![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
"The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional" Change to "The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists voted and declared that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unlawful because the colonies did not have any representation in parliament."
The Stamp Act of 1765 can not be unconstitutional because there was no Constitution or even a Declaration of Independence, you twits. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tazhawkeye (
talk •
contribs)
In the infobox, it lists the German forces, but with a generic term. Since Hesse-Kessel is listed a direct belligerent on the Battle for Trenton page, and King George III was technically the king (well, prince-elector) of Hanover, shouldn't these two German states get direct mention in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 ( talk) 06:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
HK and Hanover are not treated by reliable sources as having been belligerents (as discussed at some length before), and as such we should not be including them in the infoboxes. There is nothing wrong with saying something like "Great Britain (Hanoverian auxiliaries)" or the like in the case of individual battles - I believe this is what is usually done in other contexts for, eg, Indian units in British colonial campaigns - but we can't and shouldn't assert political participation by these states. Andrew Gray ( talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I just added this paragraph to Revolutionary song:
If anyone can add any sourcing it would be appreciated. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Absolutely no evidence of Admiral Augustus Keppel saying that. 109.158.133.109 ( talk) 23:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The truth is that the American Revolutionary War was a battle zone, in what Sir Winston Churchill called 'the first world war', because it was fought all over the world, as a continuation of the Seven Years War (the first shot of which was fired by George Washingthon, agains the French, and the American colonies were one battleground in a much larger, and more important war. The Americans sided with the French Catholic mono-theistic Kingdom in that war. The British won the war, destroying the French, Spanish, and Dutch navies and preventing the mono-theistic cultures of Catholic countries taking over America.
Some of this should have been mentioned in an accurate history - in fact, it should be in the first sentence.
"" Causes of the War
The conflict between Britain and her American colonists was triggered by the financial costs of the Anglo-French wars of the previous thirty years, in particular the Seven Years War (1756-63). A principal theatre of conflict had been in North America, where it was felt that the colonials had failed to play their part either financially or in the fighting. In the years immediately after the war, the army in North America consumed 4% of British government spending. This cost, combined with the victories over the French had increased British interest in their colonies. Ironically, those victories had also removed one element tying the Americans to Britain - fear of French strangulation. In 1756, the French held Canada, the Ohio Valley and the Mississippi, isolating the British colonies on the eastern seaboard. By 1763 that threat had been removed. ""
Rickard, J. (25 May 2003), American War of Independence (1775-1782),
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_independence.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_independence.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.137.91.21 (
talk)
21:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This whole article is pretty poorly written in my opinion. Stop bickering about details and tidy up the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.74.49 ( talk) 07:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World by Maya Jasanoff is out and gives great insight into the forgotten loyalist, once believed to be nothing more than upper-class royalists that couldn't be further from the truth. Here is the Guardian's review: [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone please change the following sentence: "Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional." There was no constitution until 1787, after the United States won the war. I'd make the change myself, but certain editors have decided to get together to reverse any edit I make due to their political agenda. Thank you! Dave148109 ( talk) 16:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
A lot of this article is redundant and irrelevant to its subject, which is supposed to be the war. There's an article on the American Revolution, where discussion of the Stamp Act is appropriate. WCCasey ( talk) 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the infobox, Great Britain is listed as:
Great Britain. A much shorter way that would take up much less space and would show exactly the same thing is:
Great Britain. The same goes for the Dutch Republic. Currently, it is:
Dutch Republic. The shorter way that would show exactly the same thing is:
Dutch Republic.
86.97.146.6 (
talk)
10:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The flag of the Vermont Republic in the infobox is 21px. However, to follow the pattern of all the other flags, it should be 23px. 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the infobox, the German mercenaries are shown as: German auxiliaries. First, the Germans were mercenaries, not auxiliaries. Second, there is a page about these Germans called Hessian (soldiers). I therefore suggest that the Germans in the infobox should be shown as: German mercenaries. 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 06:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The American loyalists who fought with the British are not even mentioned in the infobox. I suggest they be shown as follows, under Great Britain: *
Loyalists
86.97.146.6 (
talk)
07:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. Besides the unanimous opposes questioning the premises that it's a POV title, only in very rare instances do we change a named title (as opposed to a descriptive title) from its common name, because we don't make the judgment call for named titles; we follow what the world calls things.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
American Revolutionary War → American War of Independence – Current title is blatant POV pushing. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are two things that need to be fixed in the infobox. First, where it shows the dates France participated in the war, the dash between the dates is a short one, unlike the others which are long. Second, there needs to be a space between 'Dutch Republic' and '(1780–83)'. 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since there are no Dutch commanders in the infobox, I suggest Johan Zoutman should be added, since he was the most important Dutch commander of the war. He fought at the Battle of Dogger Bank (1781). 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Revolutionary War really needs to redirect here? Moagim ( talk) 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, what about the French Revolutionary Wars, or Russian Civil War ? Both have had arguably equal long-term impacts. Rwenonah ( talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change dates Dillan8 ( talk) 04:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in trying to make an edit to a different page I find a notice that an atempted edit to "Amwrican Revolutionary War" has been rejected in 2009 as "unconstructive". I have NOT attempted to edit that page !! pls respond? 67.83.68.60 ( talk) 18:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I cannot confirm a statement from the article, and it is misleading.
Please remove: "At least 5,000 black soldiers fought for the Revolutionary cause. [28]" for reason the statement is not supported with a trustworthy source and the statement conflicts with a source from the National Archives.
I've been doing allot of genealogy research lately, some of it looking directly at the history of the Revolutionary war. I've come across many different information sources, and when I skimmed the Wiki article I knew the number was in error. When following up the reference it seems to be circular, it references another source that references back to the original. There are also many information sources around the internet using the Kaplan number of "At least 5000...” I believe the actual number is closer to 500 or less.
If an exact number must be referenced I suggest it be extracted from a report from the National Archives, compiled in 1974 by Debra L Newman, "List of Black Servicemen Compiled from the War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records. Special List No.36." Newman lists each soldier by name, and her report reference sources have a better pedigree than the mystery source supplied by Kaplan. I say 500 or less because many of the individual soldiers serving in the state militia's seem to have more than one three month tour, and as a result listed multiple times.
Fasttruth ( talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Fasttruth (
talk)
21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There has been some blatant vandalism over the infobox on this page, specifically related to the "Result" segment. This seems to have been perpetrated by user Hot Stop. A while ago, there was a discussion over the use of the term "American victory" to describe the result of the war. "American Independence" was eventually agreed upon as a compromise, as (for some reason) "Allied victory" was not favoured, and "American victory" was seen to ignore the decisive contributions made by France, Spain and the Netherlands to the American independence effort. Despite requests to stop and take the discussion to the talk page, Hot Stop has continued to ignore my requests and warnings and revert the edit from "American independence" to "American victory and independence from the British Empire". I have attempted to reason with him, but as you can imagine, the sheer incredulity and ignorance shown by this user has made it extremely difficult to do so. For instance, one request that I made for him to take the discussion to the talk page, the response I got was a simple "nope". In a message on his talk page, he simply accused me of being a "pedantic little troll". Clearly, he/she does not care for the wishes of established consensus. The user claims they were in this discussion and that apparently no consensus was reached. This is simply untrue. The term "American independence" was agreed upon as a compromise between "American victory" and "Allied victory". As I said, despite requests to desist and start a discussion here to change the term, user Hot Stop has continually ignored my warnings and persists in reverting the edits, without a consensus to do so. ( RockDrummerQ ( talk) 12:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
The critical moment of the war, the English reinforcement to doble the size of the English army fell in Spanish hands.
The key moment, the fleet of British reinforcements fall into Spanish hands On August 9, 1780, an English fleet of fifty five ships near Cape St Vincent and heading for Florida is intercepted by the Spanish fleet that was alerted by the intelligence services of the Count of Floridablanca in England.
The Spanish fleet, led by the Seville Luis de Cordova, and the great sea of Jose_de_Mazarredo_y_Salazar captured the British fleet with 80,000 muskets that would serve to make a double army across the English army and their allies so far. Such amount of expensive muskets would and the new forces destabilize the war in favor of England, To this should be added a number of cannons, 300 barrels of gunpowder and uniforms for a dozen regiments of British reinforcements landfall, serve to fully displace the English side's victory, passing the total forces at that moment from one to one, to three to one for England. In addition, it captures more than a million pounds in gold and silver which would pay for the soldiers and bribes, and captured the ships and made 3000 prisoners (1400 soldiers and officers). ( Newspaper El Confidencial: http://blogs.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/empecemos-por-los-principios/2013-09-07/el-espanol-que-dio-la-mayor-estocada-a-la-bolsa-de-londres_25587/)
-- 77.47.30.210 ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There was a President during the American Revolution, John Hanson. If you don't believe me, please search "1st President of the United States" on Bing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.67.97 ( talk) 14:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You are right but technically he still was the President of America, or the Colinies. Should we take this discussion to the page about John Hanson? On Wikipedia of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B123:F403:6086:113E:7B6E:885D ( talk) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Also Russia provided warships for the Americans fighting for independence from the British East Indian Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.233.232 ( talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The True History of the American Revolution by Sydney George Fisher was rejected by historians as incompetent popular history based on poor sources and misleading readings when it came out in 1902 and it does not belong here as a reliable secondary source. See review by: C. H. Van Tyne, The American Historical Review Vol. 8, No. 4 (July 1903), pp. 773-776, online free here. Rjensen ( talk) 02:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page has a fake ad in the upper right corner with an image labelled "Svetlana_font_example.png" but showing photos of several perpetrators of mass shootings and calling for the repeal of the second amendment. It does not have any obvious markup in the article source, however the variable for the flag of the Dutch Republic in the belligerents list seems to not be showing up correctly and the HTML for the image occurs just before the HTML for the Dutch flag, so perhaps the two problems are related.
Cernel Joson ( talk) 02:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Cernel Joson ( talk) 02:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to add this, but I would suggest that we add that Battle of Saratoga was a turning point because American troops and army won several battles which leads to the Siege of Yorktown. The French started sending troops and supplies, entering the war openly. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster ( talk) 22:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The section on British casualties gives British Naval casualties, and German infantry casualties, but no British Army casualties. Does anyone have a source for those numbers? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The intro to the article article urgently needs a skillful edit. I refer to the statement that "The principle beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests."
For details of my concerns, see a talk page edit by denniso. 72.179.39.178 ( talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)denniso 72.179.39.178 ( talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)..
Whoever the beneficiaries were, the word is "principal", not "principle"
"The principle beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests." This highly dubious and unsupported statement of opinion appears near the head of the article.
Really? Of all the short- and long-run implications of American independence from Great Britain, of all the winners and losers in the aftermath of that epic struggle, what is the evidence for asserting that nameless "financial interests" made off with more gains than anyone else? Please identify these interests with greater specificity and provide details re the nature and amount of the benefits received.
Perhaps the author of this paragraph is trying to say that lenders and speculators ultimately received full payment for credit instruments issued by the U.S. Continental Congress during Revolutionary War (1775–1783). The unstated implication is that speculators in U.S. sovereign debt may have bought up U.S. bonds at a deep discount during the years when the U.S. was judged a bad credit risk owing to serial defaults in repaying war debts. These are the very debts taken on by the fledgling United States in 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was ratified (see Article IV, Section 1, aka the "Full Faith and Credit Clause").
Is it not true that most Revolutionary War debts were owed to the sovereign nations of France and Spain, and also to private Dutch lenders? Is it they who gained the most from the American Revolution? Or, if the original lenders were not the "principle beneficiaries" of U.S. independence from Great Britain, what is the evidence that other "financial interests" had managed to get their hands on U.S. credit instruments by the time the U.S. got around to paying those debts?
And even if it is proved that financial speculators made windfall gains from some or other aspect of the American Revolution, what evidence would the author provide that might demonstrate that those gains exceeded the gains, say, to citizens of Pennsylvania, Virginia or Massachusetts? 72.179.39.178 ( talk) 13:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC) denniso
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add at the end of Foreign Intervention ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Foreign_intervention) section as a new paragraph (Main articles: Russian Empire–United States relations and First League of Armed Neutrality): Russia remained officially neutral during the Revolution, never openly picking sides in the war. On an unofficial basis, Russia acted favorably towards the American colonists, by offering to provide them anything without compromising Russia’s neutrality and her eventual desire to act as a mediator. In March 1780, the Russian ministry released a " Declaration of Armed Neutrality.” This declaration set out Russia's international stance on the American Revolution, focusing mainly on the importance of allowing neutral vessels to travel freely to any Russian port without being searched or harassed by the Navigation Acts. While the declaration kept Russia officially neutral, it supported many of France's own pro-colonial policies and badly damaged Britain’s efforts to strangle the colonies through naval force. The declaration also gave the American separatists an emotional lift, as they realized Russia was not solidly aligned with Britain. With Russia as a potential, powerful friend, Russo-American connections and communications continued to improve. Also Russia denied several British request for support. 92.100.120.183 ( talk) 18:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed a para at the end of the lede that claimed, without citation, that the "principle[sic] beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests". In fact, Hamilton's program of paying off the debt was not an immediate consequence of the Revolution: for some years the Continental Congress had almost no ability to generate income, and many soldiers went unpaid. It was not until the new Constitution was ratified some years later that the federal government got the ability to pay for anything. Grover cleveland ( talk) 06:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the material because I think it obscures the nature of the constitutional dispute. The fact that Americans did not operate on a limited franchise has nothing to do with whether it was legal under English law to tax without representation. Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that custom duties are indirect taxes, see Duty (economics). It is paid by all the people through the enhanced price of the goods being imported. The Townshend duties were deemed as illegal taxes by the Patriots just like the Stamp Act taxes.
CJK ( talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, the issue is whether taxation without representation was lawful. The fact that Americans had a broad franchise does not alter the fact that in Britain it was always perfectly lawful for Parliament to tax without representation.
CJK ( talk) 13:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
But the issue at hand isn't whether the Americans liked the British system, the issue is whether or not it was legal under the 18th century British constitution to tax people without them being represented. The Patriots argued it was illegal, but the British maintained it was supported by long-standing precedent.
CJK ( talk) 17:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
But that's not the point. The dispute was over the legality of taxation without representation, not whether it was desirable or not. The fact that 90% of Britons could not vote was used to show it was legal under the constitution of England. The colonists were claiming to be under the same constitution that existed in Britain, not their own constitution.
The intolerable acts also did not "shut down" self-governance in Massachusetts, the alteration of the charter merely made the Massachusetts government more like that of the other royal colonies, where all the upper houses were appointed.
CJK ( talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In the info box under "Casualties and losses" the figure of 42,000 is given for the number of British sailors who deserted during the war. This figure seems incredibly high to me, as it would represent more men deserting than died in either the British Army or the Royal Navy. In addition, under the article section "Costs of the War" (sub-section "Casualties--British & Allies") the text states "About 4,000 British sailors deserted during the war."
The source for both the 42,000 figure in the infobox and the 4,000 figure in the infobox is the same. "Mackesy (1964), pp. 6, 176"
Which figure is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileyman1977 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The article says (in the info box) that the British had 171,000 sailors. This seems way too high to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blelbach ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The references section has the following note at the top: "To avoid duplication, notes for sections with a link to a "Main article" will be found in the linked article." This was a good idea to keep the number of footnotes, and size of the article, down but I think it is not working. Some references and "citation needed" tags have been added to the linked sections as well as to sections without links. The note no longer obviously covers other facts that might be referenced elsewhere. Readers just may see that some facts are referenced but others that perhaps should be are not.
In addition, text has been added to linked sections, without citations in some cases, even if the text is not in the linked article. That provides cover for assertions or interpretations that may be questionable, and possibly inaccurate. Such additions also may raise another question about the scope and focus of the article, especially as it has recently grown.
I think the note should be removed and citations should be provided or requested as usual. In view of the existing state of citations and tags, I may add some citations in the near future whether or not the note remains. Because of the great interest in the article, I will not remove the note unless the suggestion is supported by a consensus of other interested editors. Another reason for me not to remove the note is that it may imply that I will provide all the necessary citations and tags, which may be too ambitious.
With respect to a different and more minor matter, I note a few content footnotes have been separated from the citations. I have started to use separate sections for the content footnotes and citations where an article has more than one or two content notes and enough citations to obscure the text. I am going to separate the remaining content notes and change the section titles. "Notes" would be left as they are. I think "References" should be "Citations"; "Further reading" should be "References"; "Reference literature" should be "Further reading." This would be in line with many other articles. I think it also would make clearer distinctions. Many books combine the two types of notes so either way of doing it is probably valid. Donner60 ( talk) 08:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as a Brit, I've got to say having read this article for the first time that it has a rather America-centric viewpoint, particularly regarding the causes of the original declaration of independence. The British viewed the taxes imposed on the colonists as necessary to keep America from the French, and the colonists simply didn't want to pay, but then who does?
But the major point which has been airbrushed from history is that a primary reason for the declaration of independence was that the colonists feared that the British would ban them from owning slaves. Following the Somerset Case in 1772, slaves became free men immediately they set foot on British soil. Although a total ban didn't happen until 1833, there were several incremental judgments along the way. It was normal for British laws to be implemented in the colonies as well, and many, particularly rich owners of plantations the cotton owning south (who actually tended to live in Britain anyway) could see the way things would go. The British National archives have a number of old documents illustrating this point.
It was caused by the brits taking arms from the americans which caused the battle of lexington and concord.
In declaring themselves neutral, the settlers cited their right under natural law to be free from tyranny, the paradox being that they did it so they could continue their tyranny over others-- Godwhale ( talk) 07:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps 'neutrality' was not the best title to give the section, but my point is that there was more to it than just tax. I will take another look at the National Archives to see if I can dig out the documents I was referring to, but take a look at the Wikipedia article Somerset v Stewart which has something on this. I'm not looking to score political points at all but while some slaves may well have been freed earlier, slavery was still very prevalent in the US for almost a century after the Somerset case and long after it was absolutely prohibited in the British Empire in 1833. It was as we know a major cause of the American Civil War which ended in 1865.
"For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war. "
Gerald Horne is Moores Professor of History and African-American Studies at the University of Houston. http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=12075#.U7XGHY1dWG4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No one is saying taxation was not a major reason for the declaration. I'm just saying there was more to it than that. I think nations tend to sometimes believe a version of history that is comfortable, a bit like here in Britain we sometimes say we stood along against Hitler in 1940 and forget we also had Canada, Australian, New Zealand, India and South Africa actively fighting on our side as well. A bit like in 1812, where the reason given for war was British impressment and stopping of neutral American shipping by blockading RN squadrons. Again, these complaints were genuine, but it was also a good time for the War Hawks to gain more territory while Britain was engaged in total war against Bonaparte; how did America go about defending the Freedom of the Seas? By invading Canada of course!-- 90.214.83.76 ( talk) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Theres another good source on this, Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution: Alfred Blumrosen -- Godwhale ( talk) 14:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the beauty of the intetnet; you can always find a citation confirming your own viewpoint and cut and paste out the bits you don’t like at your leisure. Amazon’s review of this same book says; “A radical, well-informed, and highly original reinterpretation of the place of slavery in the American War of Independence."- David Brion Davis, Yale University. In 1772, the High Court in London brought about the conditions that would end slavery in England by freeing a black slave from Virginia named Somerset. This decision began a key facet of independence. Slave Nation is a fascinating account of the role slavery played in the drawing of the United States Constitution and in shaping the United States.
We see this also in the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder, which perpetuates the myth of his operation as some misty eyed, all-encompassing happy family, writers deliberately self -censoring out any references to brutal floggings.When Jefferson wrote the declaration, a note you would think was something akin to biblical scripture because of the significance sometimes attached to it, he used a sentence which could have been almost a direct quote from Emerich de Vattell’s Law of Nations; “all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In contrast to the efforts of the British reformers of the same era, this obviously didn’t apply to blacks. While Massachusetts freed its slaves on the basis of the clear unambiguity of the word ‘all’, opposition among the six southern states, in particular South Carolina and Georgia, who were desperate for even more slaves ensured that when Jefferson’s text was incorporated into their own state constitutions, the words ‘all men’ was changed to read ‘all freemen.’
As I go through the pages of discussion here I can see that its almost exclusively Americans talking, (no offence) because words like ‘patriots’ and ‘franchises’ are not words anyone outside America would recognise in the context of the American revolution. IMO you need to look at some non – US sources on this subject, because you are not listening to alternative angles on it all, just the same endlessly recycled American-centric stuff. As an Englishman, I honestly don't understand some of what is being written here.
The article statess "The war had its origins in the resistance of many Americans to taxes imposed by the British parliament, which they held to be unlawful." Thats it. Utter crap. I see this again nd again across wikipedia, which is an excellent resource i am proud to be an occasional editor of but which just perpetuatees these clichés. These taxes were not even particularly heavy and were bypassed by smuggling on a laughable scale. Why did the Americans invade Canada in late 1775 if it was just about tax? You guys seem to have woven a benign and endlessly regurtitated popular narrative you are comfortable with i.e. English oppressors v rebel freedom fighters and when its challenged its just bad journalism. This is why for decades, the Red Indians were the baddies & the frontiersmen were the good guys, as espoused by any 1950s western and only recently you've realised that this wasn't the case. This was about obtaining Indian lands on the periphery and maintaining slavery, not just about throwing off the mettle of the British taxation system, however remotely and arrogantly administered.
Not clear we should be having this discussion here in the article about the war...but since it is in the "Causes" section it needs to be addressed (or the "Causes" section cut down to more neutral statements). Anyway, the best secondary reference I can find so far that directly addresses this issue is quoted next: "In Great Britain, the electorate consisted of approximately 'a quarter or perhaps even a third of the adult males.' According to one estimate, however, '30 percent of the English boroughs had less than 100 voters...and only one-eighth had a thousand or more.' The colonial electorate, by contrast, is estimated to have consisted of between 50 and 75 percent of the adult white, male population, although historical evidence suggest the actual range was higher because most legal restrictions against voting -- except those against free Negroes and Catholics -- were not strictly enforced in the American colonies." [1]
Sorry for the use of ref's in a talk page. Also I left out the author's citations for the internal quotes. You should be able to find these in the google books link I included. Juan Riley ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Further suggestions to make this about the Background to the war and not an article about the revolution and its causes:
I am going to boldly do the above renaming as well as the deletion of the British politics subsection. I do so fully acknowledging that folk may disagree and revert. But this Background section has to be reduced to a summary not a place for all the historical nuances (of valid interest in other articles) to be exposited. Juan Riley ( talk) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You should add the Comte D'Estaing under belligerents. 76.31.202.45 ( talk) 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree..will see to it. Juan Riley ( talk) 22:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the most difficult questions of the Revolutionary War is that of Sir William Howe's conduct. Many people in Howe's own time, Loyalists like Joseph Galloway for example, believed that Howe deliberately refrained from defeating the rebels. The alleged motive is that Howe was a member of the Whig faction in Britain and he wanted to put the Whig faction in power by making the war into a fiasco.
The evidence that Howe was not serious about winning the war is as follows:
I inserted a lot of sourced information about these points, but some of them were removed for unclear reasons. Maybe there are alternative explanations for Howe's behavior but the evidence seems difficult to explain away. I will reinsert information on Howe's conduct if there are no objections.
CJK ( talk) 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sydney George Fisher's The True History of the American Revolution (1902) and The Struggle for American Independence (1908) extensively discusses Howe's deliberate refusal to win the war and criticizes historians who ignore it. This 1910 article discusses contemporary criticism of Howe. [1] If Howe was merely an incompetent general, why was he able to win big victories at Long Island and Brandywine? And if Howe was conservative, why did he launch a bloody attack on Bunker Hill, recklessly expose the Hessians at Trenton, and not alert his troops before Germantown? Another possible explanation, raised by governor Thomas Hutchinson, is that Howe prolonged the war for financial gain, although Galloway said he didn't believe that.
CJK ( talk) 17:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't find this relevant to the war? I'm not saying we declare Howe guilty, I just believe this point of view should be noted and that the evidence against him be reinserted. It is interesting that the article Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe says that It has been suggested that Howe's limited blockade at this point was driven by his sympathy with and desire for conciliation with the Americans. He claimed to have too few ships for a blockade but this is obviously untrue because during the War of 1812 a similar sized British fleet was able to impose a very effective blockade. Could both Howe brothers be merely incompetent and conservative?
CJK ( talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that--apart from Benedict Arnold--the Howe brothers were the only military officials accused of deliberately undermining their own side. Fisher's book discusses how widespread these accusations were among loyalists. Fisher writes: the whole question of the conduct of General Howe is as important a part of history as the assistance rendered us by France; for if what the people of his own time said of Howe be true, his conduct directly contributed to bring about our alliance with that country, and ultimately our independence.
CJK ( talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo
Please change "However, the Americans has multiple advantages that in the long run outweighed the initial disadvantages they faced." to "However, the Americans had multiple advantages that in the long run outweighed the initial disadvantages they faced."
The sentence is past tense and should use the word had instead of has.
12.130.174.180 (
talk)
14:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Thanks for pointing that out -
Arjayay (
talk)
15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish to bring to attention various edits made by user:JuanRiley over the past two months or so. It is quite clear he is attempting to move the page towards a more North American centric page. In his edit comments regarding various eliminations of material focusing on Europe and India he states that this page is about the north american conflict. This represents a biased non objective view of history. For example he states in one edit comment that the listing of Mysore as a co-belligerent is "nonsense". The campaigns in india, europe, africa and elsewhere were a direct part of the war. XavierGreen ( talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish to bring attention to XG's revert without talking. It is about the war and mostly about North America. Mysore might be a section if he wishes certainly silly to be in the info box or (good lord!) the lead. I do have a bias...which is that the article is about the American Revolutionary War. I do not have a chip on my shoulder though. Juan Riley ( talk) 00:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
For what its worth, i agree 100% with XavierGreen. The article is already heavily biased towards what happened on the American continent with very little about the wider war - just because its called the American Revolutionary War does not mean it only happened in the US. For example, no one would think it appropriate not to discuss what Americans call King William's War, King George's War, Queen Anne's War or the French & Indian War that were contemporary with The War of the Grand Alliance, the War of the Spanish Succession or Seven Yars War. In 1779 th French sent a large fleet to try to re-capture India from the British, but its not even mentioned here. The failure to properly discuss the vast shipments from France, Spain or the Netherlands that sustained th war effort of the rebels is laughable, but then, there ar some pretty entrenched views on here.Instead, we have extensive discussions about fairly minor battles that no doubt are of great interest to many americans but do nothing to portray a proper understanding of the war.-- Godwhale ( talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Read the lede. What pray tell of due balance or even accuracy does the following exhibit: "Formal acts of rebellion against British authority began in 1774 when the Patriot Suffolk Resolves.." ? The statement is nonsensical...define formal...after the Tea party..after the Boston Massacre...etc....this must be when the rebels donned white ties and tails? It is someone inserting some obscure knowledge that they are proud of knowing...which might be important in the text of the article(if it were about the politics not the war) but is entirely silly in the lede. Just as are the battles in India (boy am I sore:)). Juan Riley ( talk) 02:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me go on. This article is so bad...for what should be an important article...that your lack of at least realizing this has made me question the whole Wikipedia project. We have thos silly things called admins patrolling pages on pop stars and current news. And they let this tripe continue. Juan Riley ( talk) 02:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me say it again then: does MYSORE belong in the lede? Not the article but the lede? Is it appropriate to include it in the infobox as a co-belligerent? Not the article but the infobox. And btw, Lord Cornwallis, your slip (that silky little agenda thing) shows from your suggestion above that Ireland be named a belligerent. Not only agendas but absurd ones at that. Juan Riley ( talk) 16:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether Mysore was a participant or not is irrelevant to the real issue & subject of this section, which is North American Bias. If I was French, I think I’d be pretty offended at the way the Bourbon involvement is treated in this article. IMO this article, which like the other one that purports to be about the revolution – because they are basically the same - should really be entitled something like “The American revolution as Americans are taught it at school,” or “The parts of the American revolutionary war that Americans like to read about and are familiar with.” America did not ‘win’ the war, it finished on the winning side of a four nation coalition, but has spent the intervening 200 years telling itself that there were these people called Americans or ‘patriots’ who fought Britain and won after an epic struggle and after being joined by France & Spain after 1778 to help out. We see this in the contributions of France and Spain relegated to a couple of lines in a tiny section at the end of the article under the banner “other combatants” and where we are told that the Dutch sent ‘some’ supplies. The French archives state that it spent 1,280,000,000 livres on supplying the Americans and on its own forces to beat Britain, and the Spanish also sent vast quantities of military supplies. Practically all the equipment the rebels had was either plundered from the British or supplied by France, Spain and the Netherlands, not unlike what happened after 1942, only the other way around. They entered not out of any love for the rebels – quite the opposite – but in the hope that both the Americans and British would eventually become exhausted, giving them an opportunity to reduce British power and gain revenge for past humiliations and perhaps even get back some lost territories. Perhaps the most critical incident of all, the Battle of Chesapeake, where the British dithered and allowed the French to unload the heavy cannon that later proved critical at Yorktown didn’t involve any Americans at all. Yet the articles portray it as Americans versus British. We see this propaganda also in the paintings displayed on the articles – particularly the 1776 battle of Long Island which happened well before the main French shipments began - which shows fully kitted-out American units with matching uniforms and guns, and not the reality, that of Washington’s barefooted men, poorly armed and deserting in droves, the rest, according to Washington himself “many of ‘em naked and more so thinly clad as to be unfit for service,”
This is well summed up in the 1993 biography of the Earl of Sandwich, ‘The Insatiable Earl’ by N. Rodger, who writes: “Almost all of what has been written about the war assumes that it was a war fought over the issue of independence of the thirteen colonies. It is of course natural & reasonable for historians, especially American historians who form so large a majority of those who have written about the subject to assume from the vantage point of 200 years later that no other consequence of this war was as important as the emergence of the new republic. Even today most American historians assume that the only issue British politicians had to deal with was the colonial crisis and that all other problems, and all other enemies deserve mention only insofar as they influenced the situation in America. A recent survey states baldly that “Historians of the American Revolutionary War divide roughly between those who argue that America won the struggle and those who believe that Britain lost it; those who think that France, Spain & the Netherlands were involved do not figure at all. Most serious historians still write books on the assumption that Britain fought a war against America between 1775 and 1783. This doubly falsifies the realities of the time. It puts America on a pinnacle it actually occupied for barely two years, between the autumn of 1775 and the autumn of 1777 when it was pushed aside by the imminent onset of a French war. Before 1775 America was a departmental problem to be left to the ministers concerned. By 1778 it was a strategic issue of secondary or tertiary importance to British ministers who faced a threat of national survival. Furthermore the common assumption of historians is still very often that Britain fought America; in other words that two distinct nations, one independent and another very nearly so, faced one another on equal terms. The implicit standard of comparison is the wars of conquest of the French revolution or for many recent American historians the Second World War against Germany and Japan. Their ideas of the strategies that ought to have been employed are those appropriate to a war of national survival between two different societies with radically different values. But even if an 18th century war were fought in this way, which they were not, the military operations in America were a civil war, not a contest between nations. This was an internecine struggle in which Englishmen fought one another, a war without conventions or boundaries”
While we have these tired, ancient half-truths about tax, the article ignores the truth that the war was basically a proxy war, the rebels privateering in British waters after the summer of 1776 for all they were worth and trying to stir up trouble between Britain, France and Spain to ensure they entered the war against their enemy, exactly like Churchill is accused of doing in 1940. The pending involvement of France after mid 1776 was critical in forming British strategy about the porous blockade and affected the outcome of the war. If you refer to the excellent “Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War”, written by an American who appears to have actually bothered to visit Kew & read the archives there, the major reason so much stuff got through to the colonists was that a high level debate was ongoing in the British cabinet between those like Sandwich who wanted to keep a large force of ships in the Channel against an expected (and eventually attempted) invasion by France & Spain and those such as North who hoped that the forces in America under the Howes would be sufficient to win before the expected Franco-Spanish intervention. It was a gamble that failed. Where is the lengthy discussion of the mission by Deane and Franklin beginning in late 1775 to procure Bourbon money, guns and ammunition and of the shipments by the Spanish through their Latin American empire & the exploits of Pierre Beaumarchais, who provided the muskets, mortars and cannon, along with enough powder, flints, grapeshot, clothing, boots, stockings, blankets, spades, axes and tents to equip 25,000 men that won the battle of Saratoga, but who never received the tobacco, grain, indigo and cotton that were promised in return, and who died in poverty as a result having received barely a penny for his troubles. Where is the section explaining how Franklin and Deane begged Vergennes for ten million pounds sterling in January 1777, without which they would have to capitulate, but got instead 2 million, enough to keep going for the rest of the year? There are so many sources, including US government websites that ignore or gloss over the Beaumarchais story and there is no doubt that this part of the story has been deliberately expunged from the collective memory – presumably because it doesn’t fit with the popular narrative of glorious endeavour, freedom and of the founding fathers as righteous men of destiny. Where is the discussion of the mass privateering by Americans, not only for personal enrichment but also to capture British shipments of arms and food to fuel the war effort, beginning with Washington’s personal gang of marauders, the Marbleheaders, who In November 1775, at a time when the Continental army was so ill-equipped that many of its soldiers fought barefoot, they captured a British supply ship the Nancy, laden with 2,000 muskets, 30 tons of musket shot, 30,000 round shot, 100,000 musket flints and assorted mortars. Where is there reference to the large fleet the French sent in 1779 to try to capture India, where is the discussion of American privateering in European waters, of Wickes, Conyngham, the ‘Dunkirk pirate,’ of John Paul Jones which did so much to keep the RN in European waters and allow the shipments through? Privateering out in the Atlantic by ‘wolf packs, al la 1942 caused such havoc and losses that four British trading companies were driven to ruin. Isn’t that a more interesting story than what we have here? -- Godwhale ( talk) 10:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Soon I am going to look into how to propose deletion of this article--might be fun. Folk keep putting details into the lede instead of shortening and objectifying it. As well as the obvious suspect details. The idea was to shorten and objectify the lede (and perhaps save the chips that fall off your shoulders for your morning breakfast cereal). This article is horrendous...and I am sure any objective knowledgeable reader would say so. This is why I am leaving Ireland as a belligerent for now---taint worth my time anymore and it exhibits some editors' lack of seriousness, downright vandalism, or impairment of cognitive function. Juan Riley ( talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The Irish parliament voluntarily voted to contribute troops to the British war effort--see here [2]. If the loyalists are combatants, so are Ireland and British possessions, regardless of their subordination to Britain. The War of 1812 article lists the Canadas as a combatant even though they were British possessions.
The United States of America was not a country in 1776 it was a confederacy of independent states. The articles of confederation explicitly say: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. The treaty of 1778 explicitly refers to the United States of North America, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhodes island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia... [3] The Treaty of Paris in 1783 again explicitly states: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states... [4] Your assertion that there was a sovereign entity called the "United States" during the Revolution is therefore a massive ahistorical anachronism, equivalent to saying that there was a Germany prior to 1871 because of the Holy Roman Empire.
CJK ( talk) 14:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The USA was founded in 1776 as a confederacy composed of independent states, it did not become a sovereign nation until at least 1789. The Patriots themselves called the USA a confederacy and never claimed it was a nation. The articles of confederation say The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". And Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. And The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other... [5]
CJK ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The Declaration of Independence states: these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. [6] Do you believe the declaration is wrong?
The Fourth of July celebrates independence from Britain, the creation of a new nation was a consequence of that, but it didn't happen until after the Revolutionary War was over. The article articles of confederation contains many sources backing up my view.
CJK ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The articles of confederation are (the last time I checked) defunct AND have nothing to do with the war. Juan Riley ( talk) 02:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
...which will just reiterate the same standard 'approved' version of the story that has been endless told and refined since the victors took control of the education system, ((the title gives kind of gives that away) ironing out or ignoring the awkward facts. He could try reading the recently published 'Men Who Lost America' by Andrew O'Shaughnessy or 'Smugglers & patriots; Boston Merchants & the Advent of the American Revolution' by John Tyler, an American writer who sees the Founding Fathers as they really were, oportunists who simply ended up on the winning side and then built a creation myth around it all. But hey, such books are 'revisionist' and subversive and must be suppressed.-- Godwhale ( talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Um, the articles were not defunct at the time period this article covers. What part about these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES and Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence and His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states... is my personal construction?
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica states: Each state was under the Confederation of 1781 sovereign (except as regarded foreign relations), and for the most purposes practically independent. In adopting the Federal Constitution of 1787-1789 each parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty while retaining others. [7]
CJK ( talk) 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I will copy too critical points of the Spanish support of the USA independence, I will copy it directly from the Spanish wiki, in Spanish:
"El Gran Sitio de Gibraltar fue la primera acción española en la guerra, que duró desde el 16 de junio de 1779 al 7 de febrero de 1783. A pesar del tamaño más grande del ejército franco-español en el punto de numeración de unas 100.000 tropas, el ejército británico menor comandado por George Augustus Elliott fueron capaces de mantener la posición en la fortaleza y asegurando su abastecimiento por mar después de la batalla del Cabo de San Vicente en enero de 1780. Luis de Córdova, capturó casi sesenta barcos británicos durante la captura del doble convoy inglés (1780) que iban destinados a las guerras coloniales que mantenía Gran Bretaña, lo que causó un importante golpe logístico y moral a los británicos tras esta captura. La flota de Howe tuvo éxito en su vuelta a Inglaterra reabastecidos como consecuencia del sitio de Gibraltar escapando en la batalla del Cabo Espartel, en octubre de 1782.
Del convoy inglés capturado, además de 52 buques, 80 000 mosquetes, 3000 barriles de pólvora, gran cantidad de provisiones y efectos navales destinados a mantener operativas las flotas inglesas de América y el océano Índico, vestuario y equipación para 12 regimientos de infantería (36.000 soldados), y la ingente suma de 1 000 000 de libras esterlinas en lingotes y monedas de oro para el pago de tropas y sobornos (todos los buques y bienes capturados estaban valorados en unas 600 000 libras). Además se hicieron cerca de 3000 prisioneros, de los cuales unos 1400 eran oficiales y soldados de infantería que pasaban como refuerzos a ultramar. Destacando, que el tamaño normal de las tropas inglesas en América era de 40.000 hombres. Los refuerzos ingleses jamás llegarían a América.
A través de la casa Joseph de Gardoqui e hixos España envió a los EE.UU. 120.000 reales de a ocho en efectivo, y órdenes de pago por valor de otros 50.000. Estas monedas, los célebres Spanish dollars, sirvieron para respaldar la deuda pública estadounidense, los continentales y fueron copiados dando origen a su propia moneda, el dólar estadounidense. Además, a través de la casa de Gardoqui se enviaron 215 cañones de bronce, 30.000 mosquetes, 30.000 bayonetas, 51.314 balas de mosquete, 300.000 libras de pólvora, 12.868 granadas, 30.000 uniformes y 4.000 tiendas de campaña, por un valor total de 946.906 reales. El ejército americano que ganó la batalla de Saratoga, fue armado y equipado por España, llevando además, esta Victoria la entrada de Francia en apoyo a la independencia de Estados Unidos de América.
Gardoqui se familiarizó con George Washington, y marcharon en el desfile inaugural del recién elegido presidente de Washington. El rey Carlos III de España continuó comunicándose con George Washington, enviándole el ganado de España, que Washington había solicitado para su granja en Vernon."
-- 77.47.30.210 ( talk) 13:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I'd love to know what it says, but I don't read Spanish, sorry. But you seem to speak English pretty well, so how's about a transaltion?-- Godwhale ( talk) 15:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ellis, p. 
" should be "Ellis, p. 87
". (See
http://books.google.com/books?id=2Y9Rko9sT3kC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false)<ref name="Burrows">[http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists Edwin G. Burrows ]"Patriots or Terrorists?", ''American Heritage'', Fall 2008.</ref>
<ref name=Burrows>{{cite web |last=Burrows |first=Edwin G. |author-link=Edwin G. Burrows |title=Patriots or Terrorists |url=http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists |website=American Heritage |accessdate=November 29, 2014 |archive-url=//web.archive.org/web/20130323233806/http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists |archive-date=March 23, 2013 |date=Fall 2008 |volume=58 |issue=5}}</ref>
Thanks! 184.244.0.134 ( talk) 02:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
"The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional" Change to "The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists voted and declared that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unlawful because the colonies did not have any representation in parliament."
The Stamp Act of 1765 can not be unconstitutional because there was no Constitution or even a Declaration of Independence, you twits. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tazhawkeye (
talk •
contribs)
In the infobox, it lists the German forces, but with a generic term. Since Hesse-Kessel is listed a direct belligerent on the Battle for Trenton page, and King George III was technically the king (well, prince-elector) of Hanover, shouldn't these two German states get direct mention in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 ( talk) 06:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
HK and Hanover are not treated by reliable sources as having been belligerents (as discussed at some length before), and as such we should not be including them in the infoboxes. There is nothing wrong with saying something like "Great Britain (Hanoverian auxiliaries)" or the like in the case of individual battles - I believe this is what is usually done in other contexts for, eg, Indian units in British colonial campaigns - but we can't and shouldn't assert political participation by these states. Andrew Gray ( talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I just added this paragraph to Revolutionary song:
If anyone can add any sourcing it would be appreciated. In ictu oculi ( talk) 03:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Absolutely no evidence of Admiral Augustus Keppel saying that. 109.158.133.109 ( talk) 23:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The truth is that the American Revolutionary War was a battle zone, in what Sir Winston Churchill called 'the first world war', because it was fought all over the world, as a continuation of the Seven Years War (the first shot of which was fired by George Washingthon, agains the French, and the American colonies were one battleground in a much larger, and more important war. The Americans sided with the French Catholic mono-theistic Kingdom in that war. The British won the war, destroying the French, Spanish, and Dutch navies and preventing the mono-theistic cultures of Catholic countries taking over America.
Some of this should have been mentioned in an accurate history - in fact, it should be in the first sentence.
"" Causes of the War
The conflict between Britain and her American colonists was triggered by the financial costs of the Anglo-French wars of the previous thirty years, in particular the Seven Years War (1756-63). A principal theatre of conflict had been in North America, where it was felt that the colonials had failed to play their part either financially or in the fighting. In the years immediately after the war, the army in North America consumed 4% of British government spending. This cost, combined with the victories over the French had increased British interest in their colonies. Ironically, those victories had also removed one element tying the Americans to Britain - fear of French strangulation. In 1756, the French held Canada, the Ohio Valley and the Mississippi, isolating the British colonies on the eastern seaboard. By 1763 that threat had been removed. ""
Rickard, J. (25 May 2003), American War of Independence (1775-1782),
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_independence.html
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_independence.html — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.137.91.21 (
talk)
21:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This whole article is pretty poorly written in my opinion. Stop bickering about details and tidy up the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.74.49 ( talk) 07:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World by Maya Jasanoff is out and gives great insight into the forgotten loyalist, once believed to be nothing more than upper-class royalists that couldn't be further from the truth. Here is the Guardian's review: [1]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Someone please change the following sentence: "Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional." There was no constitution until 1787, after the United States won the war. I'd make the change myself, but certain editors have decided to get together to reverse any edit I make due to their political agenda. Thank you! Dave148109 ( talk) 16:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
A lot of this article is redundant and irrelevant to its subject, which is supposed to be the war. There's an article on the American Revolution, where discussion of the Stamp Act is appropriate. WCCasey ( talk) 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the infobox, Great Britain is listed as:
Great Britain. A much shorter way that would take up much less space and would show exactly the same thing is:
Great Britain. The same goes for the Dutch Republic. Currently, it is:
Dutch Republic. The shorter way that would show exactly the same thing is:
Dutch Republic.
86.97.146.6 (
talk)
10:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The flag of the Vermont Republic in the infobox is 21px. However, to follow the pattern of all the other flags, it should be 23px. 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the infobox, the German mercenaries are shown as: German auxiliaries. First, the Germans were mercenaries, not auxiliaries. Second, there is a page about these Germans called Hessian (soldiers). I therefore suggest that the Germans in the infobox should be shown as: German mercenaries. 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 06:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The American loyalists who fought with the British are not even mentioned in the infobox. I suggest they be shown as follows, under Great Britain: *
Loyalists
86.97.146.6 (
talk)
07:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. Besides the unanimous opposes questioning the premises that it's a POV title, only in very rare instances do we change a named title (as opposed to a descriptive title) from its common name, because we don't make the judgment call for named titles; we follow what the world calls things.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
American Revolutionary War → American War of Independence – Current title is blatant POV pushing. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are two things that need to be fixed in the infobox. First, where it shows the dates France participated in the war, the dash between the dates is a short one, unlike the others which are long. Second, there needs to be a space between 'Dutch Republic' and '(1780–83)'. 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since there are no Dutch commanders in the infobox, I suggest Johan Zoutman should be added, since he was the most important Dutch commander of the war. He fought at the Battle of Dogger Bank (1781). 86.97.146.6 ( talk) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Revolutionary War really needs to redirect here? Moagim ( talk) 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, what about the French Revolutionary Wars, or Russian Civil War ? Both have had arguably equal long-term impacts. Rwenonah ( talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change dates Dillan8 ( talk) 04:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in trying to make an edit to a different page I find a notice that an atempted edit to "Amwrican Revolutionary War" has been rejected in 2009 as "unconstructive". I have NOT attempted to edit that page !! pls respond? 67.83.68.60 ( talk) 18:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I cannot confirm a statement from the article, and it is misleading.
Please remove: "At least 5,000 black soldiers fought for the Revolutionary cause. [28]" for reason the statement is not supported with a trustworthy source and the statement conflicts with a source from the National Archives.
I've been doing allot of genealogy research lately, some of it looking directly at the history of the Revolutionary war. I've come across many different information sources, and when I skimmed the Wiki article I knew the number was in error. When following up the reference it seems to be circular, it references another source that references back to the original. There are also many information sources around the internet using the Kaplan number of "At least 5000...” I believe the actual number is closer to 500 or less.
If an exact number must be referenced I suggest it be extracted from a report from the National Archives, compiled in 1974 by Debra L Newman, "List of Black Servicemen Compiled from the War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records. Special List No.36." Newman lists each soldier by name, and her report reference sources have a better pedigree than the mystery source supplied by Kaplan. I say 500 or less because many of the individual soldiers serving in the state militia's seem to have more than one three month tour, and as a result listed multiple times.
Fasttruth ( talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Fasttruth (
talk)
21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There has been some blatant vandalism over the infobox on this page, specifically related to the "Result" segment. This seems to have been perpetrated by user Hot Stop. A while ago, there was a discussion over the use of the term "American victory" to describe the result of the war. "American Independence" was eventually agreed upon as a compromise, as (for some reason) "Allied victory" was not favoured, and "American victory" was seen to ignore the decisive contributions made by France, Spain and the Netherlands to the American independence effort. Despite requests to stop and take the discussion to the talk page, Hot Stop has continued to ignore my requests and warnings and revert the edit from "American independence" to "American victory and independence from the British Empire". I have attempted to reason with him, but as you can imagine, the sheer incredulity and ignorance shown by this user has made it extremely difficult to do so. For instance, one request that I made for him to take the discussion to the talk page, the response I got was a simple "nope". In a message on his talk page, he simply accused me of being a "pedantic little troll". Clearly, he/she does not care for the wishes of established consensus. The user claims they were in this discussion and that apparently no consensus was reached. This is simply untrue. The term "American independence" was agreed upon as a compromise between "American victory" and "Allied victory". As I said, despite requests to desist and start a discussion here to change the term, user Hot Stop has continually ignored my warnings and persists in reverting the edits, without a consensus to do so. ( RockDrummerQ ( talk) 12:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC))
The critical moment of the war, the English reinforcement to doble the size of the English army fell in Spanish hands.
The key moment, the fleet of British reinforcements fall into Spanish hands On August 9, 1780, an English fleet of fifty five ships near Cape St Vincent and heading for Florida is intercepted by the Spanish fleet that was alerted by the intelligence services of the Count of Floridablanca in England.
The Spanish fleet, led by the Seville Luis de Cordova, and the great sea of Jose_de_Mazarredo_y_Salazar captured the British fleet with 80,000 muskets that would serve to make a double army across the English army and their allies so far. Such amount of expensive muskets would and the new forces destabilize the war in favor of England, To this should be added a number of cannons, 300 barrels of gunpowder and uniforms for a dozen regiments of British reinforcements landfall, serve to fully displace the English side's victory, passing the total forces at that moment from one to one, to three to one for England. In addition, it captures more than a million pounds in gold and silver which would pay for the soldiers and bribes, and captured the ships and made 3000 prisoners (1400 soldiers and officers). ( Newspaper El Confidencial: http://blogs.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/empecemos-por-los-principios/2013-09-07/el-espanol-que-dio-la-mayor-estocada-a-la-bolsa-de-londres_25587/)
-- 77.47.30.210 ( talk) 20:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
There was a President during the American Revolution, John Hanson. If you don't believe me, please search "1st President of the United States" on Bing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.67.97 ( talk) 14:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You are right but technically he still was the President of America, or the Colinies. Should we take this discussion to the page about John Hanson? On Wikipedia of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B123:F403:6086:113E:7B6E:885D ( talk) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Also Russia provided warships for the Americans fighting for independence from the British East Indian Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.233.232 ( talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The True History of the American Revolution by Sydney George Fisher was rejected by historians as incompetent popular history based on poor sources and misleading readings when it came out in 1902 and it does not belong here as a reliable secondary source. See review by: C. H. Van Tyne, The American Historical Review Vol. 8, No. 4 (July 1903), pp. 773-776, online free here. Rjensen ( talk) 02:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This page has a fake ad in the upper right corner with an image labelled "Svetlana_font_example.png" but showing photos of several perpetrators of mass shootings and calling for the repeal of the second amendment. It does not have any obvious markup in the article source, however the variable for the flag of the Dutch Republic in the belligerents list seems to not be showing up correctly and the HTML for the image occurs just before the HTML for the Dutch flag, so perhaps the two problems are related.
Cernel Joson ( talk) 02:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Cernel Joson ( talk) 02:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to add this, but I would suggest that we add that Battle of Saratoga was a turning point because American troops and army won several battles which leads to the Siege of Yorktown. The French started sending troops and supplies, entering the war openly. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster ( talk) 22:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The section on British casualties gives British Naval casualties, and German infantry casualties, but no British Army casualties. Does anyone have a source for those numbers? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The intro to the article article urgently needs a skillful edit. I refer to the statement that "The principle beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests."
For details of my concerns, see a talk page edit by denniso. 72.179.39.178 ( talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)denniso 72.179.39.178 ( talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)..
Whoever the beneficiaries were, the word is "principal", not "principle"
"The principle beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests." This highly dubious and unsupported statement of opinion appears near the head of the article.
Really? Of all the short- and long-run implications of American independence from Great Britain, of all the winners and losers in the aftermath of that epic struggle, what is the evidence for asserting that nameless "financial interests" made off with more gains than anyone else? Please identify these interests with greater specificity and provide details re the nature and amount of the benefits received.
Perhaps the author of this paragraph is trying to say that lenders and speculators ultimately received full payment for credit instruments issued by the U.S. Continental Congress during Revolutionary War (1775–1783). The unstated implication is that speculators in U.S. sovereign debt may have bought up U.S. bonds at a deep discount during the years when the U.S. was judged a bad credit risk owing to serial defaults in repaying war debts. These are the very debts taken on by the fledgling United States in 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was ratified (see Article IV, Section 1, aka the "Full Faith and Credit Clause").
Is it not true that most Revolutionary War debts were owed to the sovereign nations of France and Spain, and also to private Dutch lenders? Is it they who gained the most from the American Revolution? Or, if the original lenders were not the "principle beneficiaries" of U.S. independence from Great Britain, what is the evidence that other "financial interests" had managed to get their hands on U.S. credit instruments by the time the U.S. got around to paying those debts?
And even if it is proved that financial speculators made windfall gains from some or other aspect of the American Revolution, what evidence would the author provide that might demonstrate that those gains exceeded the gains, say, to citizens of Pennsylvania, Virginia or Massachusetts? 72.179.39.178 ( talk) 13:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC) denniso
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add at the end of Foreign Intervention ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Foreign_intervention) section as a new paragraph (Main articles: Russian Empire–United States relations and First League of Armed Neutrality): Russia remained officially neutral during the Revolution, never openly picking sides in the war. On an unofficial basis, Russia acted favorably towards the American colonists, by offering to provide them anything without compromising Russia’s neutrality and her eventual desire to act as a mediator. In March 1780, the Russian ministry released a " Declaration of Armed Neutrality.” This declaration set out Russia's international stance on the American Revolution, focusing mainly on the importance of allowing neutral vessels to travel freely to any Russian port without being searched or harassed by the Navigation Acts. While the declaration kept Russia officially neutral, it supported many of France's own pro-colonial policies and badly damaged Britain’s efforts to strangle the colonies through naval force. The declaration also gave the American separatists an emotional lift, as they realized Russia was not solidly aligned with Britain. With Russia as a potential, powerful friend, Russo-American connections and communications continued to improve. Also Russia denied several British request for support. 92.100.120.183 ( talk) 18:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed a para at the end of the lede that claimed, without citation, that the "principle[sic] beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests". In fact, Hamilton's program of paying off the debt was not an immediate consequence of the Revolution: for some years the Continental Congress had almost no ability to generate income, and many soldiers went unpaid. It was not until the new Constitution was ratified some years later that the federal government got the ability to pay for anything. Grover cleveland ( talk) 06:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the material because I think it obscures the nature of the constitutional dispute. The fact that Americans did not operate on a limited franchise has nothing to do with whether it was legal under English law to tax without representation. Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that custom duties are indirect taxes, see Duty (economics). It is paid by all the people through the enhanced price of the goods being imported. The Townshend duties were deemed as illegal taxes by the Patriots just like the Stamp Act taxes.
CJK ( talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Right, the issue is whether taxation without representation was lawful. The fact that Americans had a broad franchise does not alter the fact that in Britain it was always perfectly lawful for Parliament to tax without representation.
CJK ( talk) 13:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
But the issue at hand isn't whether the Americans liked the British system, the issue is whether or not it was legal under the 18th century British constitution to tax people without them being represented. The Patriots argued it was illegal, but the British maintained it was supported by long-standing precedent.
CJK ( talk) 17:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
But that's not the point. The dispute was over the legality of taxation without representation, not whether it was desirable or not. The fact that 90% of Britons could not vote was used to show it was legal under the constitution of England. The colonists were claiming to be under the same constitution that existed in Britain, not their own constitution.
The intolerable acts also did not "shut down" self-governance in Massachusetts, the alteration of the charter merely made the Massachusetts government more like that of the other royal colonies, where all the upper houses were appointed.
CJK ( talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In the info box under "Casualties and losses" the figure of 42,000 is given for the number of British sailors who deserted during the war. This figure seems incredibly high to me, as it would represent more men deserting than died in either the British Army or the Royal Navy. In addition, under the article section "Costs of the War" (sub-section "Casualties--British & Allies") the text states "About 4,000 British sailors deserted during the war."
The source for both the 42,000 figure in the infobox and the 4,000 figure in the infobox is the same. "Mackesy (1964), pp. 6, 176"
Which figure is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileyman1977 ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The article says (in the info box) that the British had 171,000 sailors. This seems way too high to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blelbach ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The references section has the following note at the top: "To avoid duplication, notes for sections with a link to a "Main article" will be found in the linked article." This was a good idea to keep the number of footnotes, and size of the article, down but I think it is not working. Some references and "citation needed" tags have been added to the linked sections as well as to sections without links. The note no longer obviously covers other facts that might be referenced elsewhere. Readers just may see that some facts are referenced but others that perhaps should be are not.
In addition, text has been added to linked sections, without citations in some cases, even if the text is not in the linked article. That provides cover for assertions or interpretations that may be questionable, and possibly inaccurate. Such additions also may raise another question about the scope and focus of the article, especially as it has recently grown.
I think the note should be removed and citations should be provided or requested as usual. In view of the existing state of citations and tags, I may add some citations in the near future whether or not the note remains. Because of the great interest in the article, I will not remove the note unless the suggestion is supported by a consensus of other interested editors. Another reason for me not to remove the note is that it may imply that I will provide all the necessary citations and tags, which may be too ambitious.
With respect to a different and more minor matter, I note a few content footnotes have been separated from the citations. I have started to use separate sections for the content footnotes and citations where an article has more than one or two content notes and enough citations to obscure the text. I am going to separate the remaining content notes and change the section titles. "Notes" would be left as they are. I think "References" should be "Citations"; "Further reading" should be "References"; "Reference literature" should be "Further reading." This would be in line with many other articles. I think it also would make clearer distinctions. Many books combine the two types of notes so either way of doing it is probably valid. Donner60 ( talk) 08:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, as a Brit, I've got to say having read this article for the first time that it has a rather America-centric viewpoint, particularly regarding the causes of the original declaration of independence. The British viewed the taxes imposed on the colonists as necessary to keep America from the French, and the colonists simply didn't want to pay, but then who does?
But the major point which has been airbrushed from history is that a primary reason for the declaration of independence was that the colonists feared that the British would ban them from owning slaves. Following the Somerset Case in 1772, slaves became free men immediately they set foot on British soil. Although a total ban didn't happen until 1833, there were several incremental judgments along the way. It was normal for British laws to be implemented in the colonies as well, and many, particularly rich owners of plantations the cotton owning south (who actually tended to live in Britain anyway) could see the way things would go. The British National archives have a number of old documents illustrating this point.
It was caused by the brits taking arms from the americans which caused the battle of lexington and concord.
In declaring themselves neutral, the settlers cited their right under natural law to be free from tyranny, the paradox being that they did it so they could continue their tyranny over others-- Godwhale ( talk) 07:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps 'neutrality' was not the best title to give the section, but my point is that there was more to it than just tax. I will take another look at the National Archives to see if I can dig out the documents I was referring to, but take a look at the Wikipedia article Somerset v Stewart which has something on this. I'm not looking to score political points at all but while some slaves may well have been freed earlier, slavery was still very prevalent in the US for almost a century after the Somerset case and long after it was absolutely prohibited in the British Empire in 1833. It was as we know a major cause of the American Civil War which ended in 1865.
"For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war. "
Gerald Horne is Moores Professor of History and African-American Studies at the University of Houston. http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=12075#.U7XGHY1dWG4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No one is saying taxation was not a major reason for the declaration. I'm just saying there was more to it than that. I think nations tend to sometimes believe a version of history that is comfortable, a bit like here in Britain we sometimes say we stood along against Hitler in 1940 and forget we also had Canada, Australian, New Zealand, India and South Africa actively fighting on our side as well. A bit like in 1812, where the reason given for war was British impressment and stopping of neutral American shipping by blockading RN squadrons. Again, these complaints were genuine, but it was also a good time for the War Hawks to gain more territory while Britain was engaged in total war against Bonaparte; how did America go about defending the Freedom of the Seas? By invading Canada of course!-- 90.214.83.76 ( talk) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Theres another good source on this, Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution: Alfred Blumrosen -- Godwhale ( talk) 14:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the beauty of the intetnet; you can always find a citation confirming your own viewpoint and cut and paste out the bits you don’t like at your leisure. Amazon’s review of this same book says; “A radical, well-informed, and highly original reinterpretation of the place of slavery in the American War of Independence."- David Brion Davis, Yale University. In 1772, the High Court in London brought about the conditions that would end slavery in England by freeing a black slave from Virginia named Somerset. This decision began a key facet of independence. Slave Nation is a fascinating account of the role slavery played in the drawing of the United States Constitution and in shaping the United States.
We see this also in the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder, which perpetuates the myth of his operation as some misty eyed, all-encompassing happy family, writers deliberately self -censoring out any references to brutal floggings.When Jefferson wrote the declaration, a note you would think was something akin to biblical scripture because of the significance sometimes attached to it, he used a sentence which could have been almost a direct quote from Emerich de Vattell’s Law of Nations; “all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In contrast to the efforts of the British reformers of the same era, this obviously didn’t apply to blacks. While Massachusetts freed its slaves on the basis of the clear unambiguity of the word ‘all’, opposition among the six southern states, in particular South Carolina and Georgia, who were desperate for even more slaves ensured that when Jefferson’s text was incorporated into their own state constitutions, the words ‘all men’ was changed to read ‘all freemen.’
As I go through the pages of discussion here I can see that its almost exclusively Americans talking, (no offence) because words like ‘patriots’ and ‘franchises’ are not words anyone outside America would recognise in the context of the American revolution. IMO you need to look at some non – US sources on this subject, because you are not listening to alternative angles on it all, just the same endlessly recycled American-centric stuff. As an Englishman, I honestly don't understand some of what is being written here.
The article statess "The war had its origins in the resistance of many Americans to taxes imposed by the British parliament, which they held to be unlawful." Thats it. Utter crap. I see this again nd again across wikipedia, which is an excellent resource i am proud to be an occasional editor of but which just perpetuatees these clichés. These taxes were not even particularly heavy and were bypassed by smuggling on a laughable scale. Why did the Americans invade Canada in late 1775 if it was just about tax? You guys seem to have woven a benign and endlessly regurtitated popular narrative you are comfortable with i.e. English oppressors v rebel freedom fighters and when its challenged its just bad journalism. This is why for decades, the Red Indians were the baddies & the frontiersmen were the good guys, as espoused by any 1950s western and only recently you've realised that this wasn't the case. This was about obtaining Indian lands on the periphery and maintaining slavery, not just about throwing off the mettle of the British taxation system, however remotely and arrogantly administered.
Not clear we should be having this discussion here in the article about the war...but since it is in the "Causes" section it needs to be addressed (or the "Causes" section cut down to more neutral statements). Anyway, the best secondary reference I can find so far that directly addresses this issue is quoted next: "In Great Britain, the electorate consisted of approximately 'a quarter or perhaps even a third of the adult males.' According to one estimate, however, '30 percent of the English boroughs had less than 100 voters...and only one-eighth had a thousand or more.' The colonial electorate, by contrast, is estimated to have consisted of between 50 and 75 percent of the adult white, male population, although historical evidence suggest the actual range was higher because most legal restrictions against voting -- except those against free Negroes and Catholics -- were not strictly enforced in the American colonies." [1]
Sorry for the use of ref's in a talk page. Also I left out the author's citations for the internal quotes. You should be able to find these in the google books link I included. Juan Riley ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Further suggestions to make this about the Background to the war and not an article about the revolution and its causes:
I am going to boldly do the above renaming as well as the deletion of the British politics subsection. I do so fully acknowledging that folk may disagree and revert. But this Background section has to be reduced to a summary not a place for all the historical nuances (of valid interest in other articles) to be exposited. Juan Riley ( talk) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You should add the Comte D'Estaing under belligerents. 76.31.202.45 ( talk) 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree..will see to it. Juan Riley ( talk) 22:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the most difficult questions of the Revolutionary War is that of Sir William Howe's conduct. Many people in Howe's own time, Loyalists like Joseph Galloway for example, believed that Howe deliberately refrained from defeating the rebels. The alleged motive is that Howe was a member of the Whig faction in Britain and he wanted to put the Whig faction in power by making the war into a fiasco.
The evidence that Howe was not serious about winning the war is as follows:
I inserted a lot of sourced information about these points, but some of them were removed for unclear reasons. Maybe there are alternative explanations for Howe's behavior but the evidence seems difficult to explain away. I will reinsert information on Howe's conduct if there are no objections.
CJK ( talk) 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sydney George Fisher's The True History of the American Revolution (1902) and The Struggle for American Independence (1908) extensively discusses Howe's deliberate refusal to win the war and criticizes historians who ignore it. This 1910 article discusses contemporary criticism of Howe. [1] If Howe was merely an incompetent general, why was he able to win big victories at Long Island and Brandywine? And if Howe was conservative, why did he launch a bloody attack on Bunker Hill, recklessly expose the Hessians at Trenton, and not alert his troops before Germantown? Another possible explanation, raised by governor Thomas Hutchinson, is that Howe prolonged the war for financial gain, although Galloway said he didn't believe that.
CJK ( talk) 17:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't find this relevant to the war? I'm not saying we declare Howe guilty, I just believe this point of view should be noted and that the evidence against him be reinserted. It is interesting that the article Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe says that It has been suggested that Howe's limited blockade at this point was driven by his sympathy with and desire for conciliation with the Americans. He claimed to have too few ships for a blockade but this is obviously untrue because during the War of 1812 a similar sized British fleet was able to impose a very effective blockade. Could both Howe brothers be merely incompetent and conservative?
CJK ( talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that--apart from Benedict Arnold--the Howe brothers were the only military officials accused of deliberately undermining their own side. Fisher's book discusses how widespread these accusations were among loyalists. Fisher writes: the whole question of the conduct of General Howe is as important a part of history as the assistance rendered us by France; for if what the people of his own time said of Howe be true, his conduct directly contributed to bring about our alliance with that country, and ultimately our independence.
CJK ( talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo
Please change "However, the Americans has multiple advantages that in the long run outweighed the initial disadvantages they faced." to "However, the Americans had multiple advantages that in the long run outweighed the initial disadvantages they faced."
The sentence is past tense and should use the word had instead of has.
12.130.174.180 (
talk)
14:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Thanks for pointing that out -
Arjayay (
talk)
15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish to bring to attention various edits made by user:JuanRiley over the past two months or so. It is quite clear he is attempting to move the page towards a more North American centric page. In his edit comments regarding various eliminations of material focusing on Europe and India he states that this page is about the north american conflict. This represents a biased non objective view of history. For example he states in one edit comment that the listing of Mysore as a co-belligerent is "nonsense". The campaigns in india, europe, africa and elsewhere were a direct part of the war. XavierGreen ( talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish to bring attention to XG's revert without talking. It is about the war and mostly about North America. Mysore might be a section if he wishes certainly silly to be in the info box or (good lord!) the lead. I do have a bias...which is that the article is about the American Revolutionary War. I do not have a chip on my shoulder though. Juan Riley ( talk) 00:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
For what its worth, i agree 100% with XavierGreen. The article is already heavily biased towards what happened on the American continent with very little about the wider war - just because its called the American Revolutionary War does not mean it only happened in the US. For example, no one would think it appropriate not to discuss what Americans call King William's War, King George's War, Queen Anne's War or the French & Indian War that were contemporary with The War of the Grand Alliance, the War of the Spanish Succession or Seven Yars War. In 1779 th French sent a large fleet to try to re-capture India from the British, but its not even mentioned here. The failure to properly discuss the vast shipments from France, Spain or the Netherlands that sustained th war effort of the rebels is laughable, but then, there ar some pretty entrenched views on here.Instead, we have extensive discussions about fairly minor battles that no doubt are of great interest to many americans but do nothing to portray a proper understanding of the war.-- Godwhale ( talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Read the lede. What pray tell of due balance or even accuracy does the following exhibit: "Formal acts of rebellion against British authority began in 1774 when the Patriot Suffolk Resolves.." ? The statement is nonsensical...define formal...after the Tea party..after the Boston Massacre...etc....this must be when the rebels donned white ties and tails? It is someone inserting some obscure knowledge that they are proud of knowing...which might be important in the text of the article(if it were about the politics not the war) but is entirely silly in the lede. Just as are the battles in India (boy am I sore:)). Juan Riley ( talk) 02:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me go on. This article is so bad...for what should be an important article...that your lack of at least realizing this has made me question the whole Wikipedia project. We have thos silly things called admins patrolling pages on pop stars and current news. And they let this tripe continue. Juan Riley ( talk) 02:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me say it again then: does MYSORE belong in the lede? Not the article but the lede? Is it appropriate to include it in the infobox as a co-belligerent? Not the article but the infobox. And btw, Lord Cornwallis, your slip (that silky little agenda thing) shows from your suggestion above that Ireland be named a belligerent. Not only agendas but absurd ones at that. Juan Riley ( talk) 16:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether Mysore was a participant or not is irrelevant to the real issue & subject of this section, which is North American Bias. If I was French, I think I’d be pretty offended at the way the Bourbon involvement is treated in this article. IMO this article, which like the other one that purports to be about the revolution – because they are basically the same - should really be entitled something like “The American revolution as Americans are taught it at school,” or “The parts of the American revolutionary war that Americans like to read about and are familiar with.” America did not ‘win’ the war, it finished on the winning side of a four nation coalition, but has spent the intervening 200 years telling itself that there were these people called Americans or ‘patriots’ who fought Britain and won after an epic struggle and after being joined by France & Spain after 1778 to help out. We see this in the contributions of France and Spain relegated to a couple of lines in a tiny section at the end of the article under the banner “other combatants” and where we are told that the Dutch sent ‘some’ supplies. The French archives state that it spent 1,280,000,000 livres on supplying the Americans and on its own forces to beat Britain, and the Spanish also sent vast quantities of military supplies. Practically all the equipment the rebels had was either plundered from the British or supplied by France, Spain and the Netherlands, not unlike what happened after 1942, only the other way around. They entered not out of any love for the rebels – quite the opposite – but in the hope that both the Americans and British would eventually become exhausted, giving them an opportunity to reduce British power and gain revenge for past humiliations and perhaps even get back some lost territories. Perhaps the most critical incident of all, the Battle of Chesapeake, where the British dithered and allowed the French to unload the heavy cannon that later proved critical at Yorktown didn’t involve any Americans at all. Yet the articles portray it as Americans versus British. We see this propaganda also in the paintings displayed on the articles – particularly the 1776 battle of Long Island which happened well before the main French shipments began - which shows fully kitted-out American units with matching uniforms and guns, and not the reality, that of Washington’s barefooted men, poorly armed and deserting in droves, the rest, according to Washington himself “many of ‘em naked and more so thinly clad as to be unfit for service,”
This is well summed up in the 1993 biography of the Earl of Sandwich, ‘The Insatiable Earl’ by N. Rodger, who writes: “Almost all of what has been written about the war assumes that it was a war fought over the issue of independence of the thirteen colonies. It is of course natural & reasonable for historians, especially American historians who form so large a majority of those who have written about the subject to assume from the vantage point of 200 years later that no other consequence of this war was as important as the emergence of the new republic. Even today most American historians assume that the only issue British politicians had to deal with was the colonial crisis and that all other problems, and all other enemies deserve mention only insofar as they influenced the situation in America. A recent survey states baldly that “Historians of the American Revolutionary War divide roughly between those who argue that America won the struggle and those who believe that Britain lost it; those who think that France, Spain & the Netherlands were involved do not figure at all. Most serious historians still write books on the assumption that Britain fought a war against America between 1775 and 1783. This doubly falsifies the realities of the time. It puts America on a pinnacle it actually occupied for barely two years, between the autumn of 1775 and the autumn of 1777 when it was pushed aside by the imminent onset of a French war. Before 1775 America was a departmental problem to be left to the ministers concerned. By 1778 it was a strategic issue of secondary or tertiary importance to British ministers who faced a threat of national survival. Furthermore the common assumption of historians is still very often that Britain fought America; in other words that two distinct nations, one independent and another very nearly so, faced one another on equal terms. The implicit standard of comparison is the wars of conquest of the French revolution or for many recent American historians the Second World War against Germany and Japan. Their ideas of the strategies that ought to have been employed are those appropriate to a war of national survival between two different societies with radically different values. But even if an 18th century war were fought in this way, which they were not, the military operations in America were a civil war, not a contest between nations. This was an internecine struggle in which Englishmen fought one another, a war without conventions or boundaries”
While we have these tired, ancient half-truths about tax, the article ignores the truth that the war was basically a proxy war, the rebels privateering in British waters after the summer of 1776 for all they were worth and trying to stir up trouble between Britain, France and Spain to ensure they entered the war against their enemy, exactly like Churchill is accused of doing in 1940. The pending involvement of France after mid 1776 was critical in forming British strategy about the porous blockade and affected the outcome of the war. If you refer to the excellent “Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War”, written by an American who appears to have actually bothered to visit Kew & read the archives there, the major reason so much stuff got through to the colonists was that a high level debate was ongoing in the British cabinet between those like Sandwich who wanted to keep a large force of ships in the Channel against an expected (and eventually attempted) invasion by France & Spain and those such as North who hoped that the forces in America under the Howes would be sufficient to win before the expected Franco-Spanish intervention. It was a gamble that failed. Where is the lengthy discussion of the mission by Deane and Franklin beginning in late 1775 to procure Bourbon money, guns and ammunition and of the shipments by the Spanish through their Latin American empire & the exploits of Pierre Beaumarchais, who provided the muskets, mortars and cannon, along with enough powder, flints, grapeshot, clothing, boots, stockings, blankets, spades, axes and tents to equip 25,000 men that won the battle of Saratoga, but who never received the tobacco, grain, indigo and cotton that were promised in return, and who died in poverty as a result having received barely a penny for his troubles. Where is the section explaining how Franklin and Deane begged Vergennes for ten million pounds sterling in January 1777, without which they would have to capitulate, but got instead 2 million, enough to keep going for the rest of the year? There are so many sources, including US government websites that ignore or gloss over the Beaumarchais story and there is no doubt that this part of the story has been deliberately expunged from the collective memory – presumably because it doesn’t fit with the popular narrative of glorious endeavour, freedom and of the founding fathers as righteous men of destiny. Where is the discussion of the mass privateering by Americans, not only for personal enrichment but also to capture British shipments of arms and food to fuel the war effort, beginning with Washington’s personal gang of marauders, the Marbleheaders, who In November 1775, at a time when the Continental army was so ill-equipped that many of its soldiers fought barefoot, they captured a British supply ship the Nancy, laden with 2,000 muskets, 30 tons of musket shot, 30,000 round shot, 100,000 musket flints and assorted mortars. Where is there reference to the large fleet the French sent in 1779 to try to capture India, where is the discussion of American privateering in European waters, of Wickes, Conyngham, the ‘Dunkirk pirate,’ of John Paul Jones which did so much to keep the RN in European waters and allow the shipments through? Privateering out in the Atlantic by ‘wolf packs, al la 1942 caused such havoc and losses that four British trading companies were driven to ruin. Isn’t that a more interesting story than what we have here? -- Godwhale ( talk) 10:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Soon I am going to look into how to propose deletion of this article--might be fun. Folk keep putting details into the lede instead of shortening and objectifying it. As well as the obvious suspect details. The idea was to shorten and objectify the lede (and perhaps save the chips that fall off your shoulders for your morning breakfast cereal). This article is horrendous...and I am sure any objective knowledgeable reader would say so. This is why I am leaving Ireland as a belligerent for now---taint worth my time anymore and it exhibits some editors' lack of seriousness, downright vandalism, or impairment of cognitive function. Juan Riley ( talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
The Irish parliament voluntarily voted to contribute troops to the British war effort--see here [2]. If the loyalists are combatants, so are Ireland and British possessions, regardless of their subordination to Britain. The War of 1812 article lists the Canadas as a combatant even though they were British possessions.
The United States of America was not a country in 1776 it was a confederacy of independent states. The articles of confederation explicitly say: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. The treaty of 1778 explicitly refers to the United States of North America, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhodes island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia... [3] The Treaty of Paris in 1783 again explicitly states: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states... [4] Your assertion that there was a sovereign entity called the "United States" during the Revolution is therefore a massive ahistorical anachronism, equivalent to saying that there was a Germany prior to 1871 because of the Holy Roman Empire.
CJK ( talk) 14:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The USA was founded in 1776 as a confederacy composed of independent states, it did not become a sovereign nation until at least 1789. The Patriots themselves called the USA a confederacy and never claimed it was a nation. The articles of confederation say The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". And Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. And The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other... [5]
CJK ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The Declaration of Independence states: these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. [6] Do you believe the declaration is wrong?
The Fourth of July celebrates independence from Britain, the creation of a new nation was a consequence of that, but it didn't happen until after the Revolutionary War was over. The article articles of confederation contains many sources backing up my view.
CJK ( talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The articles of confederation are (the last time I checked) defunct AND have nothing to do with the war. Juan Riley ( talk) 02:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
...which will just reiterate the same standard 'approved' version of the story that has been endless told and refined since the victors took control of the education system, ((the title gives kind of gives that away) ironing out or ignoring the awkward facts. He could try reading the recently published 'Men Who Lost America' by Andrew O'Shaughnessy or 'Smugglers & patriots; Boston Merchants & the Advent of the American Revolution' by John Tyler, an American writer who sees the Founding Fathers as they really were, oportunists who simply ended up on the winning side and then built a creation myth around it all. But hey, such books are 'revisionist' and subversive and must be suppressed.-- Godwhale ( talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Um, the articles were not defunct at the time period this article covers. What part about these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES and Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence and His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states... is my personal construction?
The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica states: Each state was under the Confederation of 1781 sovereign (except as regarded foreign relations), and for the most purposes practically independent. In adopting the Federal Constitution of 1787-1789 each parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty while retaining others. [7]
CJK ( talk) 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, I will copy too critical points of the Spanish support of the USA independence, I will copy it directly from the Spanish wiki, in Spanish:
"El Gran Sitio de Gibraltar fue la primera acción española en la guerra, que duró desde el 16 de junio de 1779 al 7 de febrero de 1783. A pesar del tamaño más grande del ejército franco-español en el punto de numeración de unas 100.000 tropas, el ejército británico menor comandado por George Augustus Elliott fueron capaces de mantener la posición en la fortaleza y asegurando su abastecimiento por mar después de la batalla del Cabo de San Vicente en enero de 1780. Luis de Córdova, capturó casi sesenta barcos británicos durante la captura del doble convoy inglés (1780) que iban destinados a las guerras coloniales que mantenía Gran Bretaña, lo que causó un importante golpe logístico y moral a los británicos tras esta captura. La flota de Howe tuvo éxito en su vuelta a Inglaterra reabastecidos como consecuencia del sitio de Gibraltar escapando en la batalla del Cabo Espartel, en octubre de 1782.
Del convoy inglés capturado, además de 52 buques, 80 000 mosquetes, 3000 barriles de pólvora, gran cantidad de provisiones y efectos navales destinados a mantener operativas las flotas inglesas de América y el océano Índico, vestuario y equipación para 12 regimientos de infantería (36.000 soldados), y la ingente suma de 1 000 000 de libras esterlinas en lingotes y monedas de oro para el pago de tropas y sobornos (todos los buques y bienes capturados estaban valorados en unas 600 000 libras). Además se hicieron cerca de 3000 prisioneros, de los cuales unos 1400 eran oficiales y soldados de infantería que pasaban como refuerzos a ultramar. Destacando, que el tamaño normal de las tropas inglesas en América era de 40.000 hombres. Los refuerzos ingleses jamás llegarían a América.
A través de la casa Joseph de Gardoqui e hixos España envió a los EE.UU. 120.000 reales de a ocho en efectivo, y órdenes de pago por valor de otros 50.000. Estas monedas, los célebres Spanish dollars, sirvieron para respaldar la deuda pública estadounidense, los continentales y fueron copiados dando origen a su propia moneda, el dólar estadounidense. Además, a través de la casa de Gardoqui se enviaron 215 cañones de bronce, 30.000 mosquetes, 30.000 bayonetas, 51.314 balas de mosquete, 300.000 libras de pólvora, 12.868 granadas, 30.000 uniformes y 4.000 tiendas de campaña, por un valor total de 946.906 reales. El ejército americano que ganó la batalla de Saratoga, fue armado y equipado por España, llevando además, esta Victoria la entrada de Francia en apoyo a la independencia de Estados Unidos de América.
Gardoqui se familiarizó con George Washington, y marcharon en el desfile inaugural del recién elegido presidente de Washington. El rey Carlos III de España continuó comunicándose con George Washington, enviándole el ganado de España, que Washington había solicitado para su granja en Vernon."
-- 77.47.30.210 ( talk) 13:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I'd love to know what it says, but I don't read Spanish, sorry. But you seem to speak English pretty well, so how's about a transaltion?-- Godwhale ( talk) 15:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
American Revolutionary War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ellis, p. 
" should be "Ellis, p. 87
". (See
http://books.google.com/books?id=2Y9Rko9sT3kC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false)<ref name="Burrows">[http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists Edwin G. Burrows ]"Patriots or Terrorists?", ''American Heritage'', Fall 2008.</ref>
<ref name=Burrows>{{cite web |last=Burrows |first=Edwin G. |author-link=Edwin G. Burrows |title=Patriots or Terrorists |url=http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists |website=American Heritage |accessdate=November 29, 2014 |archive-url=//web.archive.org/web/20130323233806/http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists |archive-date=March 23, 2013 |date=Fall 2008 |volume=58 |issue=5}}</ref>
Thanks! 184.244.0.134 ( talk) 02:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)