This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
This article is a translation of the intro from fr:La France dans la guerre d'indépendance américaine. I did a first run, cleanup as needed. - AKeen 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Good heavens, talk about crappy neutrality.
I did all I can for the translation. However, I am warning you guys now that I am relatively new with French :\ -- 24630 4:15 pm, 3 July 2006
Britain as official US trade partner? So far as I am aware, the United States does not and has never had "official trade partners." and I am an American. This article is inadequate, and I propose it be deleted. France's participation in the American Revolutionary War was vastly signifigant, but this article doesn't cut it, sorry. -- V. Joe 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted section on official trade evidence. Please notify me on my talk page if you restore it. -- V. Joe 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
My first reaction to this article was that it was horribly vandalised. Then I saw it was translated from the french wikipedia article. Although it has been improved since then, it still needs some editing. I'll be coming here from time to time, but others are welcome to dig in too (:... -- Victor falk 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Under French involvement, paragraph 2.
Totally doesn't make sense. Htmlqawsedrftg ( talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The impact of the war to French finances appears to be overstated in the current article. Robert D. Harris has re-assessed Necker's record on this, and he contradicts Calonne and the historian Marion in an article from 1976. French Finances and the American War, 1777-1783 The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 48, No 2 (June, 1976), pp. 233-258, The University of Chicago Press.
Harris argues that the deficit claimed by Calonne was fictitious, that Necker appears to have been putting the royal finances in order, and that the fiscal causes of the French Revolution should be reexamined. (Calonne did not economize upon taking office in around 1784, and he alleged that Necker had hidden a deficit.)
Harris arrives at 520M livres raised by loans by Necker from 1777 to his resignation in 1781, $252M by Fleury from May 1781 through 1782, totalling 772M livres.
Extraordinary expenditures for the same years: 1777-82 = 682M (plus 225M in promissory notes). Add to that 9M subsidies and 18M loans without payments until after the war, and finally the deficits of 1777 and 1778: 20.5M and 5.5M, respectively. (Lowering due to Necker's administrative reforms. In his loan edict of 1778, Necker claimed to have balanced ordinary revenues and expenditures.) The sum of extraordinary expenditures, per Harris, 1777-82, comes to 735M livres, only 37M less than the total extraordinary income received from loans.
Harris:
If these calculations are anywhere near correct, it can be seen that an ordinary deficit during the war years on a scale alleged by Calonne would have been quite impossible. The money raised by loans was practically all taken up to meet war expenditures. If there had been ordinary deficits, they would have had to be made up out of extraordinary income or loans. Obviously there was little or nothing left over to make up such deficits.
I propose wording that does not indicate the American War ruined France's finances.
Nelsthompson ( talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
France had a debt of 3,000 billion?
French troops had to be transported over great distances, which cost about 1 billion livres tournois, and further added to France's debt of a little less than 3,315 billion.
Htmlqawsedrftg ( talk) 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The warfare between Britain and France that began in 1754 with skirmishes in North America has several different names. In America it is known as the French and Indian War (1754-1763). In Europe it is called the Seven Years’ War because the fighting there lasted from 1756 to 1763. The war in North America was fought mostly throughout the Northern colonies, and in the end Great Britain defeated France. During the peace negotiations, Britain acquired French holdings in Canada and Florida from France’s ally, Spain. However, Britain also accumulated a large debt over the course of the war. To help pay off the debt, Britain turned to the colonies to generate revenue. The war changed the relationship between Great Britain and the colonies. Prior to the war, Great Britain had practiced a policy of salutary neglect, not insisting on strict enforcement of laws, such as the Molasses Act, which in 1733 imposed a tax on molasses, because trade with the American colonies was making Britain very wealthy and powerful. During this period, the colonists developed a nearly independent political and economic system. After the war, however, British leaders reevaluated their relationship with the colonies, ending the policy of salutary neglect and proposing reforms and new taxes. This reevaluation was caused by conflicts between Great Britain and the colonies during the war, such as the colonial assemblies’ insistence on controlling the militia units raised to fight the French, the increased colonial independence, and colonial smuggling of French goods into the country during the war. In addition, the war had left Great Britain deeply in debt. British leaders viewed American prosperity as a resource and taxing the colonies as a means to relieve British debt. Conflicts arose as Great Britain attempted to reassert its power over the colonies; they viewed Great Britain’s attempts to tax them as interference into internal matters. The colonies believed that Great Britain had jurisdiction only over external issues. |
Who is Haley and what purpose does that giant biased paragraph serve? The second one to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.97.250 ( talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The reaction in the colonies to the French entry into the war was not an overwhelmingly positive one, as it left a number of American officers unhappy. Notable amongst them was Benedict Arnold who up to this point had been one of the most fervent supporters of American independence, and the outstanding hero of the cause for his services in Canada and at Saratoga, was apalled by the alliance with France. The reason for this mainly stemmed from his early experiences fighting against the French in the Seven Years War where he saw the French and their Native American Allies commit a number of atrocities.
Combined with this was also a disgust for the French absolute monarchy, which was far less democratic than the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom. To some this new alliance also seemed to combine with a growing elitism within the Continental Army, as demonstrated by the appointment of untried European aritstocrats such as Lafrayette over more expereinced American officers.
Overall many considered the new alliance a betrayal of the radical foundations on which the new Republic had been established. In Arnold's case this played, along with many other factors, a large part in his descision to defect to the British. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This comment seems to be purely subjective more than anything else.
First off, ennemies of my ennemy are my allies. WW2: USA and UK allied with Staline against Hitler. Allying with such high caliber scum as Staline isnt a "betrayal of the radical foundations on which the new Republic " in your mind?
Second. The so democratic monarchy of UK was imposing unfair taxes, hostile acts and chauvinistic laws to protect UK citizens at expense of continentals, all this in the same time refusing any legal representation of continentals. That's for the democratic part.
Third. "Atrocities" Well atrocities had been committed on both parts and atrocities had been commited on american soil and on american people by british. And Georges washington himself had been defeated by french in that french and indian war, didn't look to be so hateful towards France some years later as you seem to pretend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it me or is this is usual alternating the reality of the french support? "A naval and distant support". I don't think all the money, advisors, ground troops, resources, aside from their navy to combat the most fierce navy in teh world could be considered distant support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.4.140 ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC) this is all wrong dont leason to them :) thankss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.101.215 ( talk) 00:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The first link in the English Bibliography does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.60.249 ( talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-American_alliance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.73.116 ( talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no footnote links in the text but only a list of sources at the end. I think someone fix this soon. Thank you. Risssa ( talk) 01:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
From the article: "About 3,000 French joined with 2,000 Americans in the Siege of Savannah, in which a naval bombardment was unsuccessful. An attempted assault of the entrenched British position was repulsed with heavy losses.
"Support became more notable when, in 1780, 6,000 soldiers led by Rochambeau landed at Newport...."
Does this mean the French sent a total 9,000 soldiers? Thank you. Risssa ( talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Why did you revert the addition of "(or American War of Independence)" as it is the common name for the war in Britain? -- PBS ( talk) 09:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 14:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
France in the American Revolutionary War → Anglo-French War (1778–83) – I doubt this will pass based on the American WP:POV and WP:BIAS, but it would be easier to start from this article and expand than start a brand new one. The concurrent British-French warfare in Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, Central America and the French and British colonial possessions around the world had little to none to do with the American Independence. It seems incredible that conflicts in India between European powers should be considered part of it. I propose to rename it into a WP:NPOV title. Uspzor ( talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
it would be easier to start from this article and expand. If you want an article on the Anglo-French War, by all means, write one. A new one. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
>....even a hero for aspirations for a new order inside France.
"New order" needs to be explained and linked. Readers new to this subject, for whom the term "new order" has no historical significance, won't understand what this means. Rissa, copy editor ( talk) 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
>In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), French troops fought alongside US soldiers against Britain in 1778.
Shouldn't this be "....against Britain from 1780-1782" or 1780-1883"? Rissa, copy editor ( talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 20 August 2015
|
---|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The debate over whether to merge the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article with this article is occurring on the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) Talk page -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
In the intro, it says that French involvement began in 1776, but goes on to reference its first act of support as having happened in 1775 -- all in the same sentence. It's possible that it is trying to say that the Thirteen Colonies was established in 1775, but in any case the language is unclear. The intro:
French involvement in the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783 began in 1776[1] when the Kingdom of France secretly shipped supplies to the Continental Army of the Thirteen Colonies when it was established in June of 1775.
Should the language be clarified a bit here? Xelpollodiablox ( talk) 01:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The article frequently goes back and forth between 1776 and 1777 as the start of aid. Each time it fails to cite a source. Is there a document that was signed by Louis, ship manifest or something that dates aid? At one point it talks about Franklin arriving in France in Dec 1776 to negotiate aid then in the following sentences it says that aid was flowing and was millions of "dollars"(whatever the money was) by the spring of 76. Citation is needed throughout. Xcerptshow ( talk) 07:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bryan Randall ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bryan Randall ( talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment. |
This article is a translation of the intro from fr:La France dans la guerre d'indépendance américaine. I did a first run, cleanup as needed. - AKeen 22:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Good heavens, talk about crappy neutrality.
I did all I can for the translation. However, I am warning you guys now that I am relatively new with French :\ -- 24630 4:15 pm, 3 July 2006
Britain as official US trade partner? So far as I am aware, the United States does not and has never had "official trade partners." and I am an American. This article is inadequate, and I propose it be deleted. France's participation in the American Revolutionary War was vastly signifigant, but this article doesn't cut it, sorry. -- V. Joe 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted section on official trade evidence. Please notify me on my talk page if you restore it. -- V. Joe 23:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
My first reaction to this article was that it was horribly vandalised. Then I saw it was translated from the french wikipedia article. Although it has been improved since then, it still needs some editing. I'll be coming here from time to time, but others are welcome to dig in too (:... -- Victor falk 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Under French involvement, paragraph 2.
Totally doesn't make sense. Htmlqawsedrftg ( talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The impact of the war to French finances appears to be overstated in the current article. Robert D. Harris has re-assessed Necker's record on this, and he contradicts Calonne and the historian Marion in an article from 1976. French Finances and the American War, 1777-1783 The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 48, No 2 (June, 1976), pp. 233-258, The University of Chicago Press.
Harris argues that the deficit claimed by Calonne was fictitious, that Necker appears to have been putting the royal finances in order, and that the fiscal causes of the French Revolution should be reexamined. (Calonne did not economize upon taking office in around 1784, and he alleged that Necker had hidden a deficit.)
Harris arrives at 520M livres raised by loans by Necker from 1777 to his resignation in 1781, $252M by Fleury from May 1781 through 1782, totalling 772M livres.
Extraordinary expenditures for the same years: 1777-82 = 682M (plus 225M in promissory notes). Add to that 9M subsidies and 18M loans without payments until after the war, and finally the deficits of 1777 and 1778: 20.5M and 5.5M, respectively. (Lowering due to Necker's administrative reforms. In his loan edict of 1778, Necker claimed to have balanced ordinary revenues and expenditures.) The sum of extraordinary expenditures, per Harris, 1777-82, comes to 735M livres, only 37M less than the total extraordinary income received from loans.
Harris:
If these calculations are anywhere near correct, it can be seen that an ordinary deficit during the war years on a scale alleged by Calonne would have been quite impossible. The money raised by loans was practically all taken up to meet war expenditures. If there had been ordinary deficits, they would have had to be made up out of extraordinary income or loans. Obviously there was little or nothing left over to make up such deficits.
I propose wording that does not indicate the American War ruined France's finances.
Nelsthompson ( talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
France had a debt of 3,000 billion?
French troops had to be transported over great distances, which cost about 1 billion livres tournois, and further added to France's debt of a little less than 3,315 billion.
Htmlqawsedrftg ( talk) 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The warfare between Britain and France that began in 1754 with skirmishes in North America has several different names. In America it is known as the French and Indian War (1754-1763). In Europe it is called the Seven Years’ War because the fighting there lasted from 1756 to 1763. The war in North America was fought mostly throughout the Northern colonies, and in the end Great Britain defeated France. During the peace negotiations, Britain acquired French holdings in Canada and Florida from France’s ally, Spain. However, Britain also accumulated a large debt over the course of the war. To help pay off the debt, Britain turned to the colonies to generate revenue. The war changed the relationship between Great Britain and the colonies. Prior to the war, Great Britain had practiced a policy of salutary neglect, not insisting on strict enforcement of laws, such as the Molasses Act, which in 1733 imposed a tax on molasses, because trade with the American colonies was making Britain very wealthy and powerful. During this period, the colonists developed a nearly independent political and economic system. After the war, however, British leaders reevaluated their relationship with the colonies, ending the policy of salutary neglect and proposing reforms and new taxes. This reevaluation was caused by conflicts between Great Britain and the colonies during the war, such as the colonial assemblies’ insistence on controlling the militia units raised to fight the French, the increased colonial independence, and colonial smuggling of French goods into the country during the war. In addition, the war had left Great Britain deeply in debt. British leaders viewed American prosperity as a resource and taxing the colonies as a means to relieve British debt. Conflicts arose as Great Britain attempted to reassert its power over the colonies; they viewed Great Britain’s attempts to tax them as interference into internal matters. The colonies believed that Great Britain had jurisdiction only over external issues. |
Who is Haley and what purpose does that giant biased paragraph serve? The second one to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.97.250 ( talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The reaction in the colonies to the French entry into the war was not an overwhelmingly positive one, as it left a number of American officers unhappy. Notable amongst them was Benedict Arnold who up to this point had been one of the most fervent supporters of American independence, and the outstanding hero of the cause for his services in Canada and at Saratoga, was apalled by the alliance with France. The reason for this mainly stemmed from his early experiences fighting against the French in the Seven Years War where he saw the French and their Native American Allies commit a number of atrocities.
Combined with this was also a disgust for the French absolute monarchy, which was far less democratic than the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom. To some this new alliance also seemed to combine with a growing elitism within the Continental Army, as demonstrated by the appointment of untried European aritstocrats such as Lafrayette over more expereinced American officers.
Overall many considered the new alliance a betrayal of the radical foundations on which the new Republic had been established. In Arnold's case this played, along with many other factors, a large part in his descision to defect to the British. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This comment seems to be purely subjective more than anything else.
First off, ennemies of my ennemy are my allies. WW2: USA and UK allied with Staline against Hitler. Allying with such high caliber scum as Staline isnt a "betrayal of the radical foundations on which the new Republic " in your mind?
Second. The so democratic monarchy of UK was imposing unfair taxes, hostile acts and chauvinistic laws to protect UK citizens at expense of continentals, all this in the same time refusing any legal representation of continentals. That's for the democratic part.
Third. "Atrocities" Well atrocities had been committed on both parts and atrocities had been commited on american soil and on american people by british. And Georges washington himself had been defeated by french in that french and indian war, didn't look to be so hateful towards France some years later as you seem to pretend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it me or is this is usual alternating the reality of the french support? "A naval and distant support". I don't think all the money, advisors, ground troops, resources, aside from their navy to combat the most fierce navy in teh world could be considered distant support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.4.140 ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC) this is all wrong dont leason to them :) thankss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.101.215 ( talk) 00:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The first link in the English Bibliography does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.60.249 ( talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-American_alliance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.73.116 ( talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no footnote links in the text but only a list of sources at the end. I think someone fix this soon. Thank you. Risssa ( talk) 01:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
From the article: "About 3,000 French joined with 2,000 Americans in the Siege of Savannah, in which a naval bombardment was unsuccessful. An attempted assault of the entrenched British position was repulsed with heavy losses.
"Support became more notable when, in 1780, 6,000 soldiers led by Rochambeau landed at Newport...."
Does this mean the French sent a total 9,000 soldiers? Thank you. Risssa ( talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Why did you revert the addition of "(or American War of Independence)" as it is the common name for the war in Britain? -- PBS ( talk) 09:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 14:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
France in the American Revolutionary War → Anglo-French War (1778–83) – I doubt this will pass based on the American WP:POV and WP:BIAS, but it would be easier to start from this article and expand than start a brand new one. The concurrent British-French warfare in Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, Central America and the French and British colonial possessions around the world had little to none to do with the American Independence. It seems incredible that conflicts in India between European powers should be considered part of it. I propose to rename it into a WP:NPOV title. Uspzor ( talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
it would be easier to start from this article and expand. If you want an article on the Anglo-French War, by all means, write one. A new one. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
>....even a hero for aspirations for a new order inside France.
"New order" needs to be explained and linked. Readers new to this subject, for whom the term "new order" has no historical significance, won't understand what this means. Rissa, copy editor ( talk) 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
>In the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), French troops fought alongside US soldiers against Britain in 1778.
Shouldn't this be "....against Britain from 1780-1782" or 1780-1883"? Rissa, copy editor ( talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 20 August 2015
|
---|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus to move. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
|
The debate over whether to merge the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article with this article is occurring on the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) Talk page -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
In the intro, it says that French involvement began in 1776, but goes on to reference its first act of support as having happened in 1775 -- all in the same sentence. It's possible that it is trying to say that the Thirteen Colonies was established in 1775, but in any case the language is unclear. The intro:
French involvement in the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783 began in 1776[1] when the Kingdom of France secretly shipped supplies to the Continental Army of the Thirteen Colonies when it was established in June of 1775.
Should the language be clarified a bit here? Xelpollodiablox ( talk) 01:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The article frequently goes back and forth between 1776 and 1777 as the start of aid. Each time it fails to cite a source. Is there a document that was signed by Louis, ship manifest or something that dates aid? At one point it talks about Franklin arriving in France in Dec 1776 to negotiate aid then in the following sentences it says that aid was flowing and was millions of "dollars"(whatever the money was) by the spring of 76. Citation is needed throughout. Xcerptshow ( talk) 07:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bryan Randall ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Bryan Randall ( talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)