a thing...
Richmond first started being settled by English settlers in 1737 and was incorporated as the town of Richmond in 1742. "Montgomery" wasn't really established until well later, but, in 1716 there was apparently one Scottish guy in the area... and in 1717 the French built a trading outpost Fort Toulouse near the future site of Montgomery... so I assume that's where they got that date from.
Realistically I'd say that Montgomery wasn't actually settled by Europeans until the later 1810s. Fort Toulouse was only ever occupied by a handful of French colonial marines, not a proper settlement, not actually on the site of Montgomery, and by the 1740s it had been abandoned. Hard to justify tracing the history of Montgomery back to it. But... the non-inclusion of Richmond seems accurate, or at least it is if the cut-off is 1719. It might slip in to last place if there's nothing else between 1719 and 1737.
James River Fort was established in the late 1600's. I'm sure that's more than one Scottish guy in a shack. There is even a historic district of Huguenots' Villiage that was settled in the 17th Century that is still there in Richmond. Do they not qualify as "Europeans?" I'd just like the instructions to be clearer.
Evan... it does indeed mean they don't exist. You may believe that a certain group of people fit the constructed parameters for what "white" means in your head... and you may think of those people as "white"... but that doesn't mean that they are "white." This is what socially constructed means. The category is only meaningful to you because you've been socialized to accept it as such. But, objectively, it's almost completely meaningless.
bostjan: look up the history of Montgomery on Wikipedia. I wasn't being sarcastic. It really was just one Scottish guy there on the date given in the quiz... his name was James McQueen.
I may have not been clear when I switched from talking about Richmond to talking about Montgomery.
I understand that there was some Scottish guy in a shack living somewhere near Montgomery in the 1710's. I won't argue with that. My point is that there were several other settlers living in shacks near other capital cities before that, and we don't count those, apparently, so, what is the criteria, then? For example, if, by the time MacQueen was living near Montgomery, there had already been a fortress and a small town located where present day Richmond lies, then that seems boldly inconsistent to me to say that Montgomery was settled before Richmond. Do you disagree? Does QM disagree? The world may never know...
I agree with you it makes no sense to say Montgomery was settled before Richmond.
If we use the same standard for Richmond that would allow us to say Montgomery was first settled in 1716... then Richmond dates back to 1609, when the area near Richmond was briefly settled by some colonists from Jamestown, and making it the oldest city on the quiz.
If we use the same standard for Montgomery that dates the settlement of Richmond to 1737... then Montgomery wasn't settled until almost 1820, making it far too young to appear on the quiz.
Yes, kalbahamut, you are right and the quiz was wrong. It seems that Montgomery wasn't really settled until much later. I've replaced it with Richmond.
I would propose Augusta, Maine for this list. Settlers from the Plymouth Colony built a settlement in the area called Cushnoc in 1628, although they vacated it after awhile. But if permanent settlement is not a requirement then I think this fits the bill.
Well played.
Richmond first started being settled by English settlers in 1737 and was incorporated as the town of Richmond in 1742. "Montgomery" wasn't really established until well later, but, in 1716 there was apparently one Scottish guy in the area... and in 1717 the French built a trading outpost Fort Toulouse near the future site of Montgomery... so I assume that's where they got that date from.
Realistically I'd say that Montgomery wasn't actually settled by Europeans until the later 1810s. Fort Toulouse was only ever occupied by a handful of French colonial marines, not a proper settlement, not actually on the site of Montgomery, and by the 1740s it had been abandoned. Hard to justify tracing the history of Montgomery back to it. But... the non-inclusion of Richmond seems accurate, or at least it is if the cut-off is 1719. It might slip in to last place if there's nothing else between 1719 and 1737.
I may have not been clear when I switched from talking about Richmond to talking about Montgomery.
If we use the same standard for Richmond that would allow us to say Montgomery was first settled in 1716... then Richmond dates back to 1609, when the area near Richmond was briefly settled by some colonists from Jamestown, and making it the oldest city on the quiz.
If we use the same standard for Montgomery that dates the settlement of Richmond to 1737... then Montgomery wasn't settled until almost 1820, making it far too young to appear on the quiz.