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 2 |
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES IN ORDER!! The order of the thirteen colonies is: COLONY NAME YEAR FOUNDED FOUNDED BY Virginia 1607 London Company Massachusetts 1620 Puritans New Hampshire 1623 John Wheelwright Maryland 1634 Lord Baltimore
Connecticut c. 1635 Thomas Hooker Rhode Island 1636 Roger Williams
Delaware 1638 Peter Minuit and New Sweden Company North Carolina 1653 Virginians South Carolina 1663 Eight Nobles with a Royal Charter from Charles II New Jersey 1664 Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret New York 1664 Duke of York Pennsylvania 1682 William Penn
Georgia 1732 James Edward Oglethorpe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.226.49 ( talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the colonies separated into 3 parts: New England, __, and __? -- Menchi 07:00, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
What about linking directly to founding colonies, eg,
Maryland (eg, St. Marie's City)
Massachusetts (eg, Boston_Colony)
Would that be appropriate ?
Who were the men who found the 13 colonies? - Anon
Any reason for delinking all but four of the colony names? jengod 00:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Moved article from 13 colonies to Thirteen Colonies because:
-- Lowellian 00:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Why was the heading changed to "Et al."? I find that to be extremely confusing. What was wrong with the original heading of "Other British colonies in North America and the Caribbean in 1776"? -- Lowellian 04:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I think Vermont was a disputed region between New York and New Hampshire... Why only list it as New York? -- 24.147.128.141 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It may interest some people to know that Vermont (along with that section of New York north of the Mohawk river) almost became a 14th Colony. In 1775 delegation of local dignitaries from upstate New York and the New Hamphire Grants (lead by Phillip Skeen, a prominent land owner in the area) went to England seeking a Charter from George III to form a new Colony ... this was looked on with favor by the King and his ministers, and the delegation returned to America with some preliminary documentation ... only to discover that the Colonies were in revolt against the England and, thus, their documents were not concidered valid. This "aborted" Colony was to be called "Charlotte" and the Capital was to be at what is now Crown Point, New York.
As a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary colonies, I took the text at Proprietary colonies and dumped it into this article. You'll probably need to copy-edit the new section vigorously. Let me stress that normal edit rules apply, so feel free to condense the text if you think that's necessary. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map in the article, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 16:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
could someone make a link to a page with the colonies in order of their founding and then in order that they ratified the constitution. 69.160.92.13 El_C 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Before the Revolution, were these 13 colonies regarded as in any way distinct from those colonies that remained loyal to the crown? Did the phrase "13 colonies" even exist before the Revolution? Or was it just an accident of history that these 13 chose to rebel while others, such as what are now the maritime provinces of Canada, remained loyal? TharkunColl 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested a merge from Colonial America to here. That article is entirely about the history of the 13 colonies (or at least of the land that became the 13 colonies anyway). This one is short, and I don't see anything that isn't covered over there (except, ironically, about things outside the 13). I think Thirteen Colonies is the best title for the merged content. Colonial America could be rewritten as a summary of the colonial history of the rest of the US, or as a disambiguation page (I'd prefer the former). Does anyone have any thoughts?-- Cúchullain t/ c 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There was never thirteen colonies, there was twelve original colonies and post revolutionary times, Delaware became a seperate state but for no intensive purposes was it ever a colony. For some odd reason it was always grouped as 13 colonies possibly because 13 states were formed but there was actually only 12 colonies.
Delaware was nothing ever but a boundary dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania--one time part of a deed to the Duke of York, but never its own geographic entity until becoming a state. There is no reason to deny its position as the first of the 13th states, but all the more reason to keep it out of the colonial category. There were only 12 colonies rebelling, with estranged Delaware's exit from Pennsylvania beginning a trend that emancipated Vermont/Kentucky/Maine etc from parent polities (New York, Virginia, Massachusetts etc). Let's not get hazy on this, but more exacting and forthright. Hasbro 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Historian Jack P. Greene identified six core regions of the British colonies: New England, the Middle Atlantic, The Chesapeake Colonies, the Lower Southern Colonies, the Atlantic Island Colonies, and the West Indies. Virtually every colonial historian agrees with him that the tobacco colonies of Virginia and Maryland represent a different region that the rice colonies of the Carolinas and Georgia. For a good discussion on the difference, please see Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Low Country by Philip D. Morgan (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1998). Given that this is the position taken by the vast majority of colonial historians, don't you think we should stop combining Maryland and Virginia with the Southern Colonies? Thanks.
Not that it matters, but there were actually 31 British colonies at the time.
I used the numbers from the British North America article (at the time of the rebellion), and I'd think that the 13 being only a fraction of the British North American Colonies at the time they declared themselves independent would matter. And to it follows that as it matters that they were only a fraction, then the size of the denominator matters too. Bo 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
MY Opinion:
I clearly believe that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!
Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern. I'm from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutely HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconsiderate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.
Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.
If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????
It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty useful to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORCED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are naturally South.
Subject 3: MD.
Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.
I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK!
Final Subject: Overall.
Over all, Maryland and Virginia are southern!
They have many southern charms too. In fact, we have great hospitality too! Don't worry, be happy. Even if your mad, you HAVE TO admit that Maryland and Virginia are at least a TAD BIT southern. YEs, YEs, YEs, we do have many qualities like the north(aka bad traffic...lol), But you must admit(if you've been too Maryland and Virginia...NOT B-MORE or DC)that it is southern in some areas!
P.S. don't post nasty negative comments about Virginia or Maryland..okedoke allipokey...lolz
P.S. no 2. IF you ask a man at a gas station in Southern, MD.... you'll know that chu in the south. - Footballchik
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maryland"
like omg i love the thirteen colonies and to learn about them
Please review the map below,
The British Colonies in North America 1763-1775
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG
Count 'em. There are 20 Colonies in British America (19 Settler Colonies and the Hudson's Bay Land (i.e., 19+1=20)). Now, if considers the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians there were 21 (i.e., 20+1=21)). Let us review,
British America consisted of 21 parts,
(i). 19 Settler Colonies,
(ii). the Hudson's Bay Land,
(iii). the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians.
To further clarify the British Colonies in North America 1763-1775 were in practice refered to as the two separate British Colonial Regions of British America (i.e., the mainland and Newfoundland), and the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).
Next, the "19 Colonies" of British America under went a schism after April 19, 1775 and divided themselves into two opposing camps, the "13 Colonies" in Rebellion of British America, and the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG
Addendum: List of the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.
Colony of Newfoundland (founded 1583),
Colony of Nova Scotia (founded 1625),
Colony of Quebec (founded 1763),
Colony of Prince Edward Island (founded 1770),
Colony of East Florida (founded 1763),
Colony of West Florida (founded 1763).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Bkonrad. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them alot. As per the title of this Wikipedia article, The Thirteen Colonies, I am not disputing its appropriateness. I believe it is a very good article. Indeed.
What I am attempting to do is to CLARIFY the FACT that between 1763-1775 there were 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland). These were divided into THREE DISTINCT COLONIAL SUBARCHTYPES,
(i). Settler Colonies ("the 19 Colonies"), i.e., 19 Units,
(ii). Commerical Colonies (the Hudson's Bay Land), i.e., 1 Unit,
(iii). Crown Lands (the Crown Land Reserved for the Indians) i.e., 1 Unit.
Thus, giving us 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland).
The salient point is that in (i). the "13 Colonies" of the 19 Colonies seceeded from British America, and definitely not from the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).
Summary:
The term known as British Colonies in North America is NOT the same thing as term known as British North America. Why? You see the correct historical usage of British North America consists ot the time period 1783-1867 (i.e., AFTER the War of Independence (1775-1783)). The term known as British America is correctly applied to the time period 1607-1775.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Rjensen 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the long form name was the United Colonies of North America. Additionally, the short form name was the United Colonies.
For a short while the "Continental Army" used the term the United Provinces of North America.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahem, could we get semi-protection for this page? So that only REGISTERED Wikipedians will be allowed to edit the Thirteen Colonies page. There has been alot of petty vandalism lately.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Rjensen claims that this is sidely used among political scientists; that may have been true forty years when Lipset wrote, but the conceit seems to have gone out again. In any case, it is off-topic here, in this extended dab page, which ends with the Revolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the Declaration of Independence declares a "united States of America", not a "United States of America". samwaltz 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It was NOT a printer error.
The final agreement on the long form name of the new country was decided on the Articles of Confederation, specifically,
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
In legal terminology, Style and Title explicitly mean long form name.
Consider the following evolution of the name,
British America,
United Colonies of New England,
Dominion of New England,
British Colonies in North America,
United Colonies of North America,
United Provinces of North America,
United Colonies of British America,
States of America,
United States of America.
(and briefly, the Confederate States of America),
Note: Dominion of North America is implied if the Galloway Plan of Union was followed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway's_Plan_of_Union
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Rjensen, this is a minor point, but I can argue it (I believe sucessfully btw), the States of America,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_declaration_independence.jpg
was the temporary long form name of the new country on July 4, 1776. It is probably the best comprimise that the Founder Father's had come up with at that time.
States of America
Pretty clear eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No. The States of America was probably all the Founding Father's could agree by July 4, 1776. Ultimately the long form name of the United States of America was settled on, via the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Since the Government of the United States of America won the War of Independence 1775-1783 they won the right to retro-actively chose their date of independence for the United Kingdom of Great Britain. They chose July 4, 1776. They could of chosen April 19, 1775; July 5, 1775; July 4, 1776; September 30, 1783; anything they wanted. They won eh.
Bibliography
(1). Anthony Stokes, A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North-America and the West Indies at the Time the Civil War Broke Out on the Continent of America in which Notice is Taken of such Alterations as have Happened since that Time, down to the Present Period with a Variety of Colony Precients, which are Chiefly Adapted to the British West Indian Islands; and may be Useful to those, who have Intercourse with the Colonies, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Union, New Jersey, USA, pp. 556, (reprint of 1783 version), (2002).
(2). Charles L. Mowat, East Florida as a British Province, University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp. 237, (Facsmilie reprint of 1943 version), (1964).
(3). Cecil Johnson, British West Florida 1763-1783, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 257, (1943).
(4). J. Baton Starr, Tories Dons and Rebels The American Revolution in British West Florida, The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp.278, (1976).
(5). Lawrence H. Feldman, The Last Days of British Saint Augustine 1784-1785 A Spanish Census of the English Colony of East Florida, Clearfield Company Inc., by the Geneological Company Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 116,(2003).
(6). William R. Shepard, Historical Atlas, Eighth Edition, (This edition contains all maps of the Seventh Revised and Enlarged and a special suppliment of historical maps for period since 1929 prepared by C.S. Hammond and Company), The Colonial Offset Co., Inc., Pikesville, Maryland, USA, pp. 115, (1956).
(7). Frederick D. Stone, Plans for the Union of the British Colonies of North America 1643-1776, pp.439-503, (1889).
(8). Handlist of Proclamations Issued by Royal and Other Constitutional Authorities 1714-1910, Burt Franklin, New York, New York, USA, pp. 918, (1967).
(9). Daniel Coxe, A Description of the English Province of Carolana, By the Spanards Call'd Florida, and By the French La Louisiane, The University Presses of Florida, Gaineville, Florida, USA, pp. 140, (Facsimile reproduction of the 1722 edition), (1976).
(10). James B. Scott, Autonomy and Federation within Empire the British Self-Governing Dominions, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, USA, pp.352, (1921).
(11). Hugh E. Egerton, Federation and Unions within the British Empire, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, London, England, UK, pp.306, (1924).
(12). Viola F. Barnes, The Dominion of New England A Study in British Colonial Policy, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 303, (1960).
(13). James P. Taylor, The Cardinal Facts of Canadian History Carefully Gathered from the Most Trustworthy Sources, The Hunter Rose Co., Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 228, (1899).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Congress decided the issue on July 19, 1776: Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress. The lower case "u" on the engrossed copy was a printer error and was not authorized by Congress: it used the upper case. Source = Journals at [5] Rjensen 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me a bone-fide reference that explicitly states that it is a printer error.
Old Copy
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/DECLARATION/us_declarationE.jpg
Later Reprint
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/23dunlap.jpg
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Look it, I firmly believe that the long form name of the country was the United States of America. Next upon inspection of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson,
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc49.jpg
one sees that is says,
"A Declaration of Independence by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled"
However, where is the THIRTEEN part (that appeared in the final draft)?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Engrossment is the craft of transcribing Offical Documents in large text (usually Caligraphy).
Engrossed Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
http://www.calligraphersguild.org/penmen.html
The engrosser stock-and-trade is getting things right. So why was the word United in the long form name the United States of America not engrossed to the same size as the rest of the name, i.e., it looks like the States of America was all the Founding Father's could agree on by July 4, 1776.
Anyone have any bone-fide references to shed some light on this question?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A little mistake? No. He must of been told to make it that way.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Various transcriptions? Does she explicitly indicate this first one by Timothy Matlack?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The word "subsequently" is functionally the same as the word "then" in the sense used. The only real difference is that it leaves open the question of the moment at which the Thirteen became states, and there seems to be some legitimate ambiguity about that.
I'm not going to push this because it's such a trivial point, but I would urge other editors to at least avoid making declarative statements via WP content when such are perhaps inappropriate. HiramShadraski 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There are basically two ways in which Independent Countries are "made".
That is about it. Those two ways ... nothing else.
Therefore the United States of America by virtue of method (i), i.e., the winning of the War of Independence (1775-1783) earned the right to retro-actively declare its "birthday" on July 4, 1776. If the "US Patriots" had lost and the "British/Loyalists" had won ... it would of been the American Rebellion, not the American Revolution.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This page needs a Former country infobox. Anyone? 200.152.18.199 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Stating that the thirteen colonies did not exist after 1776 is POV. The British still referred to this area as the colonies, their officials still held the title of governor, and the British still appointed new governors to the thirteen colonies between 1776 to 1783. As far as the British were concerned the thirteen colonies existed until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. BradMajors ( talk) 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know offhand the total area of the original thirteen colonies? I'd like to add that info to the List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a 'hang-up!' about the number of original colonies and not the fact that they were united against Great Britain's rule. Later to become the United States Mr Taz ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article says "the Thirteen Colonies gave rise to eighteen present-day states", followed up with a list of which states were formerly part of one of the thirteen. For example, "Kentucky (formerly part of Virginia until 1792), Tennessee (formerly part of North Carolina until 1796)", and in the list below, " Province of New York, later New York and Vermont", and " Colony and Dominion of Virginia, later Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia", and " Province of Georgia, later Georgia", etc. Much of this is incorrect, if my understanding of history is right. The most clearly incorrect claim is that Tennessee was "part of North Carolina until 1796". My sources say, as does State cessions, that North Carolina ceded its western lands (later Tennessee) in 1790, after which it the federally administrated Southwest Territory until 1796, when the state of Tennessee was created--out of federal, not state territory. Okay, you say, but North Carolina had at some time claimed what later became Tennessee, even if the claim was ceded to the federal government--so the Province of North Carolina still "gave rise" to Tennessee. But if "giving rise" is to mean all the territory once claimed by the 13 colonies and then ceded to the federal government (either under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution), then the Colony of Virginia "gave rise" not just to Kentucky and West Virginia, but also Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Virginia ceded most of this territory to the federal government, but kept some of it, such as the Virginia Military District in what is now Ohio. Likewise the Province of New York claimed more or less everything north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River. The claim continued after New York became a US state. It was ceded to the federal government in the 1780s. Likewise, Virginia formerly ceded its claims north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi to the federal government. Thus New York and Virginia together "gave rise" to at least Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--perhaps more depending on how one interprets the claims, and ignoring the narrow strips claimed and ceded by Massachusetts and Connecticut! Georgia, as the Province of Georgia and then the state, extended west to the Mississippi River, thus including nearly all of what became Alabama and Mississippi. Like the other state cessions, Georgia formally ceded these lands to the federal government. Many of these state cessions included qualifications on the number and/or shape and size of new states to be created out of the ceded territory. So, my question here is how accurate it is to say that the Thirteen Colonies gave rise to 18 present-day states. If Tennessee is to be counted then shouldn't Ohio, at the very least, also count? One could argue that the land that became Wisconsin, for example, was never actually under the administration of another state, despite there being claims. But Ohio was--at least as much as Tennessee was under North Carolina's administration (ie, not very). On the other hand, if "giving rise" is restricted only to states created directly out of other states without passing through federal control, then Tennessee does not count, but otherwise the lists on this page seem correct. Does all this make sense? Pfly ( talk) 09:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Very surprised to find such an unashamedly one-sided and unbalanced article on wiki about an important historical event. It refers a couple of times to other British colonies that DID NOT rebel, because, it claims, "their geographical isolation and the dominance of British naval power precluded any effective participation..." and "Those other British colonies that had assemblies largely agreed with those in the Thirteen Colonies, but they were thoroughly controlled by the British Empire and the Royal Navy, so protests were hopeless." Highly contentious claims that needs more substantiation than a loose footnote to a secondary source. Equally, there is no discussion anywhere of the large loyalist populations in the 13 states - estimated at a third to a half depending on the state. The false impression is that the decision to rebel against Britain was unanimous in these states, which it clearly was not. In fact the rebels were simply better organised and more ruthless in steamrolling their loyalist opponents. If a lack of British military presence in the 13 states had one effect it was to allow rebel militia intimidation and violence against loyalist colonists, a subject that never enjoys much attention in the myth-making, self-serving accounts of the founding fathers and the American 'revolution' of which this article is a typical example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.112.213 ( talk) 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This map seems all wrong in not including inland Canada, etc., and in grouping the "13 colonies" as if that was an official unit of British administration.
It's attractive -- but all wrong factually and needs major reworking or removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BindingArbitration ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's very wrong indeed. For example British Honduras became British Honduras in 1798, taken by force by Britain from SPain; in 1750 it was still part of the Honduras province of the The Capitanía General de Guatemala, an administrative unit within the Vice-Royalty of New Granada. So why is it shown as British Honduras on a map purporting to display British Colonies about 1750? Michealt ( talk) 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I know little of wikipedia, but I'll bet some of you very smart gents can figure out how to make the map not cover some of the text. Thanks! BTW, you guys are doing a great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresavalek ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There were fifteen British American colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America at the time of the American Revolution, not thirteen. The Wikipedia entry leaves out East Florida and West Florida, established by the Treaty of Paris of 1763. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgville ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"thirteen revolutionary colonies of British North America" Why "revolutionary" an not "rebellious" if they were part of "British North America"?
Why "At the time of the Revolutionary War" why not "At the time of the deceleration of independence", as the former carries an American POV that it was a "revolutionary war" and not a war of independence? -- PBS ( talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(Unindent) I concur with Cúchullain's changes, as they are inline with the current consensus here. (Note that concensus does not require the consent of the main objector.) Also, "the time of the Declaration of Independence" specifices a certain time period, that of July/Summer 1776, which may be a false specificity. "The time of the Revolution" is much more general, covering 1775 to the early 1780s, and thus gives more leeway.
As to NPOV, I don't see that any of the terms being used here violate netrality. Both the American (or US-ian, to avoid offending some Latin Americans), and the British (or UK-ish, to avoid offending some Northern Irish), have preferred terms, but they overlap in meaning and time period, withotu being mutually exclusive. Which terms should be used in these articles is really a matter of editorial preference, not neutrality, especially since there aren't really any resonable alternatives to using American or British preference. This artice deals specifically with the 13 Colonies that became the USA, and thus is primarily an American topic. Articles primarily covering the British and their involvement in the Colonies at the time of the War, such as those on King George and contemporay British leaders and generals, would most likely use British-preferred terms. I don't know if there is a single article dealing with the British government, and its relations with the colonies during the war, aside from combat, but such an overview-type article might be both interesting and a worthy pursuit. - BilCat ( talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In light of all that, it probably is bet to leave such statements out of the Lead altogether; they could be covered in depth elsewhere in the text. However, a non-specific statement that the territories of/claimed by the 13 colonies did become other states might be useful in the Lead, if it doesn't became a magnet for change again. I guess we'll see. - BilCat ( talk) 16:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A poor and very unbalanced article, bordering on outright propaganda. It refers a couple of times to other British colonies that DID NOT rebel, because, it claims, of the presence of British forces: "Those other British colonies that had assemblies largely agreed with those in the Thirteen Colonies, but they were thoroughly controlled by the British Empire and the Royal Navy, so protests were hopeless." A highly contentious claim that needs more substantiation than a loose footnote to a secondary source. Equally, there is no discussion of the large loyalist populations in the 13 states - estimated at a third to a half depending on the state. The false impression is that the decision to rebel against Britain was unanimous in these states, which it clearly was not. If the lack of a British military presence in these states had one significant effect it was to allow rebel militia intimidation and violence against loyalist colonists, a subject that never gets much attention in the busy myth-making, self-serving accounts of the founding fathers and the American 'revolution'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.112.213 ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules require the lede to explain in a nutshell why the topic is imortant. I prose to do so as follows:
They revolted in 1775 in the
American Revolution because they all had systems of self-government they were determined to preserve and defend. They formed the
United States of America in July 1776. British colonies without self-government (in the
West Indies and modern
Canada) remained loyal to the crown.[cite Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History (2003)]. This seems a pretty straight-forward and non-controversial statement of why the "13" are important.
Rjensen (
talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The case of Nova Scotia is interesting. It had an assembly elected by the people, founded in 1758 and still operating today: Nova Scotia House of Assembly (see History of Nova Scotia). At the time Nova Scotia included New Brunswick (split off in 1784) and even part of Maine. When the revolution broke out the majority of Nova Scotians were Yankees--either born in New England or of parents who were. According to [13], "At the outset of the Revolution, this province [Nova Scotia] had seemed so much a northern extension of New England that many of its inhabitants as well as their Yankee neighbours down the seaboard had assumed that Nova Scotia, too, would come to join the republic. It looked almost inevitable. [...] But matters rose to a head with an actual American attempt to seize the province." This article, [14], explores the historiography of Nova Scotia and the American Revolution. It seems complicated, with many factors contributing to the colonies lack of general rebellion. The colony "was torn by conflicting forces, and in the end remained passively neutral." There were areas where "the fervors of revolution ran high", and some "outbursts against the Crown did occur", such as the Battle of Fort Cumberland led by Jonathan Eddy--an attempt to "bring the American Revolutionary War to Nova Scotia in late 1776." Other factors worked against rebellion. Halifax had strong mercantile ties to London. The war benefited Halifax. Most of the British troops going to fight in New England went by way of Halifax, the logistics of which brought military contracts and the like. Plus, "with the naval base for Royal Navy ships in the North Atlantic and Caribbean situated..adjacent to Halifax, how could a revolution be got up anyway?" Anyway, my point is that the special aspects of the 13 colonies mentioned above were not limited to the 13. Sometimes the colony of Nova Scotia, in the era of the revolution, is called the "14th colony". Pfly ( talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's all for now, gotta go. All this is basically a reaction to the idea that the Thirteen Colonies were distinguished from the other British colonies in that they had "well established systems of self government and elections based on the rights of Englishmen"--or that somehow the 13 were primed to rebel while the others were not. Pfly ( talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The thirteen colonies "fought the American Revolution". No, they "fought [the American War of Independence] for the American Revolution". -- PBS ( talk) 11:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The current wording "fought the American Revolution" is not correct unless "fought" is a metaphor for "argued". They did not fight the American Revolution, they "fought for the American Revolution" , or they "fought against the British in the American War of Independence/ American Revolutionary War for the American Revolution". -- PBS ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
what did the women do at home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.78.103 ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that this information has been viewed before posted since it is a .org. So i am trusting all info. given to me. I am doing a project on the Thirteen American Colonies this week and this i guess is my buddy for the project. Thanks. I will be making a game off of this info given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.169.21 ( talk) 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
We should list the black population statistics. 137.140.125.114 ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Question: Where are the references for the population figures of the thirteen colonies cited in the article? The two references there only dealt with population growth, as far as I can tell.
I found one unofficial figure (and breakdown) here:
http://merrill.olm.net/mdocs/pop/colonies/colonies.htm , but it differs by almost 400,000 thousand.
Additionally, the first ever U.S Census was performed in 1790, and the total quoted was 3,929,214. A huge leap of 64%, considering that active immigration were none existent at the time.
Thanks MishaKeats ( talk) 08:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
1700 -- 275,000
1710 -- 357,500
1720 -- 474,388
1730 -- 654,950
1740 -- 889,000
1750 -- 1,207,000
1760 -- 1,610,000
1770 -- 2,205,000
1780 -- 2,781,000
1790 -- 3,929,625
Thanks Misha Atreides ( talk) 18:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
hi i need to remember the thirteen colonies and how to fing them on a map how do i do that and not forget?
please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.213.76 ( talk) 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
When the 13 Colonies declared independence from British North America and Russian Alaska, a flag was made by Betsy Ross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.58.161.37 ( talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The Ben Franklin quote is interesting, but seems out of context in the intro., which is about answering: "what were the original 13 colonies?"
Maybe a later section comparing life in the colonies with that in England or Scotland would be a more appropriate place for this quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I am an Amateur historian. Emphasis on amateur. Somewhere in my readings regarding the war for the independence of the thirteen American colonies I read that in the vicinity of 1777/78, about the time Washington had had some success with the win at Saratoga and France's approval, Washington =\|talk]] • contribs) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The tables could use cleanung up. Here are some prettier ones, with the numbers lined up: 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Year | Population |
---|---|
1625 | 1,980 |
1641 | 50,000 |
1688 | 200,000 |
1702 | 270,000 |
1715 | 435,000 |
1749 | 1,000,000 |
1754 | 1,500,000 |
1765 | 2,200,000 |
1775 | 2,400,000 |
Years | Number (Source: Miller and Smith, eds. Dictionary of American Slavery (1988) p . 678) |
---|---|
1620–1700 | 21,000 |
1701–1760 | 189,000 |
1761–1770 | 63,000 |
1771–1790 | 56,000 |
1791–1800 | 79,000 |
1801–1810 | 124,000 (Includes 10,000 to Louisiana before 1803) |
1810–1865 | 51,000 |
Total | 597,000 |
References
Since
American Colonial Period does not redirect to this article, there seems to be no reason for the {{confused}}
hatnote.
I suggest deleting it. --
69.158.92.109 (
talk) 00:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The article currently says "although there was a degree of sympathy with the Patriot cause in several of them". Patriot is a biased word and should be placed in quotes. -- PBS ( talk) 17:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Thirteen Colonies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "online":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The flag shown did not exist until 1801, long after the separation. It should be replaced with what Americans refer to as the King's Colours. Any objections? PrivateWiddle ( talk) 16:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
@
BilCat: Dear BilCat,
I hope you're feeling much better today. Whenever convenient, please would you review the draft of the proposed
infobox, and kindly suggest any improvements you deem necessary? If you think it's fine as it is, then I'll add it into the article. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors,
I am leaving the present message, out of courtesy to other editors interested in the present article, and seeking consensus—as per @
BilCat:'s suggestion above, @17:23, 6 July 2013—in favour of adding the
new infobox I created a few days ago.
I will wait until next Friday 22 January and, if I haven't received anyone's dis/approval, I will add the infobox into the article but, if anyone objects for whatever reason, then please feel free to amend or remove the infobox. I have enjoyed developing it and would be delighted to help improve or create similar infoboxes again if asked. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook) 12:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@
BilCat: Dear BilCat,
Done without any change of map,
at 21:24 today. As you suggested earlier, further tweaking can be done to the infobox from within the article. I remain available if I can help some more, and thank you for your advice and leadership.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook) 21:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The map is misleading - it should include Maine, which was part of Massachusetts. 2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Some of the cited material is considerably old.
e.g. U.S. Bureau of the Census, A century of population growth from the first census of the United States to the twelfth, 1790–1900 (1909)
This reference uses "Surnames" as written on the census as a way to determine ethnicity. This could be a problems as original name spellings may not of been used, or could of been altered. For example: Klein vs. Cline, Schmit vs. Smith. It also assumes that non-British people who arrive early in the colonies assimilated into a British tongue and culture:
"The ancestors of the bearer of an Irish or Dutch name may have arrived in the first shipload of immigrants who landed on the shores of Virginia, Manhattan, or New England, so that at the time of the First Census the descendant enumerated possessed few or none of the characteristics of the nationahty indicated."
A population study that is more recent, and includes other sources (church records, etc) should be considered for determining ethnic heritage percentages form a colonial time. Contemporary sources, sometimes sight that the presence of certain ethnic groups as being large enough to actually have an influence on local dialects. This implies that there may be more variation in ethnic diversity than can be determined from census records. And in counter to the quote above...it appears that contemporaries did not agree with a blanketed assumption that people readily assimilated.
See example: The History of the Province of New-York, from the First Discovery: To which ...By William Smith 1776
"English is the most prevailing language amongst us, but not a little corrupted by the Dutch dialect, which is still so much used in some counties, that the sheriffs find it difficult to obtain persons sufficiently acquainted with the English tongues, to serve as jurors in the courts of law."
Places like New York and Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent North Carolina and New Jersey where large portions of Dutch, German, Swiss, and to a lesser extent Swedish, Finn and others settled should have the point made that an accurate ethnic count may not be possible and only estimates can be provided due to things like anglified names.
This type of info is important as citizenship means something very different than ethnicity. And explains the variation in personal perspective, biases and even voting tendencies. The book Hopeful Journey, 1992 cited primary sources explaining what happens when a colony (in this case PA) has a significant population of a different ethnicity (German, Swiss, Dutch) and how that can swing a vote during colonial times...and the changes that happen due to the bias of voting block. In this case property rights and arms.
Sincerely, Tara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimumdiesel ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it a strange idea to mention the relation with the American flag in the article? Under the banner of "cultural significance" or "lasting legacy" or whatever. In the article about the flag it is mentioned that the 13 stripes refer to the 13 colonies, and that originally the number of stars was also 13. So I think it would make sense to also make (short) notice of this fact in this article, and link to the article about the flag. Anyone against this idea? RagingR2 ( talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Dilidor ( talk) 11:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The word "province" was never part of the official name of any of the British colonies that later formed the United States. Province should be removed from all articles about British colonies in N. America, and/or wikilinks from this article should be changed to accurate articles. Use of the word "province" in this context is unsourced original research. WCCasey ( talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Using particular words in a charter doesn't make them official titles - the title of this article is "Thirteen colonies". All of these colonies were entities within the British Empire, which never referred to them as provinces because they didn't meet the definition of provinces. In India, on the other hand, there was a central colonial government (the British Raj), and some subsidiary divisions were officially titled provinces. Plus, as Rjensen points out, none of these uses of "province" in reference to any of the thirteen colonies is linked to a reliable secondary source. The Columbia document just quotes primary sources.
Read the United States Declaration of Independence. The only time the word "province" is used is in reference to Canada:
Well, good - we finally have some sources (at least to establish that the term "Province of New York" was once in use). Links to these need to be placed in the article, along with counter-examples and some explanatory text. Article text provides no justification for the title, so there should at least be a cite tag for now. Some other articles, such as History of New York, repeat the unexplained use of "Province of New York", while still other articles do not use the term at all. Many of those same old documents hyphenate "New-York", but no one is insisting on using that spelling. Historical spelling was notoriously variable, especially in the press, and maybe there never was a single "official" version.
Editors of an encyclopedia need to be able to agree on what a subject is properly called, or explain why multiple terms are used. I'm fine with mentioning in the article that some older documents use the term "province" (and also the hyphen), but still haven't heard a compelling case to use "Province" in the title. Can we maybe find a mutually agreeable and more appropriate alternative? WCCasey ( talk) 02:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Can we agree that King George III would have used accurate nomenclature in his speeches and royal decrees? Here are one of each - from 1775, along with a response from the Continental Congress (granted - these three all refer only to Massachusetts). The only occurrence of the word "province" has a lower-case "p", so is not meant to be part of a proper name. WCCasey ( talk)
We seem to agree that 1) better sources are needed, and 2) the contemporary sources we've looked at so far don't establish "province" one way or the other. One of two courses can be followed: 1) see who can find the most convincing, reliable secondary sources for these titles (with explanatory text added to the articles), or 2) change the article titles and wording to something consistent that we can all agree on. WCCasey ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's be civil - no need to use weasel words like "clearly". Doing some quick searches through modern histories, I can see that there are (and were back then) political overtones to use of one term or another. "Province" was preferred by those like Thomas Hutchinson (governor), who wished to convey a sense of a settled and orderly polity. Disgruntled residents like Continental Congress delegates preferred the term "colony" with its more oppressive connotations. Modern authors continue this split, without a clear consensus.
I was hoping for support in changing these article titles to something more neutral but, since that isn't happening, will let it drop for now. Anyone interested in the question can read about it here. If I come across a good history that discusses this topic, I'll work it into an article somewhere. And, by the way, use of "province" still needs sources. WCCasey ( talk) 04:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Appears the name Province of NJ was certainly in use in 17th/18th centuries.
It turns out that the term "Thirteen Colonies" was coined during the American Revolution, to refer to those colonies which were in revolt. There is a history preceding the Revolution of course, apparently spanning some 20 years, during which these 13 colonies began to collaborate more closely. But prior to the Continental Congress of 1774, there was in no way any polity or entity known as "the Thirteen Colonies". At the time, there were twenty British colonies in America, and which of these twenty would become part of the "thirteen" would only be decided on the eve of the revolution. Therefore, it is misleading for this article to suggest that the "Thirteen Colonies" were an entity that existed during 1732-1776 (let alone "1607-1776"). The main article covering the colonial history of the United States would be colonial history of the United States; the main article to cover the history of British America would be British America.
So there is a lot of WP:CFORK going on here; I do think "Thirteen Colonies" can be a standalone page, but it will have to focus on the process of increasing collaboration on the eve and during the revolution, say, the twenty-year period of 1763-1783. It is also questionable if "Infobox former country" is appropriate here rather than at British America, or if possibly this entire page should be merged into British America.
Yet another possibility (presumably the historically correct one) would be to treat "Thirteen Colonies" as an entity, from the British point of view, existing 1776-1783 i.e. it is the British term for the United States prior to their recognition. In this case, we have a scope overlap with History of the United States (1776–89).
Interestingly, I found the phrase "thirteen colonies" used in 1720 ( Abel Boyer), i.e. before the partition of Carolina and before the establishment of Georgia; this thus refers to eleven out of the later 13 colonies, plus Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I then found a reference to "the thirteen colonies, now in arms" dated 1776 ( John Roebuck), i.e. referring to the subset of those 13 out of 20 which happened to be in revolt; apparently the phrase acquired the quality of a proper name over the next few years, indicated by the use of capitalisation, "Thirteen Colonies" by in 1779 (in The Critical Review). -- dab (𒁳) 08:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been checking how this article is linked. It is sometimes piped, as United Colonies, and linked from the United Colonies disambiguation page. The reason being, apparently, the "United Colonies" was the term used in the early phase of the revolution, i.e. in 1774-1776 prior to the declaration of independence. The term "United Colonies" is not presently in the article text, and it should be introduced, possibly in WP:BOLD, as part of the lead section, and properly referenced.
I assume this is the main referent for the term "Thirteen Colonies", i.e. 1774/6 from the US perspective, and 1774-1783 from the British one. I am still not saying there should not be some summary of the developments in the previous decades, just as long as it is understood that this is under WP:SS in order to avoid unmanageable content forking, but it is pointless to argue what period exactly this covers ("1607" vs. "1600" vs. "1763" vs. "1740") because this is about historical periodisation, not about the "establishment" of a polity (hence the "infobox former country" is misplaced). -- dab (𒁳) 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
id rather it be called Colonial America.. regardless i wanted to answer a question... Whats bigger Texas or the Thirteen Colonies and i searched the page and there was no land area stats in the infobox. 2602:306:32D8:24D0:D429:EF06:EF86:96DE ( talk) 18:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose that History of the Thirteen Colonies be merged into Thirteen Colonies. I am a little concerned that the "History of" article may be a POV fork (due to it being overly sourced to one book)... but even if not, we don't need two articles on the same subject, and this article seems to be the logical target for the merger. Blueboar ( talk) 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
_____________________
Merger accomplished. — Dilidor ( talk) 19:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Dilidor, there is long-standing editor consensus for these few links and two editors have reverted some of your delinking. The few links give further context for the reader. So, propose them one by one here, and make your case on the talk page. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 10:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
How large were the 13 colonies in square miles? Thanks. ➧ datumizer ☎ 05:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead duplicates the first paragraph. So, I made this edit which was rolled back in a bunch of edits. Can we get less duplication? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The section on Global trade and immigration includes a sentence that reads "These immigrants traveled to all of the colonies, but the Middle Colonies attracted the most and continued to be more ethically diverse than the other colonies."
I don't have access to the source material referenced by this sentence. Is this supposed to say "ethically" or "ethnically"? SloppyG ( talk) 20:23, 19 November 2018 (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 2 |
THE THIRTEEN COLONIES IN ORDER!! The order of the thirteen colonies is: COLONY NAME YEAR FOUNDED FOUNDED BY Virginia 1607 London Company Massachusetts 1620 Puritans New Hampshire 1623 John Wheelwright Maryland 1634 Lord Baltimore
Connecticut c. 1635 Thomas Hooker Rhode Island 1636 Roger Williams
Delaware 1638 Peter Minuit and New Sweden Company North Carolina 1653 Virginians South Carolina 1663 Eight Nobles with a Royal Charter from Charles II New Jersey 1664 Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret New York 1664 Duke of York Pennsylvania 1682 William Penn
Georgia 1732 James Edward Oglethorpe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.226.49 ( talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Are the colonies separated into 3 parts: New England, __, and __? -- Menchi 07:00, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
What about linking directly to founding colonies, eg,
Maryland (eg, St. Marie's City)
Massachusetts (eg, Boston_Colony)
Would that be appropriate ?
Who were the men who found the 13 colonies? - Anon
Any reason for delinking all but four of the colony names? jengod 00:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
Moved article from 13 colonies to Thirteen Colonies because:
-- Lowellian 00:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Why was the heading changed to "Et al."? I find that to be extremely confusing. What was wrong with the original heading of "Other British colonies in North America and the Caribbean in 1776"? -- Lowellian 04:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I think Vermont was a disputed region between New York and New Hampshire... Why only list it as New York? -- 24.147.128.141 19:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It may interest some people to know that Vermont (along with that section of New York north of the Mohawk river) almost became a 14th Colony. In 1775 delegation of local dignitaries from upstate New York and the New Hamphire Grants (lead by Phillip Skeen, a prominent land owner in the area) went to England seeking a Charter from George III to form a new Colony ... this was looked on with favor by the King and his ministers, and the delegation returned to America with some preliminary documentation ... only to discover that the Colonies were in revolt against the England and, thus, their documents were not concidered valid. This "aborted" Colony was to be called "Charlotte" and the Capital was to be at what is now Crown Point, New York.
As a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proprietary colonies, I took the text at Proprietary colonies and dumped it into this article. You'll probably need to copy-edit the new section vigorously. Let me stress that normal edit rules apply, so feel free to condense the text if you think that's necessary. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The following off-site maps show the various claims of the original Thirteen Colonies: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. If this information could be included in a map in the article, it would be great. (This request was originally made by jengod, and I moved it here.) – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 16:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
could someone make a link to a page with the colonies in order of their founding and then in order that they ratified the constitution. 69.160.92.13 El_C 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Before the Revolution, were these 13 colonies regarded as in any way distinct from those colonies that remained loyal to the crown? Did the phrase "13 colonies" even exist before the Revolution? Or was it just an accident of history that these 13 chose to rebel while others, such as what are now the maritime provinces of Canada, remained loyal? TharkunColl 09:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested a merge from Colonial America to here. That article is entirely about the history of the 13 colonies (or at least of the land that became the 13 colonies anyway). This one is short, and I don't see anything that isn't covered over there (except, ironically, about things outside the 13). I think Thirteen Colonies is the best title for the merged content. Colonial America could be rewritten as a summary of the colonial history of the rest of the US, or as a disambiguation page (I'd prefer the former). Does anyone have any thoughts?-- Cúchullain t/ c 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There was never thirteen colonies, there was twelve original colonies and post revolutionary times, Delaware became a seperate state but for no intensive purposes was it ever a colony. For some odd reason it was always grouped as 13 colonies possibly because 13 states were formed but there was actually only 12 colonies.
Delaware was nothing ever but a boundary dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania--one time part of a deed to the Duke of York, but never its own geographic entity until becoming a state. There is no reason to deny its position as the first of the 13th states, but all the more reason to keep it out of the colonial category. There were only 12 colonies rebelling, with estranged Delaware's exit from Pennsylvania beginning a trend that emancipated Vermont/Kentucky/Maine etc from parent polities (New York, Virginia, Massachusetts etc). Let's not get hazy on this, but more exacting and forthright. Hasbro 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Historian Jack P. Greene identified six core regions of the British colonies: New England, the Middle Atlantic, The Chesapeake Colonies, the Lower Southern Colonies, the Atlantic Island Colonies, and the West Indies. Virtually every colonial historian agrees with him that the tobacco colonies of Virginia and Maryland represent a different region that the rice colonies of the Carolinas and Georgia. For a good discussion on the difference, please see Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Low Country by Philip D. Morgan (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1998). Given that this is the position taken by the vast majority of colonial historians, don't you think we should stop combining Maryland and Virginia with the Southern Colonies? Thanks.
Not that it matters, but there were actually 31 British colonies at the time.
I used the numbers from the British North America article (at the time of the rebellion), and I'd think that the 13 being only a fraction of the British North American Colonies at the time they declared themselves independent would matter. And to it follows that as it matters that they were only a fraction, then the size of the denominator matters too. Bo 15:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
MY Opinion:
I clearly believe that Maryland/Virginia are southern states!
Many People object to the idea of Virginia and Maryland being southern. I'm from Maryland so I know. I hate it when people that don't know me come in my face with all that "yankee" crap...i aint no yankee...im myself! And I absolutely HATE when people say that VA an MD are rude, inconsiderate, uneducated, boring, bad drivers. Im fun, nice, and filled with GREAT hospitality.
Next Subject: Civil war/M&D line.
If everyone knows that MD and VA are BELOW the Mason Dixon Line... why do some people feel the need to say that MD and VA are Northern????
It's quite -how can i say- IDIOTIC! Yes, folks, I know that the MDL was not made to divide the north and the south, but It's pretty useful to divide the two. Doncha think???...About the civil war...VA was apart of the confeds...i can't lie, BUT MD was FORCED to become apart of the union and most of the people wanted to be with the feds.(yuddah im sayin)...So anyways, like i was sayin, VA & MD are naturally South.
Subject 3: MD.
Everyone knows that MD is not like the rest of the southern states-no accent(mostly), not many confed. flags, has northern-like cities, bad traffic etc.- but it is still SOUTHERN.
I mean dang, like many other southern states, we take pride in are lil southerness, we sometimes act a lil country, and we still TALK diffrent from the north...esspecially Dc/B-more area. CUT US SOME SLACK!
Final Subject: Overall.
Over all, Maryland and Virginia are southern!
They have many southern charms too. In fact, we have great hospitality too! Don't worry, be happy. Even if your mad, you HAVE TO admit that Maryland and Virginia are at least a TAD BIT southern. YEs, YEs, YEs, we do have many qualities like the north(aka bad traffic...lol), But you must admit(if you've been too Maryland and Virginia...NOT B-MORE or DC)that it is southern in some areas!
P.S. don't post nasty negative comments about Virginia or Maryland..okedoke allipokey...lolz
P.S. no 2. IF you ask a man at a gas station in Southern, MD.... you'll know that chu in the south. - Footballchik
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maryland"
like omg i love the thirteen colonies and to learn about them
Please review the map below,
The British Colonies in North America 1763-1775
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG
Count 'em. There are 20 Colonies in British America (19 Settler Colonies and the Hudson's Bay Land (i.e., 19+1=20)). Now, if considers the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians there were 21 (i.e., 20+1=21)). Let us review,
British America consisted of 21 parts,
(i). 19 Settler Colonies,
(ii). the Hudson's Bay Land,
(iii). the Crown Lands reserved for the Indians.
To further clarify the British Colonies in North America 1763-1775 were in practice refered to as the two separate British Colonial Regions of British America (i.e., the mainland and Newfoundland), and the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).
Next, the "19 Colonies" of British America under went a schism after April 19, 1775 and divided themselves into two opposing camps, the "13 Colonies" in Rebellion of British America, and the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_colonies_1763-76_shepherd1923.PNG
Addendum: List of the "6 Colonies" remaining Loyal of British America.
Colony of Newfoundland (founded 1583),
Colony of Nova Scotia (founded 1625),
Colony of Quebec (founded 1763),
Colony of Prince Edward Island (founded 1770),
Colony of East Florida (founded 1763),
Colony of West Florida (founded 1763).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Bkonrad. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them alot. As per the title of this Wikipedia article, The Thirteen Colonies, I am not disputing its appropriateness. I believe it is a very good article. Indeed.
What I am attempting to do is to CLARIFY the FACT that between 1763-1775 there were 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland). These were divided into THREE DISTINCT COLONIAL SUBARCHTYPES,
(i). Settler Colonies ("the 19 Colonies"), i.e., 19 Units,
(ii). Commerical Colonies (the Hudson's Bay Land), i.e., 1 Unit,
(iii). Crown Lands (the Crown Land Reserved for the Indians) i.e., 1 Unit.
Thus, giving us 21 British Possessions in Continental North America (including the Island of Newfoundland).
The salient point is that in (i). the "13 Colonies" of the 19 Colonies seceeded from British America, and definitely not from the British West Indies (i.e., the Carribean).
Summary:
The term known as British Colonies in North America is NOT the same thing as term known as British North America. Why? You see the correct historical usage of British North America consists ot the time period 1783-1867 (i.e., AFTER the War of Independence (1775-1783)). The term known as British America is correctly applied to the time period 1607-1775.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Rjensen 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually the long form name was the United Colonies of North America. Additionally, the short form name was the United Colonies.
For a short while the "Continental Army" used the term the United Provinces of North America.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahem, could we get semi-protection for this page? So that only REGISTERED Wikipedians will be allowed to edit the Thirteen Colonies page. There has been alot of petty vandalism lately.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Rjensen claims that this is sidely used among political scientists; that may have been true forty years when Lipset wrote, but the conceit seems to have gone out again. In any case, it is off-topic here, in this extended dab page, which ends with the Revolution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the Declaration of Independence declares a "united States of America", not a "United States of America". samwaltz 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It was NOT a printer error.
The final agreement on the long form name of the new country was decided on the Articles of Confederation, specifically,
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
In legal terminology, Style and Title explicitly mean long form name.
Consider the following evolution of the name,
British America,
United Colonies of New England,
Dominion of New England,
British Colonies in North America,
United Colonies of North America,
United Provinces of North America,
United Colonies of British America,
States of America,
United States of America.
(and briefly, the Confederate States of America),
Note: Dominion of North America is implied if the Galloway Plan of Union was followed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloway's_Plan_of_Union
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Rjensen, this is a minor point, but I can argue it (I believe sucessfully btw), the States of America,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_declaration_independence.jpg
was the temporary long form name of the new country on July 4, 1776. It is probably the best comprimise that the Founder Father's had come up with at that time.
States of America
Pretty clear eh.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No. The States of America was probably all the Founding Father's could agree by July 4, 1776. Ultimately the long form name of the United States of America was settled on, via the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Since the Government of the United States of America won the War of Independence 1775-1783 they won the right to retro-actively chose their date of independence for the United Kingdom of Great Britain. They chose July 4, 1776. They could of chosen April 19, 1775; July 5, 1775; July 4, 1776; September 30, 1783; anything they wanted. They won eh.
Bibliography
(1). Anthony Stokes, A View of the Constitution of the British Colonies in North-America and the West Indies at the Time the Civil War Broke Out on the Continent of America in which Notice is Taken of such Alterations as have Happened since that Time, down to the Present Period with a Variety of Colony Precients, which are Chiefly Adapted to the British West Indian Islands; and may be Useful to those, who have Intercourse with the Colonies, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Union, New Jersey, USA, pp. 556, (reprint of 1783 version), (2002).
(2). Charles L. Mowat, East Florida as a British Province, University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp. 237, (Facsmilie reprint of 1943 version), (1964).
(3). Cecil Johnson, British West Florida 1763-1783, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 257, (1943).
(4). J. Baton Starr, Tories Dons and Rebels The American Revolution in British West Florida, The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, pp.278, (1976).
(5). Lawrence H. Feldman, The Last Days of British Saint Augustine 1784-1785 A Spanish Census of the English Colony of East Florida, Clearfield Company Inc., by the Geneological Company Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 116,(2003).
(6). William R. Shepard, Historical Atlas, Eighth Edition, (This edition contains all maps of the Seventh Revised and Enlarged and a special suppliment of historical maps for period since 1929 prepared by C.S. Hammond and Company), The Colonial Offset Co., Inc., Pikesville, Maryland, USA, pp. 115, (1956).
(7). Frederick D. Stone, Plans for the Union of the British Colonies of North America 1643-1776, pp.439-503, (1889).
(8). Handlist of Proclamations Issued by Royal and Other Constitutional Authorities 1714-1910, Burt Franklin, New York, New York, USA, pp. 918, (1967).
(9). Daniel Coxe, A Description of the English Province of Carolana, By the Spanards Call'd Florida, and By the French La Louisiane, The University Presses of Florida, Gaineville, Florida, USA, pp. 140, (Facsimile reproduction of the 1722 edition), (1976).
(10). James B. Scott, Autonomy and Federation within Empire the British Self-Governing Dominions, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC, USA, pp.352, (1921).
(11). Hugh E. Egerton, Federation and Unions within the British Empire, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, London, England, UK, pp.306, (1924).
(12). Viola F. Barnes, The Dominion of New England A Study in British Colonial Policy, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, pp. 303, (1960).
(13). James P. Taylor, The Cardinal Facts of Canadian History Carefully Gathered from the Most Trustworthy Sources, The Hunter Rose Co., Limited, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 228, (1899).
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Congress decided the issue on July 19, 1776: Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America," and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress. The lower case "u" on the engrossed copy was a printer error and was not authorized by Congress: it used the upper case. Source = Journals at [5] Rjensen 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Show me a bone-fide reference that explicitly states that it is a printer error.
Old Copy
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/DECLARATION/us_declarationE.jpg
Later Reprint
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/23dunlap.jpg
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Look it, I firmly believe that the long form name of the country was the United States of America. Next upon inspection of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson,
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc49.jpg
one sees that is says,
"A Declaration of Independence by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled"
However, where is the THIRTEEN part (that appeared in the final draft)?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Engrossment is the craft of transcribing Offical Documents in large text (usually Caligraphy).
Engrossed Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
http://www.calligraphersguild.org/penmen.html
The engrosser stock-and-trade is getting things right. So why was the word United in the long form name the United States of America not engrossed to the same size as the rest of the name, i.e., it looks like the States of America was all the Founding Father's could agree on by July 4, 1776.
Anyone have any bone-fide references to shed some light on this question?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A little mistake? No. He must of been told to make it that way.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Various transcriptions? Does she explicitly indicate this first one by Timothy Matlack?
ArmchairVexillologistDon 02:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The word "subsequently" is functionally the same as the word "then" in the sense used. The only real difference is that it leaves open the question of the moment at which the Thirteen became states, and there seems to be some legitimate ambiguity about that.
I'm not going to push this because it's such a trivial point, but I would urge other editors to at least avoid making declarative statements via WP content when such are perhaps inappropriate. HiramShadraski 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There are basically two ways in which Independent Countries are "made".
That is about it. Those two ways ... nothing else.
Therefore the United States of America by virtue of method (i), i.e., the winning of the War of Independence (1775-1783) earned the right to retro-actively declare its "birthday" on July 4, 1776. If the "US Patriots" had lost and the "British/Loyalists" had won ... it would of been the American Rebellion, not the American Revolution.
ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This page needs a Former country infobox. Anyone? 200.152.18.199 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Stating that the thirteen colonies did not exist after 1776 is POV. The British still referred to this area as the colonies, their officials still held the title of governor, and the British still appointed new governors to the thirteen colonies between 1776 to 1783. As far as the British were concerned the thirteen colonies existed until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. BradMajors ( talk) 02:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know offhand the total area of the original thirteen colonies? I'd like to add that info to the List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is there a 'hang-up!' about the number of original colonies and not the fact that they were united against Great Britain's rule. Later to become the United States Mr Taz ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article says "the Thirteen Colonies gave rise to eighteen present-day states", followed up with a list of which states were formerly part of one of the thirteen. For example, "Kentucky (formerly part of Virginia until 1792), Tennessee (formerly part of North Carolina until 1796)", and in the list below, " Province of New York, later New York and Vermont", and " Colony and Dominion of Virginia, later Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia", and " Province of Georgia, later Georgia", etc. Much of this is incorrect, if my understanding of history is right. The most clearly incorrect claim is that Tennessee was "part of North Carolina until 1796". My sources say, as does State cessions, that North Carolina ceded its western lands (later Tennessee) in 1790, after which it the federally administrated Southwest Territory until 1796, when the state of Tennessee was created--out of federal, not state territory. Okay, you say, but North Carolina had at some time claimed what later became Tennessee, even if the claim was ceded to the federal government--so the Province of North Carolina still "gave rise" to Tennessee. But if "giving rise" is to mean all the territory once claimed by the 13 colonies and then ceded to the federal government (either under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution), then the Colony of Virginia "gave rise" not just to Kentucky and West Virginia, but also Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Virginia ceded most of this territory to the federal government, but kept some of it, such as the Virginia Military District in what is now Ohio. Likewise the Province of New York claimed more or less everything north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River. The claim continued after New York became a US state. It was ceded to the federal government in the 1780s. Likewise, Virginia formerly ceded its claims north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi to the federal government. Thus New York and Virginia together "gave rise" to at least Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--perhaps more depending on how one interprets the claims, and ignoring the narrow strips claimed and ceded by Massachusetts and Connecticut! Georgia, as the Province of Georgia and then the state, extended west to the Mississippi River, thus including nearly all of what became Alabama and Mississippi. Like the other state cessions, Georgia formally ceded these lands to the federal government. Many of these state cessions included qualifications on the number and/or shape and size of new states to be created out of the ceded territory. So, my question here is how accurate it is to say that the Thirteen Colonies gave rise to 18 present-day states. If Tennessee is to be counted then shouldn't Ohio, at the very least, also count? One could argue that the land that became Wisconsin, for example, was never actually under the administration of another state, despite there being claims. But Ohio was--at least as much as Tennessee was under North Carolina's administration (ie, not very). On the other hand, if "giving rise" is restricted only to states created directly out of other states without passing through federal control, then Tennessee does not count, but otherwise the lists on this page seem correct. Does all this make sense? Pfly ( talk) 09:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Very surprised to find such an unashamedly one-sided and unbalanced article on wiki about an important historical event. It refers a couple of times to other British colonies that DID NOT rebel, because, it claims, "their geographical isolation and the dominance of British naval power precluded any effective participation..." and "Those other British colonies that had assemblies largely agreed with those in the Thirteen Colonies, but they were thoroughly controlled by the British Empire and the Royal Navy, so protests were hopeless." Highly contentious claims that needs more substantiation than a loose footnote to a secondary source. Equally, there is no discussion anywhere of the large loyalist populations in the 13 states - estimated at a third to a half depending on the state. The false impression is that the decision to rebel against Britain was unanimous in these states, which it clearly was not. In fact the rebels were simply better organised and more ruthless in steamrolling their loyalist opponents. If a lack of British military presence in the 13 states had one effect it was to allow rebel militia intimidation and violence against loyalist colonists, a subject that never enjoys much attention in the myth-making, self-serving accounts of the founding fathers and the American 'revolution' of which this article is a typical example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.112.213 ( talk) 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This map seems all wrong in not including inland Canada, etc., and in grouping the "13 colonies" as if that was an official unit of British administration.
It's attractive -- but all wrong factually and needs major reworking or removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BindingArbitration ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's very wrong indeed. For example British Honduras became British Honduras in 1798, taken by force by Britain from SPain; in 1750 it was still part of the Honduras province of the The Capitanía General de Guatemala, an administrative unit within the Vice-Royalty of New Granada. So why is it shown as British Honduras on a map purporting to display British Colonies about 1750? Michealt ( talk) 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I know little of wikipedia, but I'll bet some of you very smart gents can figure out how to make the map not cover some of the text. Thanks! BTW, you guys are doing a great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresavalek ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There were fifteen British American colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America at the time of the American Revolution, not thirteen. The Wikipedia entry leaves out East Florida and West Florida, established by the Treaty of Paris of 1763. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgville ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"thirteen revolutionary colonies of British North America" Why "revolutionary" an not "rebellious" if they were part of "British North America"?
Why "At the time of the Revolutionary War" why not "At the time of the deceleration of independence", as the former carries an American POV that it was a "revolutionary war" and not a war of independence? -- PBS ( talk) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(Unindent) I concur with Cúchullain's changes, as they are inline with the current consensus here. (Note that concensus does not require the consent of the main objector.) Also, "the time of the Declaration of Independence" specifices a certain time period, that of July/Summer 1776, which may be a false specificity. "The time of the Revolution" is much more general, covering 1775 to the early 1780s, and thus gives more leeway.
As to NPOV, I don't see that any of the terms being used here violate netrality. Both the American (or US-ian, to avoid offending some Latin Americans), and the British (or UK-ish, to avoid offending some Northern Irish), have preferred terms, but they overlap in meaning and time period, withotu being mutually exclusive. Which terms should be used in these articles is really a matter of editorial preference, not neutrality, especially since there aren't really any resonable alternatives to using American or British preference. This artice deals specifically with the 13 Colonies that became the USA, and thus is primarily an American topic. Articles primarily covering the British and their involvement in the Colonies at the time of the War, such as those on King George and contemporay British leaders and generals, would most likely use British-preferred terms. I don't know if there is a single article dealing with the British government, and its relations with the colonies during the war, aside from combat, but such an overview-type article might be both interesting and a worthy pursuit. - BilCat ( talk) 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In light of all that, it probably is bet to leave such statements out of the Lead altogether; they could be covered in depth elsewhere in the text. However, a non-specific statement that the territories of/claimed by the 13 colonies did become other states might be useful in the Lead, if it doesn't became a magnet for change again. I guess we'll see. - BilCat ( talk) 16:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
A poor and very unbalanced article, bordering on outright propaganda. It refers a couple of times to other British colonies that DID NOT rebel, because, it claims, of the presence of British forces: "Those other British colonies that had assemblies largely agreed with those in the Thirteen Colonies, but they were thoroughly controlled by the British Empire and the Royal Navy, so protests were hopeless." A highly contentious claim that needs more substantiation than a loose footnote to a secondary source. Equally, there is no discussion of the large loyalist populations in the 13 states - estimated at a third to a half depending on the state. The false impression is that the decision to rebel against Britain was unanimous in these states, which it clearly was not. If the lack of a British military presence in these states had one significant effect it was to allow rebel militia intimidation and violence against loyalist colonists, a subject that never gets much attention in the busy myth-making, self-serving accounts of the founding fathers and the American 'revolution'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.50.112.213 ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules require the lede to explain in a nutshell why the topic is imortant. I prose to do so as follows:
They revolted in 1775 in the
American Revolution because they all had systems of self-government they were determined to preserve and defend. They formed the
United States of America in July 1776. British colonies without self-government (in the
West Indies and modern
Canada) remained loyal to the crown.[cite Gordon S. Wood, The American Revolution: A History (2003)]. This seems a pretty straight-forward and non-controversial statement of why the "13" are important.
Rjensen (
talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The case of Nova Scotia is interesting. It had an assembly elected by the people, founded in 1758 and still operating today: Nova Scotia House of Assembly (see History of Nova Scotia). At the time Nova Scotia included New Brunswick (split off in 1784) and even part of Maine. When the revolution broke out the majority of Nova Scotians were Yankees--either born in New England or of parents who were. According to [13], "At the outset of the Revolution, this province [Nova Scotia] had seemed so much a northern extension of New England that many of its inhabitants as well as their Yankee neighbours down the seaboard had assumed that Nova Scotia, too, would come to join the republic. It looked almost inevitable. [...] But matters rose to a head with an actual American attempt to seize the province." This article, [14], explores the historiography of Nova Scotia and the American Revolution. It seems complicated, with many factors contributing to the colonies lack of general rebellion. The colony "was torn by conflicting forces, and in the end remained passively neutral." There were areas where "the fervors of revolution ran high", and some "outbursts against the Crown did occur", such as the Battle of Fort Cumberland led by Jonathan Eddy--an attempt to "bring the American Revolutionary War to Nova Scotia in late 1776." Other factors worked against rebellion. Halifax had strong mercantile ties to London. The war benefited Halifax. Most of the British troops going to fight in New England went by way of Halifax, the logistics of which brought military contracts and the like. Plus, "with the naval base for Royal Navy ships in the North Atlantic and Caribbean situated..adjacent to Halifax, how could a revolution be got up anyway?" Anyway, my point is that the special aspects of the 13 colonies mentioned above were not limited to the 13. Sometimes the colony of Nova Scotia, in the era of the revolution, is called the "14th colony". Pfly ( talk) 11:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's all for now, gotta go. All this is basically a reaction to the idea that the Thirteen Colonies were distinguished from the other British colonies in that they had "well established systems of self government and elections based on the rights of Englishmen"--or that somehow the 13 were primed to rebel while the others were not. Pfly ( talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The thirteen colonies "fought the American Revolution". No, they "fought [the American War of Independence] for the American Revolution". -- PBS ( talk) 11:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The current wording "fought the American Revolution" is not correct unless "fought" is a metaphor for "argued". They did not fight the American Revolution, they "fought for the American Revolution" , or they "fought against the British in the American War of Independence/ American Revolutionary War for the American Revolution". -- PBS ( talk) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
what did the women do at home —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.78.103 ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand that this information has been viewed before posted since it is a .org. So i am trusting all info. given to me. I am doing a project on the Thirteen American Colonies this week and this i guess is my buddy for the project. Thanks. I will be making a game off of this info given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.169.21 ( talk) 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
We should list the black population statistics. 137.140.125.114 ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Question: Where are the references for the population figures of the thirteen colonies cited in the article? The two references there only dealt with population growth, as far as I can tell.
I found one unofficial figure (and breakdown) here:
http://merrill.olm.net/mdocs/pop/colonies/colonies.htm , but it differs by almost 400,000 thousand.
Additionally, the first ever U.S Census was performed in 1790, and the total quoted was 3,929,214. A huge leap of 64%, considering that active immigration were none existent at the time.
Thanks MishaKeats ( talk) 08:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
1700 -- 275,000
1710 -- 357,500
1720 -- 474,388
1730 -- 654,950
1740 -- 889,000
1750 -- 1,207,000
1760 -- 1,610,000
1770 -- 2,205,000
1780 -- 2,781,000
1790 -- 3,929,625
Thanks Misha Atreides ( talk) 18:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
hi i need to remember the thirteen colonies and how to fing them on a map how do i do that and not forget?
please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.213.76 ( talk) 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
When the 13 Colonies declared independence from British North America and Russian Alaska, a flag was made by Betsy Ross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.58.161.37 ( talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The Ben Franklin quote is interesting, but seems out of context in the intro., which is about answering: "what were the original 13 colonies?"
Maybe a later section comparing life in the colonies with that in England or Scotland would be a more appropriate place for this quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I am an Amateur historian. Emphasis on amateur. Somewhere in my readings regarding the war for the independence of the thirteen American colonies I read that in the vicinity of 1777/78, about the time Washington had had some success with the win at Saratoga and France's approval, Washington =\|talk]] • contribs) 02:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The tables could use cleanung up. Here are some prettier ones, with the numbers lined up: 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Year | Population |
---|---|
1625 | 1,980 |
1641 | 50,000 |
1688 | 200,000 |
1702 | 270,000 |
1715 | 435,000 |
1749 | 1,000,000 |
1754 | 1,500,000 |
1765 | 2,200,000 |
1775 | 2,400,000 |
Years | Number (Source: Miller and Smith, eds. Dictionary of American Slavery (1988) p . 678) |
---|---|
1620–1700 | 21,000 |
1701–1760 | 189,000 |
1761–1770 | 63,000 |
1771–1790 | 56,000 |
1791–1800 | 79,000 |
1801–1810 | 124,000 (Includes 10,000 to Louisiana before 1803) |
1810–1865 | 51,000 |
Total | 597,000 |
References
Since
American Colonial Period does not redirect to this article, there seems to be no reason for the {{confused}}
hatnote.
I suggest deleting it. --
69.158.92.109 (
talk) 00:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The article currently says "although there was a degree of sympathy with the Patriot cause in several of them". Patriot is a biased word and should be placed in quotes. -- PBS ( talk) 17:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Thirteen Colonies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "online":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The flag shown did not exist until 1801, long after the separation. It should be replaced with what Americans refer to as the King's Colours. Any objections? PrivateWiddle ( talk) 16:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
@
BilCat: Dear BilCat,
I hope you're feeling much better today. Whenever convenient, please would you review the draft of the proposed
infobox, and kindly suggest any improvements you deem necessary? If you think it's fine as it is, then I'll add it into the article. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors,
I am leaving the present message, out of courtesy to other editors interested in the present article, and seeking consensus—as per @
BilCat:'s suggestion above, @17:23, 6 July 2013—in favour of adding the
new infobox I created a few days ago.
I will wait until next Friday 22 January and, if I haven't received anyone's dis/approval, I will add the infobox into the article but, if anyone objects for whatever reason, then please feel free to amend or remove the infobox. I have enjoyed developing it and would be delighted to help improve or create similar infoboxes again if asked. Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook) 12:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@
BilCat: Dear BilCat,
Done without any change of map,
at 21:24 today. As you suggested earlier, further tweaking can be done to the infobox from within the article. I remain available if I can help some more, and thank you for your advice and leadership.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)(
guestbook) 21:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The map is misleading - it should include Maine, which was part of Massachusetts. 2601:1C0:8400:9EA:DD80:1845:6E5F:2379 ( talk) 23:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Some of the cited material is considerably old.
e.g. U.S. Bureau of the Census, A century of population growth from the first census of the United States to the twelfth, 1790–1900 (1909)
This reference uses "Surnames" as written on the census as a way to determine ethnicity. This could be a problems as original name spellings may not of been used, or could of been altered. For example: Klein vs. Cline, Schmit vs. Smith. It also assumes that non-British people who arrive early in the colonies assimilated into a British tongue and culture:
"The ancestors of the bearer of an Irish or Dutch name may have arrived in the first shipload of immigrants who landed on the shores of Virginia, Manhattan, or New England, so that at the time of the First Census the descendant enumerated possessed few or none of the characteristics of the nationahty indicated."
A population study that is more recent, and includes other sources (church records, etc) should be considered for determining ethnic heritage percentages form a colonial time. Contemporary sources, sometimes sight that the presence of certain ethnic groups as being large enough to actually have an influence on local dialects. This implies that there may be more variation in ethnic diversity than can be determined from census records. And in counter to the quote above...it appears that contemporaries did not agree with a blanketed assumption that people readily assimilated.
See example: The History of the Province of New-York, from the First Discovery: To which ...By William Smith 1776
"English is the most prevailing language amongst us, but not a little corrupted by the Dutch dialect, which is still so much used in some counties, that the sheriffs find it difficult to obtain persons sufficiently acquainted with the English tongues, to serve as jurors in the courts of law."
Places like New York and Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent North Carolina and New Jersey where large portions of Dutch, German, Swiss, and to a lesser extent Swedish, Finn and others settled should have the point made that an accurate ethnic count may not be possible and only estimates can be provided due to things like anglified names.
This type of info is important as citizenship means something very different than ethnicity. And explains the variation in personal perspective, biases and even voting tendencies. The book Hopeful Journey, 1992 cited primary sources explaining what happens when a colony (in this case PA) has a significant population of a different ethnicity (German, Swiss, Dutch) and how that can swing a vote during colonial times...and the changes that happen due to the bias of voting block. In this case property rights and arms.
Sincerely, Tara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimumdiesel ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Is it a strange idea to mention the relation with the American flag in the article? Under the banner of "cultural significance" or "lasting legacy" or whatever. In the article about the flag it is mentioned that the 13 stripes refer to the 13 colonies, and that originally the number of stars was also 13. So I think it would make sense to also make (short) notice of this fact in this article, and link to the article about the flag. Anyone against this idea? RagingR2 ( talk) 15:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Dilidor ( talk) 11:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
The word "province" was never part of the official name of any of the British colonies that later formed the United States. Province should be removed from all articles about British colonies in N. America, and/or wikilinks from this article should be changed to accurate articles. Use of the word "province" in this context is unsourced original research. WCCasey ( talk) 22:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Using particular words in a charter doesn't make them official titles - the title of this article is "Thirteen colonies". All of these colonies were entities within the British Empire, which never referred to them as provinces because they didn't meet the definition of provinces. In India, on the other hand, there was a central colonial government (the British Raj), and some subsidiary divisions were officially titled provinces. Plus, as Rjensen points out, none of these uses of "province" in reference to any of the thirteen colonies is linked to a reliable secondary source. The Columbia document just quotes primary sources.
Read the United States Declaration of Independence. The only time the word "province" is used is in reference to Canada:
Well, good - we finally have some sources (at least to establish that the term "Province of New York" was once in use). Links to these need to be placed in the article, along with counter-examples and some explanatory text. Article text provides no justification for the title, so there should at least be a cite tag for now. Some other articles, such as History of New York, repeat the unexplained use of "Province of New York", while still other articles do not use the term at all. Many of those same old documents hyphenate "New-York", but no one is insisting on using that spelling. Historical spelling was notoriously variable, especially in the press, and maybe there never was a single "official" version.
Editors of an encyclopedia need to be able to agree on what a subject is properly called, or explain why multiple terms are used. I'm fine with mentioning in the article that some older documents use the term "province" (and also the hyphen), but still haven't heard a compelling case to use "Province" in the title. Can we maybe find a mutually agreeable and more appropriate alternative? WCCasey ( talk) 02:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Can we agree that King George III would have used accurate nomenclature in his speeches and royal decrees? Here are one of each - from 1775, along with a response from the Continental Congress (granted - these three all refer only to Massachusetts). The only occurrence of the word "province" has a lower-case "p", so is not meant to be part of a proper name. WCCasey ( talk)
We seem to agree that 1) better sources are needed, and 2) the contemporary sources we've looked at so far don't establish "province" one way or the other. One of two courses can be followed: 1) see who can find the most convincing, reliable secondary sources for these titles (with explanatory text added to the articles), or 2) change the article titles and wording to something consistent that we can all agree on. WCCasey ( talk) 03:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's be civil - no need to use weasel words like "clearly". Doing some quick searches through modern histories, I can see that there are (and were back then) political overtones to use of one term or another. "Province" was preferred by those like Thomas Hutchinson (governor), who wished to convey a sense of a settled and orderly polity. Disgruntled residents like Continental Congress delegates preferred the term "colony" with its more oppressive connotations. Modern authors continue this split, without a clear consensus.
I was hoping for support in changing these article titles to something more neutral but, since that isn't happening, will let it drop for now. Anyone interested in the question can read about it here. If I come across a good history that discusses this topic, I'll work it into an article somewhere. And, by the way, use of "province" still needs sources. WCCasey ( talk) 04:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Appears the name Province of NJ was certainly in use in 17th/18th centuries.
It turns out that the term "Thirteen Colonies" was coined during the American Revolution, to refer to those colonies which were in revolt. There is a history preceding the Revolution of course, apparently spanning some 20 years, during which these 13 colonies began to collaborate more closely. But prior to the Continental Congress of 1774, there was in no way any polity or entity known as "the Thirteen Colonies". At the time, there were twenty British colonies in America, and which of these twenty would become part of the "thirteen" would only be decided on the eve of the revolution. Therefore, it is misleading for this article to suggest that the "Thirteen Colonies" were an entity that existed during 1732-1776 (let alone "1607-1776"). The main article covering the colonial history of the United States would be colonial history of the United States; the main article to cover the history of British America would be British America.
So there is a lot of WP:CFORK going on here; I do think "Thirteen Colonies" can be a standalone page, but it will have to focus on the process of increasing collaboration on the eve and during the revolution, say, the twenty-year period of 1763-1783. It is also questionable if "Infobox former country" is appropriate here rather than at British America, or if possibly this entire page should be merged into British America.
Yet another possibility (presumably the historically correct one) would be to treat "Thirteen Colonies" as an entity, from the British point of view, existing 1776-1783 i.e. it is the British term for the United States prior to their recognition. In this case, we have a scope overlap with History of the United States (1776–89).
Interestingly, I found the phrase "thirteen colonies" used in 1720 ( Abel Boyer), i.e. before the partition of Carolina and before the establishment of Georgia; this thus refers to eleven out of the later 13 colonies, plus Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I then found a reference to "the thirteen colonies, now in arms" dated 1776 ( John Roebuck), i.e. referring to the subset of those 13 out of 20 which happened to be in revolt; apparently the phrase acquired the quality of a proper name over the next few years, indicated by the use of capitalisation, "Thirteen Colonies" by in 1779 (in The Critical Review). -- dab (𒁳) 08:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I have been checking how this article is linked. It is sometimes piped, as United Colonies, and linked from the United Colonies disambiguation page. The reason being, apparently, the "United Colonies" was the term used in the early phase of the revolution, i.e. in 1774-1776 prior to the declaration of independence. The term "United Colonies" is not presently in the article text, and it should be introduced, possibly in WP:BOLD, as part of the lead section, and properly referenced.
I assume this is the main referent for the term "Thirteen Colonies", i.e. 1774/6 from the US perspective, and 1774-1783 from the British one. I am still not saying there should not be some summary of the developments in the previous decades, just as long as it is understood that this is under WP:SS in order to avoid unmanageable content forking, but it is pointless to argue what period exactly this covers ("1607" vs. "1600" vs. "1763" vs. "1740") because this is about historical periodisation, not about the "establishment" of a polity (hence the "infobox former country" is misplaced). -- dab (𒁳) 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
id rather it be called Colonial America.. regardless i wanted to answer a question... Whats bigger Texas or the Thirteen Colonies and i searched the page and there was no land area stats in the infobox. 2602:306:32D8:24D0:D429:EF06:EF86:96DE ( talk) 18:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose that History of the Thirteen Colonies be merged into Thirteen Colonies. I am a little concerned that the "History of" article may be a POV fork (due to it being overly sourced to one book)... but even if not, we don't need two articles on the same subject, and this article seems to be the logical target for the merger. Blueboar ( talk) 15:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
_____________________
Merger accomplished. — Dilidor ( talk) 19:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Dilidor, there is long-standing editor consensus for these few links and two editors have reverted some of your delinking. The few links give further context for the reader. So, propose them one by one here, and make your case on the talk page. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 10:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
How large were the 13 colonies in square miles? Thanks. ➧ datumizer ☎ 05:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the lead duplicates the first paragraph. So, I made this edit which was rolled back in a bunch of edits. Can we get less duplication? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The section on Global trade and immigration includes a sentence that reads "These immigrants traveled to all of the colonies, but the Middle Colonies attracted the most and continued to be more ethically diverse than the other colonies."
I don't have access to the source material referenced by this sentence. Is this supposed to say "ethically" or "ethnically"? SloppyG ( talk) 20:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)