![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
This is confusing as well as redundant. There is already a simple listing of combatants in the infobox. A more chronological organization of the article would in my opinion make for a clearer and more concise account of the war. The present strategy of summarizing the characteristics of each force (and not even all of them, there is this apparently arbitrary distinction that only those in conflicts before 1778 should be included) makes for poor flow and contributes to the current inane nomenclature ordeal. I think the section should be merged into the rest of the article, which, like most other war articles on the site, is chronological and geographical. Llakais ( talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Kingdom of Mysore be listed as a combatant on the anti-British side, as the Third Mysore War was effectively an extension of the American Revolutionary War. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also Ireland should be listed as a full combatant on the British side, rather than volunteers which is misleading. The Kingdom of Ireland was tied to the British Crown, but it did still function as an indepdent entity. There was an Irish Army, which was supported by the finances of the Irish Parliamentm, and it contributed disproportinatly to the war. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I re-added Brunswick-Lüneburg. This state contributed significant forces to the war in North America (so called Hessians). On the other hand and as far as I know, Hanover did not though it's likely they contributed to the related conflicts in Europe. I also raised Brunswick-Lüneburg a few notches in the list as it's contingent sizes were indeed important, numerically more so than American-Indians (though those might have had more strategic impact, particularly on the war in the west and north). Though maybe we should think over the best way to order this type of information, I tend to go by contingent size or alphabetical, but in this case it woudl be logical to Great Britain in the first slot, rather than Brunswick-Lüneburg if we were to opt for full alphabetic...-- Caranorn ( talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
over the course of the war the British hired about 30,000 soldiers from German princes
I'm going to reword the line above. Great Britain did not simply hire Germans to go to North America. They signed treaties of support from various German states. 98.226.165.179 ( talk) 02:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is also worth noting that inconsistencies now exist between the "Strength" section of the infobox, and details provided in the "Combatants before 1778" section. For example, in the infobox under Great Britain, an "Iroquouis Warrior" strength of 5,000 is listed. However, the "Native Americans" section in the body of the article states "An estimated 13,000 warriors fought on the British side; the largest group, the Iroquois Confederacy, fielded about 1,500 men." Other numbers just don't add up either. If intentional, discrepancies should be explained as such. Alphageekpa ( talk) 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Caranorn is right about the Hanoverians serving at Gibraltar. They made up roughly a third of the garrison, according to the Osprey Book on the subject - and another contingent served at Minorca. Probably enough to count them as an active combatant in the war, I should think, althrough I don't know too much about infobox critirea. Are there set guidlines or is it done on a more individual article basis? Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All of these entries have a common problem: there are two figures to be computed: total number of men in arms at some time in the nine years of war, and average fighting strength over time. Only for the American army are these systematically distinguished. (For the Iroquois, there is a third figure: total male Iroquois of fighting age, but this is likely to be the same, allowing for errors of estimate, as the whole number who actually fought.)
For the Americans, we give 250,000 and 90,000; for the Loyalists, by implication, 25,000 and 10,000, about the same ratio. (25,000 is fairly high, btw; this is comparable to other estimates of total Loyalists numbers, male and female, and of all ages.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is just a small suggestion, but i think that the following commanders should be given the correct national flag beside their name, otherwise it is misleading for a lower educated reader:
EuropeanPatriot ( talk) 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
We certainly should not use the blank white flag we had been using for the flag of France; it's not visible. The eighteenth-century arms of France were blue, with three fleurs-de-lys; the argent, seme de lys or is heraldically doubtful (no metal on metal is one of the few actual rules of heraldry), unfamiliar, and appear to arise from some editor's confusion between the banner of the King (as opposed to other Frenchmen) and the arms of France (as opposed to England). The source of the confusion appears to be Template_talk:Country_data_France, where I have raised it; come and discuss there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
what's with the quote at the beginning of the article. Should it be there? diego_pmc ( talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
How should the countries/armies be reffered to as in the infobox? I notice that some say Great Britain, while others say the British Army. The same is for the United States and the Continental Army. I think we need to be consistent with this, so which one do you think would be better to have? The country or the army? Red4tribe ( talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any truth to the stories that the Americans won partly because they were shooting from trees, etc. while the British marched at them in straight lines? How important was that? Also, how important was their use of marksmen to pick off British generals? What about surprise raids? Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
HM has a Union Jack from after the foundation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Which hadn't happened at the time)whilst every other lag is the Correct Kingdom of Great Britain Flag.( Morcus ( talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
Reading this article it looks like the US won the war solo, with some assistance (which was mostly inept) from some other countries, one of which happened to be France. This is evident in the introduction and throughout the article. The introduction is particularly blatant, mentioning non-American intervention only as an after thought. Should the WWI and WWII articles mention American intervention as an afterthought too? Am I the only one to think this is a problem? Codik ( talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the intro so that it is less laughable. Codik ( talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that Spain's participation in the American Revolutionary War is less know that others, like France's help, but that's because until Spain made a public declaration of war to Britain on July 22 of 1779, helped the revolutionary form of secret, even from before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. His first contribution was made available to the Americans one million Tornese pounds (currency of the time), which were purchased significant materials of war. The economic contribution of Spain, especially through its colonial Louisiana, in the territory of North America, Mexico and Cuba, was heavy throughout the war (1775-1783). Has been tabulated, although not completely, and remains on file in Mexico and Cuba (it is unknown whether now remain in this country).
Juan de Miralles, who was born in Spain of French parents, and settled at a very young man in Cuba, where he amassed a large fortune, was the first diplomatic agent of Spain to the Continental Congress. Their efforts were important for the American rebels. Thanks to him they had an immense help from Spain, with the discretion that this nation required until the open declaration of war against the British in 1779.
In the view of historian Herminio Portell-Vilá, probably relations between the U.S. and Cuba have been different had lived Miralles when Washington became president. Although it is not possible to know the degree of friendship that came to exist between the two men, there is sufficient evidence, including letters of General Washington, to assume that the relations between them were narrow and lined with a sincere friendship.
Unfortunately Miralles only met the head of the Washington-independence forces, who admired and supported, not the Washington president of the United States. In the harsh winter of 1780, Miralles developed symptoms of pneumonia while traveling in a Filafelfia Morristown, NJ in the uncomfortable and unprotected carriages of the time, to meet with Washington. On arrival he was staying in the room more comfortable in the Ford Mansion, the residence at the time of General Washington and his family. Carefully attended by physicians and Washington's wife, Martha C. Washington, Miralles died the evening of April 28 in 1780. His funeral, led by General Washington as one of the mourners were surrounded by great solemnity. Shortly after his body was transported to Havana where he received burial.
It was precisely Havana, from beginning to end, the center of operations for Spain's help to the rebels Americans. The reign of King Carlos III had come to the conclusion that Cuba, for its size, its geographic position (it was called Key of the New World and Antemural of the Indies), its resources, its people, its shipyards, arsenals and naval stores, was the ideal territory to help patriotic Americans. It was at that moment, the most powerful stronghold of the Americas, in addition, because of its proximity to the Thirteen Colonies.
In Havana were repaired the American artillery and warships. From there started shipments of aid to war to stop and there were thousands of British prisoners of war. In Cuba are recruited and trained militia of blacks and whites. The Spaniards also used, although in smaller numbers, territory of Mexico, Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico. One of the episodes showing that Americans did not win its war of independence only with the help of the French, proclaims the majority of American historians, was the decisive role played by the Spanish Count Bernardo de Galvez, who in mid - 1779, along with the news that Spain had come openly into the war, he came from Havana his appointment as governor of Louisiana.
After a hurricane destroyed or dispersed the ships in New Orleans that was prepared to go up the Mississippi, Galvez said that he was ready to give our lives to defend Louisiana from the English, if the neighbors were in agreement and supported him in the gesture. In a few days organized an expedition of 667 men, including 330 Mexican soldiers, militiamen from Cuba, 80 free blacks and mulattoes, Venezuelans, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans and 7 volunteers whites.
The troop was struck after the coup, beating the British and winning the whole basin of the Mississippi. In 1781, and there were no British forces in the region. This represented the rear of Pennsylvania, Virginia and southern Georgia, which prevented the English could help the Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis, head of British forces in the decisive battle of Yorktown.
Later, with other reinforcements, Galvez siege and surrendered Mobile and Panzacola, the two main British bases for trade and naval operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The attack on Panzacola, heavily manned by the British, Galvez was able to do traveling to Cuba, where he managed and was granted on 11 August 1780, to organize an expedition under his command in 4000 in Havana men, who were sumanrian 2000 more contributed by Mexico, and all who might join in Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo.
The expedition departed from Havana with men, plus ships, frigates and other vessels as well as accoutrements of war, food and medicine. But a hurricane has scattered the ships and caused heavy losses. Galvez was unable to attack Panzacola on that occasion.
But in early 1781, the firm Galvez returned to Havana and its persistent efforts succeeded another issue more or less similar, which would join later, in full conflict, a powerful fleet that went in, apart Cubans Recruits sent from Mexico, Guatemala and Venezuela. On May 8 Panzacola surrendered. The Venezuelan master Francisco de Miranda was in charge of negotiations for surrender, since they spoke English.
Francisco de Miranda, also in Cuba would manage money for the troops in Washington. Subsequently, De Miranda go down in history as a precursor to the independence of Hispanic America.
The Battle of Yorktown ended with the surrender of British forces, commanded by Charles Cornwallis, 17 October 1781. There were no peace negotiations because the victorious rebels refused to make until we recognize the independence of the colonies, which took more than a year. At the end it took effect on King George III in the speech of the crown on December 5, 1782.
A new nation, the United States, was born. But the crucial assistance from Spain and Latin America was relegated to oblivion by those who write the story without the aid of honesty.
One of the legacies from Spanish to U.S. currency was the dollar, that is a consequence of the Spanish peso.
Thanks from Spain and forgive my poor English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.222.20 ( talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the Hungarians section from this article. We don't have subsections on every ethnic group involved in this conflict, it'd just be too unwieldy, and generally unencyclopedic in nature. Some, such as Germans in the American Revolution, have a standalone article. The bulk of the entry that was recently included in the main American Revolution article was biographical "fluff" about Michael de Kovats, who did not play a major role in the American Revolution. Notable for his own Wikipedia article? Sure. Notable enough to have a full paragraph on him in the main American Revolution article? I don't think so. I'll throw it out for discussion if necessary, and certainly will change my perspective if I am persuaded otherwise...however, I think you'll find you'll have to include sections on other groups (Polish, Italians, etc. etc.etc.) before fair and balanced coverage is established. Alphageekpa ( talk) 10:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This section reads like a series of excuses, in effect "Why the British could not have won". It seems like it is written by an apologist for the British military command. I suggest it goes until it is completely re-written NPOV. Shoreranger ( talk) 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Plains2009 ( talk) 03:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The American Revolutionary War article mentions "Justin Tullock". Has anyone ever heard of Justin Tullock? I don't know anything about that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.222.18 ( talk) 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The article states: Historians have estimated that approximately 40-45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion while 15-20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. The remaining 35-45% attempted to remain neutral.[5]
However the intro states in one version that those supporting the revolution "seized" control of the colonial legislatures. To state that they "seized" control is misleading since it implies that it was done violently or against the popular will. If only 15 - 20% opposed the revolution, then it follows that those supporting the revolution were simply in the majority in those legislatures. They did not "seize" control, but were rather in the majority and hence had control. Fairview360 ( talk) 05:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence,[1] began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen united former British colonies on the North American continent and ended in a global war between several European great powers.
I believe a link to what actual global war was fought should be used instead of a link to an article describing what a world war is. What war ending up being fought between the superpowers?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
What year dollars and pounds do these numbers represent? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that in order to please the canadian we have disfigured this article with a long futile explanation that serves no purpose. People are not stupid. They deserve more credit then having this stupid introduction simply because a minority of canadian are sore losers.
In this article, the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies that supported the American Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans," with occasional references to "Patriots," "Whigs," "Rebels" or "Revolutionaries." Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are usually referred to as "Loyalists" or "Tories." The geographical area of the thirteen colonies that both groups shared is often referred to simply as "America."
This article is important and canadian should not be allowed to vandalise it. It should be unlocked. We will deal with them. Plains2009 ( talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
J'aime pas les rats!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.231.151 ( talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The article structure is not adequate to stage a picture of one of the greatest war of Independence in human history. This is an armed revolution. A military article should invariably contain detail lists of the offensive and counter-offensive approcahes on the either side. At the begining of the article entries should be made in way so as to depict the important strategic events chronologically, so that a reader might map the entire revolution history. Moreover, this particular war which marked the birth of a new state, should include detail step by step approaches; in other words how a particular battle or campaign helped the independence movement. All the battles small or big should be enlisted: in the southern theatre the author mentions "General Nathanael Greene, Gates' replacement, proceeded to wear down the British in a series of battles,..." such outline sketch of battles must be avoided in a military article. In fact the southern theatre should begin with the list of battles involved as because it is a military article so prominence to battles is a must.
Secondly, details of commands, militia or military stucture should be provided here. Appointment of George Washington as commander in chief is mentioned under American Armies and Militia, but details of the commandment of Continental Marines are not provided, this pose problems to a reader as he cannot understand the army--navy relation. Moreover, this war involved effots of foreign forces too, so relation between commander-in-chief and other foreign commandants should be mentioned. On the other hand author frequently uses the terms 'General' etc, before the names of military personnels etc, so Military structure of the american army is indispensible.
Thirdly, words like native american etc; and their efforts to the war should be mentioned with proper reasearch. Ethnicity of the personnels is an aspect of military not strategy, so usage of enthnic terms should be incorporated under a separate heading meant of ethnic aspect of military.
From your article it seems that American War of Independence was a global war, it may be called the foreruner of World Wars.
Finally, a military article should contain details Logistics, economic factors, weapons ordinances etc, of each battle and the war as a whole, these features are either incomplete or unavailable in this article. Separate articles on all the battles should be written. (Sevenseas)
Indeed, be bold. As you seem to know what your talking about then go ahead a improve the articles (Large amount) of flaws. Remember no Original research, and must be written from a NPOV. No side taking. Misortie ( talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that this article is the only major one on wikpedia to have a 'historical assessment', so what're we doing with it....I suggest it could usefully describe the various views/interpretations given by historians....instead of trying to agree on a neutral overview, give all the major interpretations (I suspect the 4 main differing views appropriate would be from the POV of the British, Americans, American Indians, and French&dutch&spanish&otherscombatants). Say where there is consensus and where there isn't etc....
I imagine this is more realistic than trying to find a NPOV overview of the war...
Thoughts? 92.4.255.185 ( talk) 06:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
During the Revolutionary War,many colonies allowed black to take up arms and participate in the War. The men were not drafted or obligated by the law to serve the country;they volunteered. By the end of the war,nearly 5,000 blacks had fought with the British army.Why did blacks choose to join the American army? Why did they chooseto join the British army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 ( talk) 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting that under the side that shows that Benedict Arnold served under The 13 colonies that in parenthesis it says "Withdrew Support" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.17.173 ( talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Three times an editor User:PhilLiberty has attempted to add material from a fringe source, a League of the South member, that calls the American Revolution a secession. It does not appear that there is any reason to discuss this terminology issue as part of this article. The immediate effect of adding the material would be the need to document the other, majority opinion, in this article.
The attempt to picture the Revolution as a secession is a widely used tactic by neo-confederates to justify the South’s secession in the Civil War. The editor has attempted this type of edit elsewhere and it has been discussed at length at Talk:Articles of Confederation -- see the last six sections.
I am suggesting that a consensus be reached in this discussion page before this article is opened to this material. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
How can you even have a secession if you are a dependant colony and not a member state in some kind of federation or treaty organisation?( Morcus ( talk) 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
The text in question is
That this was a War for Independence is a commonplace; that it was a change of society internally is also a commonplace; that it was a secession is a fringe doctrine - which Jefferson and others would have resolutely opposed. Pennsylvania had a Revolution in 1776; New Jersey enacted female suffrage; Virginia overthrew the established church.
The footnote is a long and doctrinaire irrelevance; we have an article on secession. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
se·ces·sion [ si sésh'n ] (plural se·ces·sions) noun
formal withdrawal: a formal withdrawal from an organization, state, or alliance [Mid-16th century. Directly or via French< Latin secession-< secedere (see secede)] (Encarta World English Dictionary, North American Edition)
formal withdrawal from an organization (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition)
It's the same story for all 24 definitions in OneLook.com Either you don't understand English, or you have some POV stick up your ass. But maybe I see your confusion: Encarta says that the capitalized proper noun "Secession" refers to the action of the southern states that led to the War of Northern Aggression. We're using the small "s" here.
Here's yet another quote supporting the generic use of "secession" as a synonym for "independence from an org/state":
PhilLiberty ( talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A series of POV edits have been made to the article lede attempting to picture the relationship between the 13 colonies as strictly an alliance. Under this POV, the United States was not a nation after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or even at the end of the war in 1783. While this POV may or may not have SOME validity (certainly the nation under the Articles was differently structured than the nation under the Constitution), it is certainly a small minority opinion and does not belong in the article lede.
Furthermore, the claim that the Second Continental Congress was actually an alliance is unsourced and inaccurate -- it was a representative, deliberative body and the document it eventually generated to define its operations was not labeled as an alliance. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Tom> "Actually historians have very freely participated in the two centuries of consensus, starting with the revolutionary generation, on when the nation began."
Wrong on several counts. There is no consensus. Many/most founders went home after the Revolutionary War to participate in their own state's affairs. George Mason only reluctantly attended the Con Convention when he realized that a coup was being orchestrated by Hamiltonians.
Tom> "I would really like to hear your explanation for why this alleged conspiracy to promote the 4th of July might have existed."
I never claimed there was any conspiracy. I think the 4th of July thing only became popular just prior to or during the Civil War. Lincoln and Clay propagandized the silly "the Union preceded the States" theory to justify their war. E.g. "Fourscore and seven years ago" from the Gettysburg Address was such propaganda.
Tom> "I can't think of anybody, federalist or antifederalist, that claimed the Constitution was creating a new nation."
1) You're still conflating "nation" and "state." 2) Both federalist and anti-federalist generally agreed that the US Con created a new state, one that had the power to tax, grant lands like a king, etc. PhilLiberty ( talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
before that was the alliance with France:Recognizing the 13 colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that his Majesty relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof; Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map, see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream)
clearly your views are not shared by a consensus of wiki editors. pohick ( talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)The Franco-American Alliance (also called the Treaty of Alliance) was a pact between France and the Second Continental Congress, representing the United States government, signed in Paris by French and U.S. officials in May 1778.
From 1775 to 1780, he served reluctantly in the Virginia House of Delegates, where he took a leading role in every aspect of formulating a new state government and almost single-handedly wrote the state constitution and the Declaration of Rights. The second occasion was in 1787, when Mason was persuaded to leave his native state to attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Here he was one of the five most frequent speakers, arguing passionately for individual freedoms and against centralized governmental authority. His prescient objections ring no less true today, and his refusal to sign the final document helped bring attention to the need for a bill of rights. - George Mason and the Bills of Rights by Gary Williams
I request a citation that the signing of the Declaration of Independence created a new nation by any contemporary or any historian. (High school heroification textbooks and Civil War propaganda don't count.) The D of I declared the independence/secession of a bunch of former colonies. It had nothing to do with nations, creation, destruction or otherwise.
PhilLiberty (
talk)
19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Hon. The Continental Congress, impelled by the dictates of duty, policy and necessity, having been pleased to dissolve the Connection which subsisted between this Country, and Great Britain, and to declare the United Colonies of North America, free and independent States: The several brigades are to be drawn up this evening on their respective Parades, at Six OClock, when the declaration of Congress, shewing the grounds and reasons of this measure, is to be read with an audible voice.
The General hopes this important Event will serve as a fresh incentive to every officer, and soldier, to act with Fidelity and Courage, as knowing that now the peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms: And that he is now in the service of a State, possessed of sufficient power to reward his merit, and advance him to the highest Honors of a free Country. [4]
One of the few earlier passages to use secede is Mr Jefferson's Autobiography, in which he wrote (in 1821) about the possibility that New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Delaware might "secede from the Union" if independence were declared in June 1776. One, therefore, and existing before July 4. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
At the start of the war were the colonies which would later make up Canada administered as on unit and separate from the administration of the thirteen colonies? Where the thirteen colonies before the war any more of a cohesive group than the other colonies in North America? For example what was the status of Newfoundland?
Was Canada a geographical description if so what was the geographical description given to the lands of the thirteen colonies?
Before the war was there any distinction made between the colonies that would one day form the United States and those that would one day from Canada? Did the colonists from the thirteen colonies consider that they were invading Canada or were they invading Quebec? If not why do we use the term Canada and the Invasion of Canada (1775) in this article as it would seem to me to be like writing that Julius Cesar invaded France and England instead of Gaul and Britain. -- PBS ( talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was going to edit the Dutch-Republic section (that has a citation needed in it, and is not factually correct on the whole; it needs much more nuance), but the semi-protected status got in the way. Let me state my objections here, therefore.
The citation-needed tag challenges the assertion that the British declared war on the Dutch Republic because the Dutch government was sympathetic to the American cause. This assertion is indeed incorrect. It is doubtful if the Dutch government of the time was sympathetic; certainly the stadtholder was hostile to the Americans and so was the Orangist faction he controlled in the States-General. On the other hand, the anti-Orangist faction was pro-American, mostly because they opposed the Orangists on any point. Prominent in this anti-Orangist party was the city of Amsterdam which had important interests in the trade on France and the American colonies (by way of Statius), that was hindered by the British in contravention of the "free ship, free goods" provision of the Anglo-Dutch commercial treaies of 1668 and 1674. France came to depend more and more on Dutch carriers for its supply of naval stores, that the British considered contraband, and the Dutch did not. France insisted on the Dutch defending their treaty rights in this respect, exercising economic pressure on the Republic to this effect. This was the main motive for the Dutch to attempt to join the League of Armed Neutrality, which made the same claim of neutral rights. Great Britain declared war to forestall this, or at least to forestall the League giving armed assistance to the Dutch in this conflict. For that reason, the British grievances pretended to be different (mainly the draft-preparatory treaty of amity and commerce between Amsterdam and the Continental Congress found in the effects of John Laurens on his capture by the British; the facilities given to John Paul Jones in 1779 when he sought refuge in Dutch territorial waters; and the refusal of the Dutch to lend their Scots Brigade to Britain for service against the Rebels in America). This formulation of the casus belli gave Russia a fig leaf to refuse armed assistance to the Dutch, despite the fact that the Republic had been admitted to the League just before the declaration of war by Britain. She limited herself to offering mediation which of course came to nothing.
In sum, the Dutch participation in the war was forced upon the Republic by the belligerents, principally Britain that sought to assert her dominance over Dutch foreign policy. An adequate Dutch defense was frustrated by the absolute deadlock in Dutch politics between the pro and anti-stadtholder factions, which prevented either a built-up of the land forces, or a naval construction program. The Republic did not become allied to the Americans or the French during the war because of this deadlock (although after the peace of 1783 a short-lived alliance with France was signed that was superseded in 1787 by a Dutch-British-Prussian alliance after the suppression of the Patriot Revolution in 1787, when the Republic formally became a British vassal state). The Republic did sign a treaty of amity and commerce with the Continental Congress in 1782, however (being the second European power to diplomatically recognize the U.S.) and allowed the public subscription to an American loan of $5 million in the same year. All of this can be referenced by several sources, probably most conveniently, however, by Edler, F. (1911) The Dutch Republic and the American Revolution (reprinted in 2001 by University Press of the Pacific).
Finally, I was going to put a citation-needed tag by the final sentence of the current section which contains the usual needless and unsubstantiated claims.-- Ereunetes ( talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
This is confusing as well as redundant. There is already a simple listing of combatants in the infobox. A more chronological organization of the article would in my opinion make for a clearer and more concise account of the war. The present strategy of summarizing the characteristics of each force (and not even all of them, there is this apparently arbitrary distinction that only those in conflicts before 1778 should be included) makes for poor flow and contributes to the current inane nomenclature ordeal. I think the section should be merged into the rest of the article, which, like most other war articles on the site, is chronological and geographical. Llakais ( talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Kingdom of Mysore be listed as a combatant on the anti-British side, as the Third Mysore War was effectively an extension of the American Revolutionary War. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Also Ireland should be listed as a full combatant on the British side, rather than volunteers which is misleading. The Kingdom of Ireland was tied to the British Crown, but it did still function as an indepdent entity. There was an Irish Army, which was supported by the finances of the Irish Parliamentm, and it contributed disproportinatly to the war. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I re-added Brunswick-Lüneburg. This state contributed significant forces to the war in North America (so called Hessians). On the other hand and as far as I know, Hanover did not though it's likely they contributed to the related conflicts in Europe. I also raised Brunswick-Lüneburg a few notches in the list as it's contingent sizes were indeed important, numerically more so than American-Indians (though those might have had more strategic impact, particularly on the war in the west and north). Though maybe we should think over the best way to order this type of information, I tend to go by contingent size or alphabetical, but in this case it woudl be logical to Great Britain in the first slot, rather than Brunswick-Lüneburg if we were to opt for full alphabetic...-- Caranorn ( talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
over the course of the war the British hired about 30,000 soldiers from German princes
I'm going to reword the line above. Great Britain did not simply hire Germans to go to North America. They signed treaties of support from various German states. 98.226.165.179 ( talk) 02:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is also worth noting that inconsistencies now exist between the "Strength" section of the infobox, and details provided in the "Combatants before 1778" section. For example, in the infobox under Great Britain, an "Iroquouis Warrior" strength of 5,000 is listed. However, the "Native Americans" section in the body of the article states "An estimated 13,000 warriors fought on the British side; the largest group, the Iroquois Confederacy, fielded about 1,500 men." Other numbers just don't add up either. If intentional, discrepancies should be explained as such. Alphageekpa ( talk) 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Caranorn is right about the Hanoverians serving at Gibraltar. They made up roughly a third of the garrison, according to the Osprey Book on the subject - and another contingent served at Minorca. Probably enough to count them as an active combatant in the war, I should think, althrough I don't know too much about infobox critirea. Are there set guidlines or is it done on a more individual article basis? Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
All of these entries have a common problem: there are two figures to be computed: total number of men in arms at some time in the nine years of war, and average fighting strength over time. Only for the American army are these systematically distinguished. (For the Iroquois, there is a third figure: total male Iroquois of fighting age, but this is likely to be the same, allowing for errors of estimate, as the whole number who actually fought.)
For the Americans, we give 250,000 and 90,000; for the Loyalists, by implication, 25,000 and 10,000, about the same ratio. (25,000 is fairly high, btw; this is comparable to other estimates of total Loyalists numbers, male and female, and of all ages.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
This is just a small suggestion, but i think that the following commanders should be given the correct national flag beside their name, otherwise it is misleading for a lower educated reader:
EuropeanPatriot ( talk) 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
We certainly should not use the blank white flag we had been using for the flag of France; it's not visible. The eighteenth-century arms of France were blue, with three fleurs-de-lys; the argent, seme de lys or is heraldically doubtful (no metal on metal is one of the few actual rules of heraldry), unfamiliar, and appear to arise from some editor's confusion between the banner of the King (as opposed to other Frenchmen) and the arms of France (as opposed to England). The source of the confusion appears to be Template_talk:Country_data_France, where I have raised it; come and discuss there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
what's with the quote at the beginning of the article. Should it be there? diego_pmc ( talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
How should the countries/armies be reffered to as in the infobox? I notice that some say Great Britain, while others say the British Army. The same is for the United States and the Continental Army. I think we need to be consistent with this, so which one do you think would be better to have? The country or the army? Red4tribe ( talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any truth to the stories that the Americans won partly because they were shooting from trees, etc. while the British marched at them in straight lines? How important was that? Also, how important was their use of marksmen to pick off British generals? What about surprise raids? Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
HM has a Union Jack from after the foundation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Which hadn't happened at the time)whilst every other lag is the Correct Kingdom of Great Britain Flag.( Morcus ( talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
Reading this article it looks like the US won the war solo, with some assistance (which was mostly inept) from some other countries, one of which happened to be France. This is evident in the introduction and throughout the article. The introduction is particularly blatant, mentioning non-American intervention only as an after thought. Should the WWI and WWII articles mention American intervention as an afterthought too? Am I the only one to think this is a problem? Codik ( talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the intro so that it is less laughable. Codik ( talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that Spain's participation in the American Revolutionary War is less know that others, like France's help, but that's because until Spain made a public declaration of war to Britain on July 22 of 1779, helped the revolutionary form of secret, even from before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. His first contribution was made available to the Americans one million Tornese pounds (currency of the time), which were purchased significant materials of war. The economic contribution of Spain, especially through its colonial Louisiana, in the territory of North America, Mexico and Cuba, was heavy throughout the war (1775-1783). Has been tabulated, although not completely, and remains on file in Mexico and Cuba (it is unknown whether now remain in this country).
Juan de Miralles, who was born in Spain of French parents, and settled at a very young man in Cuba, where he amassed a large fortune, was the first diplomatic agent of Spain to the Continental Congress. Their efforts were important for the American rebels. Thanks to him they had an immense help from Spain, with the discretion that this nation required until the open declaration of war against the British in 1779.
In the view of historian Herminio Portell-Vilá, probably relations between the U.S. and Cuba have been different had lived Miralles when Washington became president. Although it is not possible to know the degree of friendship that came to exist between the two men, there is sufficient evidence, including letters of General Washington, to assume that the relations between them were narrow and lined with a sincere friendship.
Unfortunately Miralles only met the head of the Washington-independence forces, who admired and supported, not the Washington president of the United States. In the harsh winter of 1780, Miralles developed symptoms of pneumonia while traveling in a Filafelfia Morristown, NJ in the uncomfortable and unprotected carriages of the time, to meet with Washington. On arrival he was staying in the room more comfortable in the Ford Mansion, the residence at the time of General Washington and his family. Carefully attended by physicians and Washington's wife, Martha C. Washington, Miralles died the evening of April 28 in 1780. His funeral, led by General Washington as one of the mourners were surrounded by great solemnity. Shortly after his body was transported to Havana where he received burial.
It was precisely Havana, from beginning to end, the center of operations for Spain's help to the rebels Americans. The reign of King Carlos III had come to the conclusion that Cuba, for its size, its geographic position (it was called Key of the New World and Antemural of the Indies), its resources, its people, its shipyards, arsenals and naval stores, was the ideal territory to help patriotic Americans. It was at that moment, the most powerful stronghold of the Americas, in addition, because of its proximity to the Thirteen Colonies.
In Havana were repaired the American artillery and warships. From there started shipments of aid to war to stop and there were thousands of British prisoners of war. In Cuba are recruited and trained militia of blacks and whites. The Spaniards also used, although in smaller numbers, territory of Mexico, Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico. One of the episodes showing that Americans did not win its war of independence only with the help of the French, proclaims the majority of American historians, was the decisive role played by the Spanish Count Bernardo de Galvez, who in mid - 1779, along with the news that Spain had come openly into the war, he came from Havana his appointment as governor of Louisiana.
After a hurricane destroyed or dispersed the ships in New Orleans that was prepared to go up the Mississippi, Galvez said that he was ready to give our lives to defend Louisiana from the English, if the neighbors were in agreement and supported him in the gesture. In a few days organized an expedition of 667 men, including 330 Mexican soldiers, militiamen from Cuba, 80 free blacks and mulattoes, Venezuelans, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans and 7 volunteers whites.
The troop was struck after the coup, beating the British and winning the whole basin of the Mississippi. In 1781, and there were no British forces in the region. This represented the rear of Pennsylvania, Virginia and southern Georgia, which prevented the English could help the Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis, head of British forces in the decisive battle of Yorktown.
Later, with other reinforcements, Galvez siege and surrendered Mobile and Panzacola, the two main British bases for trade and naval operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The attack on Panzacola, heavily manned by the British, Galvez was able to do traveling to Cuba, where he managed and was granted on 11 August 1780, to organize an expedition under his command in 4000 in Havana men, who were sumanrian 2000 more contributed by Mexico, and all who might join in Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo.
The expedition departed from Havana with men, plus ships, frigates and other vessels as well as accoutrements of war, food and medicine. But a hurricane has scattered the ships and caused heavy losses. Galvez was unable to attack Panzacola on that occasion.
But in early 1781, the firm Galvez returned to Havana and its persistent efforts succeeded another issue more or less similar, which would join later, in full conflict, a powerful fleet that went in, apart Cubans Recruits sent from Mexico, Guatemala and Venezuela. On May 8 Panzacola surrendered. The Venezuelan master Francisco de Miranda was in charge of negotiations for surrender, since they spoke English.
Francisco de Miranda, also in Cuba would manage money for the troops in Washington. Subsequently, De Miranda go down in history as a precursor to the independence of Hispanic America.
The Battle of Yorktown ended with the surrender of British forces, commanded by Charles Cornwallis, 17 October 1781. There were no peace negotiations because the victorious rebels refused to make until we recognize the independence of the colonies, which took more than a year. At the end it took effect on King George III in the speech of the crown on December 5, 1782.
A new nation, the United States, was born. But the crucial assistance from Spain and Latin America was relegated to oblivion by those who write the story without the aid of honesty.
One of the legacies from Spanish to U.S. currency was the dollar, that is a consequence of the Spanish peso.
Thanks from Spain and forgive my poor English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.222.20 ( talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the Hungarians section from this article. We don't have subsections on every ethnic group involved in this conflict, it'd just be too unwieldy, and generally unencyclopedic in nature. Some, such as Germans in the American Revolution, have a standalone article. The bulk of the entry that was recently included in the main American Revolution article was biographical "fluff" about Michael de Kovats, who did not play a major role in the American Revolution. Notable for his own Wikipedia article? Sure. Notable enough to have a full paragraph on him in the main American Revolution article? I don't think so. I'll throw it out for discussion if necessary, and certainly will change my perspective if I am persuaded otherwise...however, I think you'll find you'll have to include sections on other groups (Polish, Italians, etc. etc.etc.) before fair and balanced coverage is established. Alphageekpa ( talk) 10:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This section reads like a series of excuses, in effect "Why the British could not have won". It seems like it is written by an apologist for the British military command. I suggest it goes until it is completely re-written NPOV. Shoreranger ( talk) 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Plains2009 ( talk) 03:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The American Revolutionary War article mentions "Justin Tullock". Has anyone ever heard of Justin Tullock? I don't know anything about that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.222.18 ( talk) 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The article states: Historians have estimated that approximately 40-45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion while 15-20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. The remaining 35-45% attempted to remain neutral.[5]
However the intro states in one version that those supporting the revolution "seized" control of the colonial legislatures. To state that they "seized" control is misleading since it implies that it was done violently or against the popular will. If only 15 - 20% opposed the revolution, then it follows that those supporting the revolution were simply in the majority in those legislatures. They did not "seize" control, but were rather in the majority and hence had control. Fairview360 ( talk) 05:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence,[1] began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen united former British colonies on the North American continent and ended in a global war between several European great powers.
I believe a link to what actual global war was fought should be used instead of a link to an article describing what a world war is. What war ending up being fought between the superpowers?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
What year dollars and pounds do these numbers represent? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that in order to please the canadian we have disfigured this article with a long futile explanation that serves no purpose. People are not stupid. They deserve more credit then having this stupid introduction simply because a minority of canadian are sore losers.
In this article, the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies that supported the American Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans," with occasional references to "Patriots," "Whigs," "Rebels" or "Revolutionaries." Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are usually referred to as "Loyalists" or "Tories." The geographical area of the thirteen colonies that both groups shared is often referred to simply as "America."
This article is important and canadian should not be allowed to vandalise it. It should be unlocked. We will deal with them. Plains2009 ( talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
J'aime pas les rats!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.231.151 ( talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The article structure is not adequate to stage a picture of one of the greatest war of Independence in human history. This is an armed revolution. A military article should invariably contain detail lists of the offensive and counter-offensive approcahes on the either side. At the begining of the article entries should be made in way so as to depict the important strategic events chronologically, so that a reader might map the entire revolution history. Moreover, this particular war which marked the birth of a new state, should include detail step by step approaches; in other words how a particular battle or campaign helped the independence movement. All the battles small or big should be enlisted: in the southern theatre the author mentions "General Nathanael Greene, Gates' replacement, proceeded to wear down the British in a series of battles,..." such outline sketch of battles must be avoided in a military article. In fact the southern theatre should begin with the list of battles involved as because it is a military article so prominence to battles is a must.
Secondly, details of commands, militia or military stucture should be provided here. Appointment of George Washington as commander in chief is mentioned under American Armies and Militia, but details of the commandment of Continental Marines are not provided, this pose problems to a reader as he cannot understand the army--navy relation. Moreover, this war involved effots of foreign forces too, so relation between commander-in-chief and other foreign commandants should be mentioned. On the other hand author frequently uses the terms 'General' etc, before the names of military personnels etc, so Military structure of the american army is indispensible.
Thirdly, words like native american etc; and their efforts to the war should be mentioned with proper reasearch. Ethnicity of the personnels is an aspect of military not strategy, so usage of enthnic terms should be incorporated under a separate heading meant of ethnic aspect of military.
From your article it seems that American War of Independence was a global war, it may be called the foreruner of World Wars.
Finally, a military article should contain details Logistics, economic factors, weapons ordinances etc, of each battle and the war as a whole, these features are either incomplete or unavailable in this article. Separate articles on all the battles should be written. (Sevenseas)
Indeed, be bold. As you seem to know what your talking about then go ahead a improve the articles (Large amount) of flaws. Remember no Original research, and must be written from a NPOV. No side taking. Misortie ( talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that this article is the only major one on wikpedia to have a 'historical assessment', so what're we doing with it....I suggest it could usefully describe the various views/interpretations given by historians....instead of trying to agree on a neutral overview, give all the major interpretations (I suspect the 4 main differing views appropriate would be from the POV of the British, Americans, American Indians, and French&dutch&spanish&otherscombatants). Say where there is consensus and where there isn't etc....
I imagine this is more realistic than trying to find a NPOV overview of the war...
Thoughts? 92.4.255.185 ( talk) 06:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
During the Revolutionary War,many colonies allowed black to take up arms and participate in the War. The men were not drafted or obligated by the law to serve the country;they volunteered. By the end of the war,nearly 5,000 blacks had fought with the British army.Why did blacks choose to join the American army? Why did they chooseto join the British army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 ( talk) 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I am requesting that under the side that shows that Benedict Arnold served under The 13 colonies that in parenthesis it says "Withdrew Support" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.17.173 ( talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Three times an editor User:PhilLiberty has attempted to add material from a fringe source, a League of the South member, that calls the American Revolution a secession. It does not appear that there is any reason to discuss this terminology issue as part of this article. The immediate effect of adding the material would be the need to document the other, majority opinion, in this article.
The attempt to picture the Revolution as a secession is a widely used tactic by neo-confederates to justify the South’s secession in the Civil War. The editor has attempted this type of edit elsewhere and it has been discussed at length at Talk:Articles of Confederation -- see the last six sections.
I am suggesting that a consensus be reached in this discussion page before this article is opened to this material. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 13:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
How can you even have a secession if you are a dependant colony and not a member state in some kind of federation or treaty organisation?( Morcus ( talk) 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC))
The text in question is
That this was a War for Independence is a commonplace; that it was a change of society internally is also a commonplace; that it was a secession is a fringe doctrine - which Jefferson and others would have resolutely opposed. Pennsylvania had a Revolution in 1776; New Jersey enacted female suffrage; Virginia overthrew the established church.
The footnote is a long and doctrinaire irrelevance; we have an article on secession. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
se·ces·sion [ si sésh'n ] (plural se·ces·sions) noun
formal withdrawal: a formal withdrawal from an organization, state, or alliance [Mid-16th century. Directly or via French< Latin secession-< secedere (see secede)] (Encarta World English Dictionary, North American Edition)
formal withdrawal from an organization (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition)
It's the same story for all 24 definitions in OneLook.com Either you don't understand English, or you have some POV stick up your ass. But maybe I see your confusion: Encarta says that the capitalized proper noun "Secession" refers to the action of the southern states that led to the War of Northern Aggression. We're using the small "s" here.
Here's yet another quote supporting the generic use of "secession" as a synonym for "independence from an org/state":
PhilLiberty ( talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
A series of POV edits have been made to the article lede attempting to picture the relationship between the 13 colonies as strictly an alliance. Under this POV, the United States was not a nation after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or even at the end of the war in 1783. While this POV may or may not have SOME validity (certainly the nation under the Articles was differently structured than the nation under the Constitution), it is certainly a small minority opinion and does not belong in the article lede.
Furthermore, the claim that the Second Continental Congress was actually an alliance is unsourced and inaccurate -- it was a representative, deliberative body and the document it eventually generated to define its operations was not labeled as an alliance. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Tom> "Actually historians have very freely participated in the two centuries of consensus, starting with the revolutionary generation, on when the nation began."
Wrong on several counts. There is no consensus. Many/most founders went home after the Revolutionary War to participate in their own state's affairs. George Mason only reluctantly attended the Con Convention when he realized that a coup was being orchestrated by Hamiltonians.
Tom> "I would really like to hear your explanation for why this alleged conspiracy to promote the 4th of July might have existed."
I never claimed there was any conspiracy. I think the 4th of July thing only became popular just prior to or during the Civil War. Lincoln and Clay propagandized the silly "the Union preceded the States" theory to justify their war. E.g. "Fourscore and seven years ago" from the Gettysburg Address was such propaganda.
Tom> "I can't think of anybody, federalist or antifederalist, that claimed the Constitution was creating a new nation."
1) You're still conflating "nation" and "state." 2) Both federalist and anti-federalist generally agreed that the US Con created a new state, one that had the power to tax, grant lands like a king, etc. PhilLiberty ( talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
before that was the alliance with France:Recognizing the 13 colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that his Majesty relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof; Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map, see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream)
clearly your views are not shared by a consensus of wiki editors. pohick ( talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)The Franco-American Alliance (also called the Treaty of Alliance) was a pact between France and the Second Continental Congress, representing the United States government, signed in Paris by French and U.S. officials in May 1778.
From 1775 to 1780, he served reluctantly in the Virginia House of Delegates, where he took a leading role in every aspect of formulating a new state government and almost single-handedly wrote the state constitution and the Declaration of Rights. The second occasion was in 1787, when Mason was persuaded to leave his native state to attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Here he was one of the five most frequent speakers, arguing passionately for individual freedoms and against centralized governmental authority. His prescient objections ring no less true today, and his refusal to sign the final document helped bring attention to the need for a bill of rights. - George Mason and the Bills of Rights by Gary Williams
I request a citation that the signing of the Declaration of Independence created a new nation by any contemporary or any historian. (High school heroification textbooks and Civil War propaganda don't count.) The D of I declared the independence/secession of a bunch of former colonies. It had nothing to do with nations, creation, destruction or otherwise.
PhilLiberty (
talk)
19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The Hon. The Continental Congress, impelled by the dictates of duty, policy and necessity, having been pleased to dissolve the Connection which subsisted between this Country, and Great Britain, and to declare the United Colonies of North America, free and independent States: The several brigades are to be drawn up this evening on their respective Parades, at Six OClock, when the declaration of Congress, shewing the grounds and reasons of this measure, is to be read with an audible voice.
The General hopes this important Event will serve as a fresh incentive to every officer, and soldier, to act with Fidelity and Courage, as knowing that now the peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms: And that he is now in the service of a State, possessed of sufficient power to reward his merit, and advance him to the highest Honors of a free Country. [4]
One of the few earlier passages to use secede is Mr Jefferson's Autobiography, in which he wrote (in 1821) about the possibility that New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Delaware might "secede from the Union" if independence were declared in June 1776. One, therefore, and existing before July 4. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
At the start of the war were the colonies which would later make up Canada administered as on unit and separate from the administration of the thirteen colonies? Where the thirteen colonies before the war any more of a cohesive group than the other colonies in North America? For example what was the status of Newfoundland?
Was Canada a geographical description if so what was the geographical description given to the lands of the thirteen colonies?
Before the war was there any distinction made between the colonies that would one day form the United States and those that would one day from Canada? Did the colonists from the thirteen colonies consider that they were invading Canada or were they invading Quebec? If not why do we use the term Canada and the Invasion of Canada (1775) in this article as it would seem to me to be like writing that Julius Cesar invaded France and England instead of Gaul and Britain. -- PBS ( talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I was going to edit the Dutch-Republic section (that has a citation needed in it, and is not factually correct on the whole; it needs much more nuance), but the semi-protected status got in the way. Let me state my objections here, therefore.
The citation-needed tag challenges the assertion that the British declared war on the Dutch Republic because the Dutch government was sympathetic to the American cause. This assertion is indeed incorrect. It is doubtful if the Dutch government of the time was sympathetic; certainly the stadtholder was hostile to the Americans and so was the Orangist faction he controlled in the States-General. On the other hand, the anti-Orangist faction was pro-American, mostly because they opposed the Orangists on any point. Prominent in this anti-Orangist party was the city of Amsterdam which had important interests in the trade on France and the American colonies (by way of Statius), that was hindered by the British in contravention of the "free ship, free goods" provision of the Anglo-Dutch commercial treaies of 1668 and 1674. France came to depend more and more on Dutch carriers for its supply of naval stores, that the British considered contraband, and the Dutch did not. France insisted on the Dutch defending their treaty rights in this respect, exercising economic pressure on the Republic to this effect. This was the main motive for the Dutch to attempt to join the League of Armed Neutrality, which made the same claim of neutral rights. Great Britain declared war to forestall this, or at least to forestall the League giving armed assistance to the Dutch in this conflict. For that reason, the British grievances pretended to be different (mainly the draft-preparatory treaty of amity and commerce between Amsterdam and the Continental Congress found in the effects of John Laurens on his capture by the British; the facilities given to John Paul Jones in 1779 when he sought refuge in Dutch territorial waters; and the refusal of the Dutch to lend their Scots Brigade to Britain for service against the Rebels in America). This formulation of the casus belli gave Russia a fig leaf to refuse armed assistance to the Dutch, despite the fact that the Republic had been admitted to the League just before the declaration of war by Britain. She limited herself to offering mediation which of course came to nothing.
In sum, the Dutch participation in the war was forced upon the Republic by the belligerents, principally Britain that sought to assert her dominance over Dutch foreign policy. An adequate Dutch defense was frustrated by the absolute deadlock in Dutch politics between the pro and anti-stadtholder factions, which prevented either a built-up of the land forces, or a naval construction program. The Republic did not become allied to the Americans or the French during the war because of this deadlock (although after the peace of 1783 a short-lived alliance with France was signed that was superseded in 1787 by a Dutch-British-Prussian alliance after the suppression of the Patriot Revolution in 1787, when the Republic formally became a British vassal state). The Republic did sign a treaty of amity and commerce with the Continental Congress in 1782, however (being the second European power to diplomatically recognize the U.S.) and allowed the public subscription to an American loan of $5 million in the same year. All of this can be referenced by several sources, probably most conveniently, however, by Edler, F. (1911) The Dutch Republic and the American Revolution (reprinted in 2001 by University Press of the Pacific).
Finally, I was going to put a citation-needed tag by the final sentence of the current section which contains the usual needless and unsubstantiated claims.-- Ereunetes ( talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)