Talk:American Revolution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Canada

Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.210.85 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Why is there no mention of the U.S. invasion and attempted annexation of Canada in this article? It was only a sideshow but nevertheless a legitimate theater of war. If the contributions of women and blacks are sufficiently important to the modern historian to discuss at length in this article, then the invasion of Canada should also apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.201.138 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "annexation" is the wrong word (the states that formed the US were hoping that Quebec would join them willingly)... but you certainly have a point as to the invasion. Blueboar 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive

The talk page was archived on January 30, 2007. Previous discussions can be found at: Talk:American Revolution/Archive 1. --The Spith 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

GA/R

I'm filing a GA/R on this article since it seems it wasn't listed properly to start with, and looking at the archive, it seems there were some major problems brought up that someone felt meant it shouldn't be a GA at all. Might as well just make this article's status certain and whatnot, review filed here: WP:GA/R. Homestarmy 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation on Rousseau?

Hello all, I'm a relative lurk in the Wiki world (and as such don't comment or contribute often), but a statement made in American_revolution#Liberalism_and_republicanism caught my eye:

Historians find little trace of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influence in America.

Could the contributor of this statement offer a citation of some kind? I am interested in using this information, but cannot without reference :)

Apologies to all in advance, I'm not sure if I'm addressing this concern in the right place or format. Lucificifus 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative but I don't think we can provide a citation for a lack of influence.Padillah 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguably Paine's Common Sense and his notions of a collective 'general good', to be expressed by a unicameral legislature designed to be democracy through representation, are derived from Rousseau's 'general will'. Those comments (and the Pennsylvania 1776 Constitution) didn't come from Locke. But his political influence was, in the wider scheme of things, really limited to anti-monarchism/republicanism and independence.

I see your point, and understand it. Thank you, I seem to have been overthinking again. :) Lucificifus 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Historians find very little Rousseau in America before 1820s. Thus "Rousseau, whose romantic and egalitarian tenets had practically no influence on the course of Jefferson's, or indeed any American, thought." Nathan Schachner, Thomas Jefferson: A Biography. (1957). p. 47. Rjensen 03:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Callout at top of article.

This article is about political poopy and social developments. I'm sorry but I have to ask: is political poopy really what is meant here? That seems less than erudite. Padillah 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow... that's poopy vandalism from poopy schoolchildren. This is a known scourge. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: How can I critique others when I can't spell 'article' correctly? Padillah 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

...Nor "erudite"... (Sorry... inveterate proofreader with a predilection for making hasty typos myself.) Esseh 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Real Americans

I STILL haven't the faintest idea how to comment/edit etc here!!! ("Two peoples separated by a common language"?) Anyway, this SHOULD be a separate comment, BUT as I can find no way to add a NEW comment, only ways to edit EXISTING stuff, I'm ph**t!!! :) Genuinely sorry to freeload your comment, :// hope you'll forgive my intrusion. Seems sort of apposite though wouldn't you say? (see below)

Comment is as follows: . . . what about the REAL Americans, the native Indians??? They were involved in the Revolution (or squabble between invaders over who should control the spoils of conquest?). I know they've been virtually completely exterminated by the colonists but still, would be nice to have a nod in their direction, no? What about the Iroquoi for example who allied with the Loyalist Brits (against the "New-world" Brits)? Isn't that significant? Perhaps Wasi'chu don't see their surroundings, including those living in them, human, animal, plant etc, as being relevant to their squabbles, but shouldn't wiki contextualize information as well as reflect perceptions of reality?

End rant  :)

LookingGlass 13:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of creating a new section and moving your comment to it... (for the future, just click the plus sign next to "edit this page").

You raise a good point. We should have something on the indigenous peoples. Please add it (Make sure it is well referenced and NPOV). Blueboar 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to be careful with this. The arguments LookingGlass makes is more philosophical than historical. The Native Americans were mostly killed by disease, not warfare or massacres. Mdriver1981 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Without going into details of this mixing of Calicua-Cherokee with Canawagh-Mohawk (Virginia Christian Indians), but, this clan had worked as canoe porters, couriers and scouts for various Virginians and the Ohio Company (1749). They also reconnoiter before the French and Indian War. They were paid as well as a colonial militia private and some founding fathers argued they should also be included in the Land Bounty of Gov Diamonds promise to the other colonial veterans.
Correspondence of Col. Daniel Brodhead To Col. Stephen Bayard, July 9th, 1779, "Whilst I am writing, I am tormented by at least a dozen drunken Indians, and I shall be obliged to remove my quarters from hence on account of a cursed villainous set of inhabitants, who, in spite of every exertion continue to rob the soldiers, or cheat them and the Indians out of every thing they are possessed of."
In a circular letter addressed to the lieutenants, Col. Daniel Brodhead headquarters July 17th, 1779, "His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief, has at length given me a little latitude, and I am determined to strike a blow against one of the most hostile nations, that in all probability will effectually secure the tranquility of the frontiers for years to come. But I have not troops sufficient at once to carry on the expedition and to support the different posts which are necessary to be maintained. Therefore beg, you will engage as many volunteers for two or three weeks as you possibly can. They shall be well treated, and if they please, paid and entitled to an equal share of the plunder that may be taken, which I apprehend will be very considerable. Some of the friendly Indians will assist us on this enterprise." REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO LOCATE THE SITE OF THE FRONTIER FORTS OF PENNSYLVANIA. VOLUME TWO. CLARENCE M. BUSCH. STATE PRINTER OF PENNSYLVANIA. 1896.
-- "...In my Letter of the 24th. Instant, I mentioned the arrival of thirteen of our Caghnawaga Friends (Hanson's (Mr. Hogg) Canawagh working on the Kanawha Valley April 1774); They honored me with a Talk to-day as did three of the Tribes of St. Johns and Pasmiquoddi Indians; Copies of which I beg leave to inclose you. I shall write General Schuyler respecting the Tender of Service made by the former, and not to call for their Assistance, unless he shall at any time want it, or be under the necessity of doing it to prevent their taking the side of our Enemies...", George Washington to Continental Congress, January 30, 1776.::

Canawagh clan background:
George Washington wrote their name, Caghnawaga, while some surveyors and frontier investor's managers on the Ohio and Kanawha valleys sometimes wrote their name as Canawagh, same mix of Indians::

Quoting from C. Gist journal 1753, November, "Thursday 15.—We set out, and at night encamped at George's Creek (near Fairfax Stone), about eight miles, where a messenger came with letters from my son, who was just returned from his people at the Cherokees, and lay sick at the mouth of Conegocheague (next major stream below Col Cresap's Fort Cumberland, upper Potomack River, Allegany Mountains.) --CHRISTOPHER GIST'S JOURNALS WITH HISTORICAL, GEOGRAPHICAL AND ETHNOLOGICAL NOTES AND BIOGRAPHIES OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES BY WILLIAM M. DARLINGTON [1815-1889] PITTSBURGH, J. R. WELDIN & CO., 1893::

^ In June, 1757, Captain Hamilton addressed Capt. Potter FORT LYTTLETON. Page 555-561. See Mr. Darlington's Map. There was a company of Cherokee Indians in King's pay, being at Fort Lyttleton, and Capt. Hamilton sent some of them to search along the foot of the Allegheny mountains to see if there were any signs of Indians on that route, and these Indians came upon Capt. Mercer, unable to rise; they gave him food, and he told them of the other; they took the captain's track and found him and brought him to Fort Lyttleton, carrying him on a bier of their own making. They took fourteen scalps on this expedition. Governor Morris directs E. Salter, April tenth, 1756: "When you get to Fort Lyttleton you will take upon oath what proofs you can of the certainty of Indian Isaacs having taken the scalp of Captain Jacobs, that he may be entitled to the reward."-- CLARENCE M. BUSCH. STATE PRINTER OF PENNSYLVANIA. 1896. Map: http://www.usgwarchives.org/pa/1pa/1picts/frontierforts/73edarlingtonmap.jpg::

The report: http://www.usgwarchives.org/pa/1pa/1picts/frontierforts/frontierforts.htm ::

Also documented within is great friend of the Kanawhans: "Andrew Lewis, with four of his brothers, were in the expedition of Braddock, and exhibited marked courage and caution. Samuel commanded the company, and acquitted himself with great ability. Andrew Lewis was twice wounded at the siege of Fort Necessity. After the amnesty, and as the Virginians were marching off, an Irishman became displeased with an Indian, and 'cursing the copper-headed scoundrel,' elevated his gun to fire. At that moment, Major Lewis, who, crippled, was passing along, raised his staff and knocked up the muzzle of the Irishman's rifle, thus doubtless preventing a general massacre." " HISTORY OF KANAWHA COUNTY FROM ITS ORGANIZATION IN 1789 UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME" BY GEO. W. ATKINSON, A. M. CHARLESTON: PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA JOURNAL (1876).::

Editor's Note: Canoe Landings of the Fur Trade was sometimes confused because of "word-of-mouth." But, Charegree the Indian's map (IN THE Library of Congress documented) of about 1755 shows the upper Shawnee Town at the mouth of the Great Kanawha River. Hanna, in his book short titled "The Wilderness Trail" published in 1911, quotes on page 142 "Dr. Thwaites, in a note to Wither's Chronicles of Border Warefare, states that the Upper Shawnee Town (which a troop of Virginia militia--The Big Sandy Expidition--vainly tried to find in 1756). "was an Indian village at Old Town Creek, emtying into the Ohio from the north, 39 miles above the mouth of the Great Kanawha." There is to this day an Old Town Creek in Meigs County, Ohio. But, it is not quite 39 miles above the mouth of the Kanawha River. This has to do with La Tort's family and trade. Cheregree shows an un-named dot at about the location of Old Town Creek in Mason County (WV) which was not an important enemy village or as a major concern of the French and Indian War. Just below it on his intelligence report map, the Upper Shawnee Town is shown at the very point of the Great Kanawha named as such. The Sauvanoos had removed from the area of Fort Du Quesne. Much of Virginian Major Lewis' 1756 Big Sandy expedition was trooped by Virginia Cherokee. Andrew Montour mustered a few Virginia "Cherokee" for George Washington in 1754. Although, recent scholars identify these as Tuskarora which is likely closer to who they really were, a mix of similar language of whom certain settlers reckon any hill Indians in broad sense as simply "Cherokee".:: Conaughy (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

End date

I know that an earlier version of this article (as well as much literature on the topic) considers the "American Revolution" to include the period up through 1789, when the current U.S. Constitution was adopted. Fishal 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation:

While these were adopted by the Second Continental Congress in 1777 they were not actually ratified until 1781. Before '81 Congress relied on powers no colony/state had delegated to it (such as raising and funding an army...).

formal ratification was not necessary for actual operations. The states knew what they were doing when they sent delegates and obeyed orders from Congress and put their militia under Congressional control. Ratification did make the bond permanent, a point Lincoln emphasized in secession critis of 1861. Rjensen 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, granted. My point was, some sources (including Timeline of United States revolutionary history (1760-1789)) consider the Constitution-writing process to be a part of the "American Revolution" period. Fishal 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party? Boston Massacre?

Is this section missing for some reason? I know there are individual articles addressing both these events but some mention should be made here, especially since they are refered to later in the page and without some structure the references make no sense.Padillah 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's weird --AW 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added back the section on the Massacre, but it seems short. And the tea party still isn't mentioned --AW 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to expand the section (as well as at least mention the Boston Tea Party). Hopefully my contributions can be used by someone else to further expand and improve it.Psyche825 04:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done some minor copy-editing of the section, but am wondering: is more mention of them really necessary? The links to the main articles are included and the section seems to cover the important bits. Thoughts? GFett 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also believe the copy-edit tag can be removed from the section now, so am doing so. The tag mentions structure and stylistic differences between this section and the rest of the article, but it does not seem to me that any significant difference exists, so with some minor changes the copy-editing seems (?) relatively complete. GFett 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

Hi yall. Noticed that this was on the "To do" list. I just added a paragraph in the "Loyalists" section that makes at least passing reference to Black Loyalists. I was in fact shocked to see that there is no independent article on them when I tried to wikify it. This really should be a separate article, linking here, to United Empire Loyalists, to African-Americans and I don't know how many other locations. I hope my little addition (with ref - details inside there; the article itself mentions two other articles on the same subject in The Beaver) will encourage someone to at least start this article. This is an important bit of Canadian history, too. (Honestly, I really do not feel qualified to do this, for those of you about to suggest it.) Of course, all comments welcome. Esseh 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I see there is an entry on Africville, a now defunct suburb or Halifax, Nova Scotia founded by manumitted Black Loyalists. And yes, I will continue to red-link this until it (and I) turn(s) blue! I'll be watching... ;-) Esseh 00:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why wait for someone else to do this... why not start the article yourself. Blueboar 20:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar. Thanks for the vote, but as I said above (I bolded it), I'm not the guy for this. I did, on your prodding, send an e-mail to the Black Loyalist Heritage Society, however, suggesting that they might begin such an article, and offering to help with editing and such. I'll let you know what happens. In the meantime, you can check out their marvellous web site here [1] Esseh 05:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

ZJust triple-checked, and there IS a stub for Black Loyalist, singular. I think it should have the title changed, as there was more than one, and the stub refers them (properly) as a group. I will now change the link in the main article. Esseh 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. At their behest, and for the edification of all, I have taken the liberty (pun intended) of adding links to the Black Loyalist Heritage Society in the "External links" and in the relevant paragraph. As well, I added a full, though it may need a cleanup to conform (and/or a change of section). Be bold, all! (Now, if we just had a citation or two for the Native Americans...) Esseh 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Constitution again

Perhaps I didn't phrase my comment clearly enough. It is fairly common to include the early postwar years in the the "American Revolution." I am referring especially to Shays's Rebellion, the Philadelphia Convention, and the political ferment accompanying the debate onRatification. Since the article specifically says that it is not simply about the war, the revolutionary events of 1784-1789 should be included. Fishal 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this be here?

"The word "patriot" is used in this article simply to mean a person in the colonies who sided with the American revolution. Calling the revolutionaries "patriots" is a long standing historical convention, and was done at the time. It is not meant to express bias in favor of either side." -this seems... with a lack of wording for what i'm thinking... a little odd 69.136.166.168 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This explanation was put into the article after a debate on whether the word "patriot" should be used at all in the article. One side, mainly non-Americans, argued that the word could be seen as strongly biased and factually wrong. The compromise was that the word was kept, but an explanation was added on how the word is used in the article. - Duribald 09:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems valid to me. The rebels in Lower Canada (Québec) in 1837 were, and still are, known as to many as les patriotes, even though their rebellion was short-lived, never gained popular support, and failed. Usually the winners write the history. The American rebels won - and can call themselves anything they like. BUT, for NPOV reasons, the view from the other side (rebellious traitors to long-standing and rightful authority) must at least be acknowledged - and it is, if somewhat inelegantly. Imagine if the phrase in brackets were used instead, followed by "known as "Patriots" within the colonies". Think it would cause a stink? I do. Just my 2¢ worth. Esseh 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC) i dont no foo

I have removed this line. An argument behind the scenes here should never be visible like that. Its highly self-referential and argumentative. Its worse than when Spoiler (media) said that readers of online encyclopedias should expect spoilers. Atropos 03:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have put it back, because it serves a purpose. This usage of the term "patriot" is largely unknown to non-Americans and there have been complaints that it is biased. If you want to explain it in another way, then please do, but don't just remove something that there has been previous discussions about. - Duribald 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Port Bill

Hello! Does somebody know, what the Boston Port Bill was? It must be something of the late 18th century. Please answer at my diskussion page.Thank you--Ticketautomat 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

North America---a Continent???

Ok, before we get into an edit war over whether or not North America is a continent, it should be noted that there is a difference in opinion on the subject. Historically North and South America were viewed as one continent in Europe/Asia. Recently this has changed to the North/South American view that there are two continents. Since the prevalent view is that there are two continents, and the fact that this is an Article on the American Revolution (a country that views it as two continents), the identification of North America as an identifiable continent is correct.Balloonman 19:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never in my life heard of North America being referred to as anything but a continent in it's own right. I checked, however, an old Swedish encyclopedia (published 1876-1926), which did refer to "America" as one continent with three parts: North, Central and South. I think it is logical to think of North America (including Central America) as a continent. We do, for example, consider Africa a continent, even though it has a land connection with Asia. Teh Wikipedia article on North AMrica also calls it a continent. -Duribald 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the article Continent. It discusses the various definitions of continent---which can range from 4-7 depending on the definition. 7 is the most commonly accepted number, but it isn't the only way to count continents. As for Europe calling it one continent, the countries that I heard that used to refer to the Americas as one continent were primarily Southern European countries that referred to the "Americas" as one continent as a result of early exploration efforts. (Spain, Italy, and Portugal) My guess is that Venezuela (which was heavily influenced by Southern Europe) holds to the position that there is only one continent as well. But that is why I made this post. Both your assertion and Andres assertion, which are contradictory, are correct. But because the article is about the US, the US understanding should be used.Balloonman 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rereading the article continent it does discuss how the 6 continent (one Americas)view is primarily taught in the Iberian Penensula (Spain/Portugal), Italy, South America and Iran.Balloonman 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly thing to be arguing about. I fully understand that there is disagreement as to whether there are two continents (North America and South America) or just one (The Americas) ... but we do not need to get into this debate here... It can easily be dealt with by restucturing any sentences that discuss the area so that we don't mention the word "continent" ... something along the lines of: "By 1763, Great Britain possessed vast holdings in North America." This can either mean the continent (to those who think of North America as a continent) or the clearly defined area (ie the northern region of The Americas) within the larger combined continent (for those who like to think of it as The Americas). Blueboar 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're arguing... just making an observation to explain how/why both Andres and Duribald can say the exact opposite thing and both be correct. Your wording works great.Balloonman 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"The sense that all men have an equal voice in government"

This is a preposterous statement completely unsupportable by facts. Post-revolutionary America was a plutocracy in which something like 90% of the white male population didn't have the right to vote -- to say nothing of the slaves. It's certainly true that the American revolution encouraged similar-minded revolutionaries elsewhere but it shouldn't be presented in such a hagiographic fashion. Eleland 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pmanderson's new version is much to be preferred. Eleland 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and not to mention the next to enslaved women not being able to own property nor vote. However the revolution wasn't single minded there was many revolutions of freedom at the same time all for their own personal freedom be it women's, black's, poor and so on. They even selected their officers in the army through vote. In the end, little freedom was gained as corrupt people always want to use the force of government. Lord Metroid 23:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

When

By late spring 1776

By summer 1776

These wordings are ambiguous. They would be better if replaced by more specific time periods. --B.d.mills 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the book 1776 by historian David McCullough, Boston was under siege in late October 1775. (see chapter 1) Boston was sieged until March 4, 1776 when it was agreed to attack with cannon from Dorchester Heights. (see page 90, paperback) 63.226.196.7 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) J. E. Zimmer

Townshend Acts

In the paragraph describing Townshend Acts, it says three years after which would be 1770+3=1773. However, in the article, Townshend Acts, it has conflicting data, the date said is 1767. A minor mistake?

--Hwilliam50 22:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

corrected the dateBlueboar 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Causes of the American Revolution

•Navigation Acts •Stamp Act •Boston Massacre •Relationship between England and their colonies after the French and Indian War •American Power of Salutary Neglect •MOST IMPORTANT-The Decleration on Independence

How could the declaration of independence have caused the revolution, when the revolution started first? Eleland 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The war did not start out as a revolution as much as armed protest against the Stamp Act and other actions against the colonies. ComplexEndeavors 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The revolution was originally a violent method for the colonists to change British regulations to better suit colonial wants and needs. The pamphlet Common Sense seems to be the catalyst to the Declaration of Independence. --Dubtiger 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Accurate List of Enlightment Influences, Please!!!!

A correction to the "social contract" reference in the article: 1) The "social contract" concept was introduced by ROUSSEAU, NOT (as the article implies) LOCKE. 2) Therefore, the article's subsequent statement that "historians find little trace of Rousseau's influence in America" seems to be invalid, since the article references the "social contract" as an influence.

Nope! Both Hobbes and Locke used the social contract idea. Rousseau, however, wrote a book by that name. That doesn't mean he invented the concept. -Duribald 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

France

"The Americans however were revolting against royalty and aristocracy and consequently did not look at France as a model for government." Ahem--Montesquieu, anybody? This line seems needlessly anti-French. The Enlightenment thinkers were heavily influenced by French political thought. --75.67.189.21 15:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

French political thought, yes... French government, no. The ideals of Voltair, Montesquieu, and other French philosophers had a huge influence... but these philosophies were very different than (and often diametrically opposite to) the way France was actually governed. Blueboar 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar is right. As a matter of fact, the French thoughts - that the American revolutionaries were so influenced by - were decidedly against the French form of government in every way. To the enlightenment philosophers of France England was the political ideal. And English political and constitutional thought was the other great influence of the American revolution and constitution. - Duribald 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't think it is entirely correct to say that "the Americans were revolting against royalty and aristocracy ... " After the revolution many Americans thought very hard about the idea of making Washington a king... and proposals for the creation of chivalric orders led to the formation of organizations like the Cincinati society. bald statements almost never seem to fit American history. Blueboar 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, some wanted a constitutional monarchy, like in England, in Sweden 1720-1772 or like a lot of the French revolutionaries wanted in 1789. This would have been in line with Montesquieu's thoughts on the subject. It is correct that the revolution was not a reaction to the British form of government per se, but with lack of representation and concrete issues that were seen as an illegitimate interference with the affairs of the colonies. I'll try to rephrase this sentence in the article... - Duribald 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Revolution?

This article is mainly concerned with the War of American Independence, by which the political independence gained by the American Revolution was defended. But scarcely anything is said about the Revolution itself, despite the name of the article -- the actual period in 1775-1776 when power passed from colonial governors and assemblies to local patriotic organizations. July 4, 1776, is represented as if it marked the beginning of the revolution, rather than its culmination. But this short period was, one might think, the most crucial period of the Revolution, which left the British with the task of re-conquering a rebellious continent rather than just suppressing local revolts, and obviously tilted the scales decisively in favor of the revolutionaries. Something about how it happened, how it was resisted, and what the immediate consequences were, would be a welcome addition to this article. RandomCritic 19:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There is one paragraph in the article about the actual revolution: the second paragraph in the "Creating new state constitutions" section, which follows an inaccurate first paragraph. There's a bit more in the "Declaration of Independence" section, although it too is full of errors. Lots of work to be done here. —Kevin Myers 15:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

[Blank] Cornwallis

I know it was Cornwallis who surrendered at Yorktown, but other than that, I have no information regarding him. I don't even have a clue what his first name is. Information about him is appreciated. --Dubtiger 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See Charles Cornwallis, 1st Marquess Cornwallis.RandomCritic 04:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers unclear

Where it says "The war expenses of the individual states added up to $114,000,000, compared to $37 million by the central government,[43]" it's not easy to see whether the states owed more than the central government or vice-versa. If both were writen in numbers ($114,000,000 compared to $37,000,000) or both in words ($114 million compared to $37 million) it would be much better.--190.74.108.43 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC) um, cornwallis surrenders at york town —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.227.113 (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Join or Die

In my history textbook, it says the join or die was for the French and Indian war, not the revolutionary war. Maybe it needs a citation? EDIT: In [[2]], it says that it was for the French and Indian war. RJRocket53 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, with modification, for both: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1091369 --JimWae (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase was indeed first created to foster inter-colony cooperation during the French and Indian war... it continued to be used as catch-phrase during the period prior the Revolution, and was placed on several regimental/state flags and such during it. So "Both" is the correct answer. Blueboar (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit to section Taxation without representation

The existing article stated:

"The British government determined to tax its American possessions, primarily to help pay for its defense of North America from the French in the Seven Year War. The issue with many colonists was not that taxes were high, but that the colonies had no representation in the Parliament which passed the taxes."

I have provided sourced material that shows (1) that the taxes were intended to pay for future defense rather than to retire debt already incurred and (2) that the amount of the taxes was indeed a factor in colonial opposition. It can be argued that as events developed the principle overrode the practical, but this seems like it is better argued in the sub-articles that cover specific time periods. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rum industry could not support taxes

I deleted this statement because not only is it demonstratively false, it is simply ludicrous. Miller is a long dead author who sixty five years ago had a non-neutral point of view of the Revolution and who speculated about the effect of the molasses taxes without doing any analysis or citing any sources. Some of his work no longer stands up to modern scholarship. In fact the Sugar (molasses) duties were the largest source of British revenue from the colonies bringing in almost 40,000 pounds per year. BradMajors (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation does not meet standards of WP:RS for reliable sources. BradMajors (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

However, it is a verifiable statement (cited to Miller). May I suggest that we use attributition here. Attribute the statement to Miller, and then present the contradicting information along side it (attributed to whoever the sources are that contradict him). That is the NPOV way to handle such disputes. Blueboar (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BradMajors --: And yet you quoted Miller on both this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Revolution&diff=190276489&oldid=190008164) and the article Stamp Act 1765 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stamp_Act_1765&diff=189415985&oldid=188889805). I guess Miller is only reliable when you agree wth him. We have already had a very similar discussion at Talk:Sugar Act#destroyed much of the rum industry. You rely solely on a popular biography of John Hancock which makes a contrary claim.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad, what in the world makes you say that Miller is unreliable? It is certainly a reliable source... it is a well known work, published a reputable publisher. It may be contradicted by other reliable sources, and if so we can discuss them as well, but in itself it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Miller's take is hardly unique. Robert Middlekauff in his 2005 revision to "The Glorious Cause" emphasizes the economic impact of the tax. He notes that "These Parliamentary statutes could not have been passed at a worse time as far as the colonists were concerned. An economic depression had gradually overtaken the colonies ... ." (pg. 65-66) He further states that "most Americans who protested concentrated on how the new policies cut into their purses."

Theodore Draper in "A Struggle For Power" (1996) makes the same point. Speaing also of the post Seven Years War depression, he wrote, "As their businesses suffered, New york merchants became more and more disturbed by any British legislation that threatened their dwindling profits." (pg. 270)

Pauline Maier in "From Resistance to Revolution" (1972) wrote, "Commerce seemed even more directly attacked by British trade regulations ... and by the Sugar Act, which seemed to threaten the foreign West Indian trade that sustained the economies of colonies like Rhode Island." (pg. 10)

Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. As you address each issue, either strike through the issue or add a checkmark indicating it has been completed. Needs inline citations:

1. "John Locke's ideas on liberalism greatly influenced the political minds behind the revolution; for instance, his theory of the "social contract" implied the natural right of the people to overthrow their leaders, should those leaders betray the historic rights of Englishmen." This needs an inline citation, unless it is also from the same inline citation in the next sentence (if so, just add it to both sentences).
2. "He lost the case, but John Adams later wrote, "American independence was then and there born."" Quotes need inline citations directly after the statement.
3. "Lending weight to the argument was an economic boycott of British merchandise, as imports into the colonies fell from £2,250,000 in 1764 to £1,944,000 in 1765." Statistics such as these need an inline citation directly after the statement.
4. "The event also began a downward spiral in the relationship between Britain and the colonies, especially Massachusetts."
5. "...despite the fact that the cause was a reduction in duty (from a shilling to 3 pence) and not an increase."
6. "There would be no negotiations whatsoever until 1783."
7. "While there is no way of knowing the actual numbers, historians estimate 15% to 25% of the colonists remained loyal to the British Crown; these were known at the time as 'Loyalists', 'Tories', or 'King's men'." If this information comes from the source at the end of the paragraph, also add it to the end of this sentence, if not, find a source for it.
8. "William Franklin, son of Benjamin Franklin and Governor of New Jersey remained Loyal to the Crown throughout the war and never spoke to his father again." If this information comes from the source at the end of the paragraph, also add it to the end of this sentence, if not, find a source for it.
9. "62,000 Loyalists (of the total estimated number of 450-500,000) relocated to Canada (42,000 according to the Canadian book on Loyalists, True Blue), Britain (7,000) or to Florida ([number missing]) or the West Indies (13,000), making it one of the largest mass migrations in history. This made up approximately 2% of the total population of the colonies."
10. "The boycott of British goods involved the willing participation of American women;[citation needed]"
11. "Therefore no American prisoners were put on trial for treason, and although most were badly treated and many died nonetheless,[citation needed]"
12. "In 1790, Congress combined the state debts with the foreign and domestic debts into one national debt totaling $80 million. Everyone received face value for wartime certificates, so that the national honor would be sustained and the national credit established."

Other issues:

1. In the Origins section (and other sections throughout the article), there are several subsections that are brief, consider merging some of these subsections together or expanding on the information present.
2. Consider adding an image or two for the first subsections in the Origins section, as the first images don't appear in the main text until the "Townshend Act 1767", and they're located very close to each other.
3. "By late spring 1776[when?]..." Address this tag.
4. "A minority of uncertain size tried to stay neutral in the war. Most kept a low profile." Consider rewriting the first sentence (it doesn't appear very descriptive/make sense) and merge it with the next sentence.
5. "By summer 1776[when?]..." Address this tag.

This article is in good shape besides these above issues. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. I would like to see this important article remain a GA, so let me know on my talk page if you have any questions, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Failed

Since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel's special

Could someone find the article on the History Channel's "The American Revolution" from 2006. I can't seem to find it anywhere on Wikipedia. That said, when it IS found, there needs to a link at the top of this page. Thanks. --Jophus00 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking with the search function, I don't think there is an article on the History Channel's show... Normally, I would suggest that you go and write one, but I am not sure if yet another TV documentary on the Revolution is all that notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but is there even a list of shows? As to whether it should exist, I've noticed on several pages, including the History Channel's page, that the "show" is linked but it merely goes to the main Revolution page. Further, can Wiki really have "too many" pages? If the purpose is to be the ultimate information source, shouldn't that include everything possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jophus00 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Few movies??

I have read that rather few movies have been made that depict the American revolution or events during it. Many more have been made about the Civil War and the Vietnam War. Is this so, and why? -- BIL (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that... see List of plays and films about the American Revolution (most are films). Compare it to American Civil War#Films about the_war. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I would like to know where you read that, since I have suspected it from my own anecdotal evidence, but never saw a reputable source propose it.Shoreranger (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I checked Category:Vietnam War films, and that includes 69 films alone, and the Rev War list includes plays and animated TV episodes and still doesn't beat it.Shoreranger (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I read it in a newspaper, which described a movie (maybe it was The Patriot (2000 film)) to be shown on TV that evening. I count 15 movies in List of plays and films about the American Revolution, of them 4 after 1960. The civil war seem to have 16, of them 11 after 1960. Not to mention World War II. Most countries would be more proud and interested in its liberation war than a civil war which could be sensitive to parts of the country. --BIL (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a couple of educated guesses: a) the film industry was just catching on when the US and UK were fighting world wars, followed by a common cause during the Cold War - maybe a conscious or sub-conscious determination was made that films that did not accentuate our differences would be more popular; b) the Vietnam War films were made in a time when film became accepted as a forum for social issues, and veterans as well as the war itself was a divisive social issue for many years; c) It is expensive to do 18th century films, considering the elaborate costumes and locations, extremely antiquated technology, etc. that can only partially be overcome more easily by computer-aided film making now; d) Civil War veterans or their children were still alive when film was born, and so would pay to see romanticized versions of themselves or their parents in romanticized war - as would succeeding generations and their wars - no such audience was available for 18th century wars. I am not a film historian, but these are what occured to me after a little more thought. Shoreranger (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of Revolution start: March 1775 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.252.158 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New navigation template

Howdy. I've created {{American Revolution origins}}. I intended to create a simple box to navigate between all those obscure county resolves issued 1774–1776. Although we only have a handful of articles on them now, there were many of them, and the articles will no doubt increase. But I got ambitious and listed various writings, declarations, etc. in the run-up to the Declaration of Independence. Maybe the template will become too big eventually and we'll have to create an offshoot. Feel free to play with it and add stuff I missed. —Kevin Myers 07:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC) After the surrender at Saratoga in 1777, there were thousands of British prisoners in American hands who were effectively hostages.

Therefore no American prisoners were put on trial for treason . . .

There were prisoners taken and executed for treason--spying for the English. Edmund Palmer was hanged at Gallow's Hill near Peekskill, NY, in 1777 by Israel Putnam. There were others but I have documentation for Palmer. 216.232.20.88 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this line is referring to Americans held prisoner by the British, not the other way around. And, of course, Nathan Hale was executed by the British... however, I think this was simply for spying and not for treason. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jhudgina (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your response. But the sentence before this reads: "After the surrender at Saratoga in 1777, there were thousands of British prisoners in American hands who were effectively hostages." I haven't looked up the dates (Palmer was executed in August 1777) so this may mean that none were executed after Saratoga. (I think spying is included in treason--Putnam thought so). Janet

Yes... I read it to mean: Because there were now thousands of British prisoners in American hands, the British did not put any Americans they had captured on trial for treason (for fear that the Americans would retaliate by killing all those Brits). Does that make sense? Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Although in fact Americans were killed, largely without trial. See Nathan Hale and Joshua Huddy, the latter well after Saratoga. The claim that the Saratoga prisoners were hostages is extreme; the chief reason they weren't exchanged was that, even if they pledged not to fight in America, they would be used to replace units in Britain which could then be sent to America. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's some mixing of different circumstances mentioned in the discussion here. Keep in mind that spies and prisoners of war were two different things. Hanging a prisoner of war was controversial; hanging a spy, not so much. Legitimate military officials on both sides could hang spies at any time. If you were a military man who got caught spying while out of uniform, it was understood that you would be hanged. Nathan Hale and John Andre were hanged because they were wearing civilian clothes when captured; had they been in uniform they would have become prisoners of war and subject to different rules.

The real nasty part of the war was Patriot vs. Loyalist: they hanged each other quite a bit, activities that were often of doubtful legality, and sometimes simple lyching. Indeed, the very word lynching comes from this time: see Charles Lynch. Huddy was hanged by American Loyalists, not Brits. Between them, Patriots Benjamin Cleveland and William Campbell hanged a whole platoon of Loyalists, but I don't think they would have dared to hang a uniformed British soldier. The British hanged just one American soldier for treason, Isaac Hayne, a controversial case that Wikipedia has not yet taken notice of. —Kevin Myers 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Myers brings the point home as saying "Patriot vs. Loyalist" or a "local committee" (community majority) did not necessarily follow exactly as Gen G Washington's procedures which had to be approved by Congress concerning prisoners. These matters evolved as reports from these civil communities arrived to the Congress and Gen Washington. There were questions as to what was treason, ranging from speaking ones political opinion to as much as speaking to an enemy military officer (either side) of a troop column passing by the farmstead-- passing along local intel or simply word of mouth "local news". It's one thing for a local committee to hang a despised neighbour for any reason and another for new evolving centralized government to do so. Hence, the confusion if the hanging was centralized government or a local action. Remember, there was no "Constitutional Rights" yet early on and the 1st Amendment et al would come about decade later. Washington's views to Congress and his officers can be overseen in the following link: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160143))

Why mention Rousseau?

Historians find little trace of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influence in America.[3]

Then why mention him at all in this encyclopedia article? I saw the discussion above, but I find that this statement is more confusing than informative. It seems to be part of a debate that a typical Wikipedia reader will have no interest in. To put it another way, if we're compelled to say Rousseau had little influence, we must also explain why one might be tempted to think otherwise. And at that point it seems that we're heading down a minor side trail.

Mindful of WP:BOLD, I'm removing the sentence. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

James Somerset and the slavery issue

Editor Lord C added a section with the above title in the Origins part of the article. Part of the edit included the following:

"The ruling was interpreted by many pro-slavery Americans colonists as part of a wider move to eventually abolish slavery throughout the British Empire (including the American colonies, some of whose economies were based upon growing slave-tended crops)."

The clear implcation that Lord C is attemping to make is that the Somerset ruling was a reason why many Americans favored independence. In other words, the worldwide leader in the international slave trade (not to mention its strong economic support for the slave colonies in the Indies), Great Britain, was seen as such a serious threat to slavery prior to 1776 by Americans. Such a claim by Lord C needs documentation from reliable sources before being added back into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the passage with the appropriate cites. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your cites is that they do not link the Somerset case as part of the American reasons for revolution. This is the sentence that you wrote that allegedly makes the link:

"The landmark ruling was interpreted by many pro-slavery colonists as part of a wider move to eventually abolish slavery throughout the British Empire (including the American colonies, some of whose economies were based upon growing slave-tended crops)."

You source this to Chapter 3 in Hochschild. In fact, Chapter 3, in discussing this case, makes no such claim (I appear to be using a US edition while you are using a British edition but I doubt there is that much difference. I have added some info to the section using Hochschild (I included the only direct reaction to the case decision that I could find in the chapter) as well as info from David Brion Davis's "Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World" to add balance to the section. I have also moved the entire section from "Origins" to "Factions: Patriots, Loyalists and Neutrals". This section should probably be fleshed out a little more to provide specifics on both sides attitudes towards and use of blacks, both slave and free. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

these sources do support it Mark S. Weiner, "New Biographical Evidence on Somerset's Case," Slavery and Abolition, Vol. 23, No. 1 (April 2002), 121-36. Blumrosen, Alfred W., Blumrosen, Ruth G. Slave nation: how slavery united the colonies and sparked the American Revolution. Sourcebooks, 2005. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1599128, as used in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett%27s_Case#The_case_beyond_England of the somersett case article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Somerset case did not abolish slavery outside England--it of course flourished in the West Indies (and it existed in British Upper Canada (Ontario) into the 1790s) so it does not belong in this article.Rjensen (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When does the American Revolution end?

At the moment it seems to fizzle out around the Treaty of Paris, with an Aftermath section seeming to imply that the end of the Revolution came withend of the war. My understanding, admittedly as a non-American, was that it also included the period leading up to 1787 constitution and the period after that when the nature of American goverment was framed. Or does it just cover the period leading up to the American Revolutionary War and the war itself?

A brief search on the internet produces several different answers. Some seem to agree with the current state of the article, others include the post-1783 era, some even include the US Civil War as part of it, while others seem to assert it is ongoing as the nature of goverment in the United States is continually evolving. If it is then the post 1783 stuff might need expanding. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In North America, that is the aftermath to the war. There was scattered fighting in New Jersey and the Carolinas, and the Continental Army stayed in being to watch New York, but there was an effective armistice after Yorktown. Since it was not the result onf a pact, it could fall apart at any time; but that's another question. The politics of 1785 dealt with other matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Yes that is the aftermath to the WAR... but is it the aftermath of the Revolution? Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there is no consensus among our sources; but the article must end somewhere. For comparison, French Revolution ends with 18 Brumaire, with a half-sentence of "to be seen in our next installment". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I haven't paid attention to this article for a couple of years. Wow, it's a bit of a mess, ain't it? Lots of good stuff here, mixed in with some errors, omissions, and digressions. The article can't decide if it's supposed to be organized chronologically or thematically, and so some things are repeated, seemingly at random. All in all, it's not a bad rough draft for an article on the American Revolution. What it needs is for someone to take the wheel and do a complete rewrite, upgrading the article to a new level of coherence. And by "someone", I mean "not me". Volunteers? —Kevin Myers 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's outrageous!

I've heard religious toleration guaranteed to Quebec after La Conquête called one of the "outrageous acts" leading to the Revolution. If anybody can source it, would you include it at La Conquête? Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the Quebec Act of 1774, which was considered as one of the Intolerable Acts. I'm not sure to what degree the religious toleration expressed in the act was a factor -- I think the main complaint against it was that it placed the territories west of the Appalachians (into which the American colonies were eager to expand) under the governance of Quebec. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The October 1774 Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress wanted Parliament to repeal:

Also the act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law and government) of the neighboring British colonies, by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France.

While in the text of the Continental Association, Congress objected to:

...an act for extending the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, establishing an arbitrary government therein, and discouraging the settlement of British subjects in that wide extended country; thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them.

While the United States Declaration of Independence called the king to account:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.

So, there were a combination of issues relating to the Quebec Act that the British colonists objected to, but the primary thrust was that they didn't like that a large province with an unrepresentative government had been created on their borders, because such "an Arbitrary government" may convince the potentially hostile population of Quebec to help suppress the Protestant colonies. As it turned out, most French Canadians decided to sit this one out, although a minority joined on either side of the struggle. —Kevin Myers 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the Canadian/British perspective on this. While I don't expect this to be reflected in a (understandably) American-perspective article, in Canada we see the American War of Independence more as a reaction to the events set in motion by the Seven Years War, the (to the British) perfectly reasonable expectation for the settlers to bear some of the costs of this massive expansion of the English colonies, and the visceral reaction against the abandonment of the 1763 Proclamation Act, whose goal was assimilation of the French, and its replacement with the accommodating 1774 Quebec Act. For the French, the choice was between an accommodating British government or a generally anti-Catholic American government who saw no need to extend the rights of English settlers to French settlers.

What makes this of such great interest to Canadians is the fact that Canada is in large part a creation of what happened after 1763 and after 1776. And how this came about is, perhaps not surprisingly, seen in a very different light than in America. Canada Jack (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The main reason why the Quebec Act was considered an Intolerable Act was that Parliament reaffirmed the political structure that existed when the French controlled Quebec. The French had set up Quebec as a feudal colony with nobility (seigneurs) and serfs (habitants). Even though the habitants had a significantly higher standard of living than peasants in France or serfs in Russia and Prussia; the habitants were still serfs. They were required by law to give a tithe of 4% of their harvest to the Roman Catholic Church, 10% percent of their harvest to their nobleman who owned the land, one sack of flour out of every fourteen sacks to the nobleman because habitants could not own their own mills, and 8% of any money made by a habitant when they sold a part of their farm to another person (usually their children). All habitants fell under the corvée (mandatory labor) and mandatory enlistment in the Quebec militias controlled by the nobility. The expansion of Quebec into the modern day Mid-West of the United States also extended the feudal system of Quebec raising the possibility of British farming families settling in the region (both legally and illegally) to be reduced down to the level of serfs.--Thebigmac100 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Which of course was a bunch of nonsense, as the Loyalist settlers discovered once they moved into those very lands. The English systems were in fact quickly incorporated. To pretend that there was ever any serious threat that the "habitant" [sic] system would be extended would be as credible as all this "North American Union" talk we have today describing something just around the corner. But the propaganda and the general anti-catholic sentiment thus expressed won the day. Canada Jack (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Her, south of the Ohio River, the ancestor's major concern was lawful deed and titlte to land which had become based on the Quit-rent. This was far better than the pre-Seven Years War "hack on tree & field of corn" approach of Gov Dinnwiddy because of the lack of frontier surveyors who could not keep up with the pioneer settlers, in a manor of speaking. Virginia's "Chief Scribe" (Crowns local Tax Collector) was required to tax land based on 100 acre of surveyed land. This had been understood by the House of Burgess in the Virginia Colony. The scribe was oonly interested in collection of land & Indian Trade otherwise permit holding busness revenue within, here, the Virginia Colony. I'm not certain about the other Colonies lawful methods concerning collecting real estate taxes and lawful holding of land. The Allodial title was one of the biggest concerns as why some here were Tories at first. There are very many letters and reports I've read about this subject of "Good Title & Deed" during this period from 1768, especially, onward. Here, generally two things got Gove Dinwiddy fired and replced by Gov Dunmore; 1st he spent too much time in England causing a delay in Virginian approval offered up by the "House of Burgess" and the "Councel" and his enticing colonials to serve in the " Virginia Colonial Militia" with "Land Bounty" pay south-east of the Ohio River. The Commanders, after the War, chose with their men where their 2000 acres (on average per officer & a few upper officers were entitled to more or bought Bounty from others and some traded claims) and it was supposed to be sub-divided among them. They had to have a regional "government Agent" to sign off on these transactions, else, these "surveyed deeds" would need to go back to London itself to get authorized legal-- a serious problem for among others, the House of Burgess. Captain Crawford was one of the major surveyors asking to survey our area's counties before the Revolution for example. By this time, there were still colonial boundary disputes that the surveyors across several Colony's lawful surveyors were nearing to put to rest. Now it appeared that the Quebec Act would further the dispute of a "Good Deed" south of the Ohio River not knowing if any of the plans for a "14th Colony" would materialize for there was several Colonial ideas in the works for here, some confusion and serious questions of authority and losing lands as what happened here during the Eschetus Law (Cheet Mountain & River area) earlier by those of personal expierence who earlier lost land from these questionable concerns of Gov Dinnwiddy. So, the Quebec Act also caused some French & Indian War Veterans" to "sell-out" thier Land Bounty diy-ups" for cash. This caused a further problem with the selling of these "redeemed" lawful claims as who would be the lawful tender of these, the local sherif or the Colonial Governor or which authority? The Quebec Act was a Crowns' decission that put a serious problem to an already local lawful problem or question in getting a "good Land Deed". Lawful Treaty among Sovereign Nations (including Native American Nations) at that time was proper between Internaion recognized Governments, Nations of International Law-- Lawful Treaty aceptable by other Global Nations. Now with the Quebec Act (Interntional Treaty Lawful?), the question was wheather alredy surveyed land here be, using today's term, be "Grandfathered"? Or, need redone-- again? These technical difficulties are seldom mentioned in Introduction Level (high school level)broad scope history books. Thank you for your attention, 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts Bay Charter

Ive been editing broad arrow but know little about the section entitled Use in the American Colonies and the Massachusetts Bay Charter mast preservation clause (except what Ive gleaned from google). I invite editing and references from anyone knowledgeable - was it a contributing factor towards revolution? etc. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Revolution?"

I have to say I agree with the poster who inserted the note about whether the so-called American Revolution can indeed be properly called a "Revolution." I've always preferred to call it the "American War of Independence" and though I may be wrong on this count, many British historians call it that as well, as there were none of the hallmarks of what normally consitutes a "revolution" as there was no attempt or goal to overthrow the governing country itself, simply a movement to secede from that country.

However, I hasten to add that I do personally consider there to have been an "American Revolution," that being the COnstitution's creation and enactment in 1789, a truly revolutionary, in the sense of being "novel," document. Canada Jack (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor you refer to started pushing a particular POV on the article Articles of Confederation and has now expanded it to three other articles -- this one, United States Declaration of Independence, and American Revolutionary War. The POV is demonstrated by the source he is using to make his case -- a political web piece by a founding member of the League of the South, a Neo-Confederate group advocating current secession from the United States. The main discussion on the proposed changes are at Talk:Articles of Confederation#"Put to the test in the American Civil War” where the debate has been User:PhilLiberty against everybody else.

The issue of whether or not a true revolution occurred is addressed in Section 8.1 of the article -- this section certainly could be expanded with further references to scholarly, reliable sources. To the extent that I am familiar with this debate, I believe that it has been carried on without throwing in discussions of the term “secession”. Indeed, you will be hard pressed to find anybody in 1776 that used this term which is probably why historians generally don't try to squeeze in the term where it doesn't belong. British historian of the revoluton, Jeremy Black, makes it clear that the American Revolution was "one of a number of revolutions in an age of revolution."

In any event, it is certainly inappropriate to add a fringe, political opinion in the lead and present it as an uncontested fact. Calling the war a revolution is a majority view, denying its revolutionary qualities is a minority view, but calling it a secession is simply a fringe view that may or may not deserve any mention in the article. In any event, it certainly does not merit mention in the lead.

As far as the issue that you raise about “American Revolutionary War” versus the “American War for Independence”, both names are used at the main article, American Revolutionary War, and is apparently not particularly controversial -- if you want to add that term somewhere as an alternative, I doubt there would be any dispute (at least not from me). I am not aware of any British historians of the era that refer to it as a war of secession -- are you? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't buy that this is as "fringe" a viewpoint as you portray this, but while I agree somewhat with the argument he had set forth, I also agree that this dispute doesn't merit much play here, no more than what stood originally. So, while I sympathize with the argument, I agree that it doesn't warrant much attention on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

american bias

the article has a strong pro american voice to it, obviously this is understandable given its great importance to American, but efforts should be taken to give it a more neutral tone. for example there is no reference to the fact the boston tea party was over a tax cut, that cut into smugglers profits. though i am no great fan perhaps some of Niall Ferguson analysis should be included in order to better balance the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Would the anonymous poster please provide some proof for these statements? As I understand it, the Boston Tea Party was indeed very much in reaction to a tax - a tax that was specifically NOT reduced or repealed as a symbolic gesture. Smugglers were indeed impacted - smugglers for whom a large portion of their business was circumventing taxes that intentionally kept the colonial economies subservient to the parent country, specifically targeting these colonies and preventing free trade with other nations without the benefit of representation in the political body thousands of miles away that made the tax laws. I don't contend this article is perfectly balanced, but it doesn't deserve the tag based on these accusations, and so I am removing it. Shoreranger (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Shore, I think the anonymous poster has a point. Not really relevant to wade into the issues - I think everyone here is aware that circa 1775 American colonists viewed taxes from London as unwarranted. But that is the American perspective. The British/Canadian perspective is that Americans had an very slight tax to pay - the equivalent in modern terms in one calculation I've seen of paying for a movie and a pizza one night a year. And, given the correct point that that was a tax cut (I am amazed how many Americans don't know this), the colonists, from this perspective, were incredibly stingy people who elevated their cheapness by calling for "revolution." Like going to the Supreme Court to fight a parking ticket. And, the very real issue of the debt some of the rich colonists owed to the mother country which the revolution conveniently wiped out is not mentioned either. The point is, the principled motivations so often ascribed to the colonists are seen quite differently from others. However, even given what I wrote, I don't see this article as being so overly weighted so to as completely ignoring the British view ("virtual representation" as a response to "no taxation..." for example is here) that it warrants the tag. Canada Jack (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the POV tag and have also removed the "globalize" tag for the same reasons. Recently the issue was addressed with respect to the Loyalists and compromises were reached to clarify and expand references to this group. In any case, the IP has not made a case or even provided sufficient information to generate much of a conversation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As is often the case... both views of this are correct... There was indeed a tax 'cut'. This did cut into the profits that American smugglers such as John Hancock were accustomed to. But this only affected a few. The thing that the majority of colonists objected to was the tax itself, not how much it was. Most Americans (including many who ended up as Tories) felt that Parliament had no right to tax them in the first place... at least not without their consent (ie representation in Parliament). Parliament, of course, disagreed with that assessment. Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack, Blue may have said it more clearly, but I tried to cover the same point in my first post: The whole thing is about representative government and the right to impose law - ANY law, whether it is taxes or anything else. "Stingy" - if that is how the Commonwealth needs to characterize the American colonists - ain't got nuttin to do with it. Tax law is just something that affects everyone, and in the case of the taxes specifically chosen to impose on the colonists at this time, were intentionally placed on items that all levels of income would have to pay to send a message, and therefore got the most attention as examples of unjustified law. At the core of the whole thing is the right to pass laws, the right to representation, and the percieved denial of rights guaranteed - first discussed as guaranteed to colonists under the English Bill of Rights but later discussed by revolutionaries as God-given rights. Again, I never said this article is perfectly balanced, but the rationale given in the first anon. post was no rationale at all. I am glad Jack takes note that virtual representation theory is noted, but I certainly wouldn't mind more on that excuse by Parliament for passing colonial law, and more clarity on the American republican (small "r") position, if someone wants to add it. I realize these may be fine points of political theory for many readers of the article, and that it may seem to make little difference in the modern context, but to contemporaries this was a big deal and - in fact - the core of what makes the whole thing "revolutionary". Therefore, it is a disservice to us all to allow ambiguity or distractions like implications a whole society was just too cheap to pay taxes as significant. Shoreranger (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point perfectly, but that is not the point... My point is simply whether the viewpoints on the issue are adequately reflected. You say "stingy" has nothing to do with? You miss the point - that is the other perspective. The American perspective is that the issue was having a say in the matter. The Brits see it as a naked grab of land and resources over phony grievances. IOW, the Brits never saw this as really being about a tax or an issue of colonial rights. But why would they? They weren't the one who felt their rights were being suppressed! Canada Jack (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Shoreranger (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The British justification for the taxes is given in the article -- the following paragraph is an example:

The British did not expect the colonies to contribute to the interest or the retirement of debt incurred during the French and Indian War, but they did expect a portion of the expenses for colonial defense to be paid by the Americans. Estimating the expenses of defending the continental colonies and the West Indies to be approximately £200,000 annually, the British goal after the end of this war was that the colonies would be taxed for £78,000 of this needed amount.[16] The issues with the colonists were both that the taxes were high and that the colonies had no representation in the Parliament which passed the taxes. Lord North in 1775 argued for the British position that Englishmen paid on average twenty-five shillings annually in taxes whereas Americans paid only sixpence (the average Englishman, however, also earned quite a bit more while receiving more services directly from the government).[17]

If some IPs out there don't think this goes far enough, then the constructive thing to do would be to add sourced material rather than simply throwing around tags as their first -- and only -- efforts on this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

they imposed taxes because they saw it as unfair that British taxpayer was solely responsible for the cost of the colonies and responsed to domestic pressure to have the colonies contribute toward this and the debts generated by the seven years war. north shoreman unilaterial removal of tags is bad conduct, and the problem is clearly biased, now i have now great feeling either way but i do know noted historian Niall Ferguson does as he present these ideas in both his book and television show empire. addedum obviously some american bias is going to be unavoidable as the event is of infinitely more importance to americans being a cornerstone of there history than anyone else but you should always strive to reduce it while reach for the wikipedia goal of NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of folks other than just me seem to view your tagging as inappropriate. Vandalizing people's talk pages is not the best way to make your point. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've shown above, the material you CLAIM is missing is in fact already in the article, isn't it. Are you through discussing the subject or will you address the SPECIFICS of what you want added to the article? You appear to be distorting the central message that Ferguson provides in "Empire" -- did you read the book or just watch a TV show? On pages 73-74, after first mentionig on page 71 the material already included in this article regarding the French and Indian War, Ferguson writes of the period after 1739:

By 1739 it seemed to one royal official that the colonies were effectively 'Independent Common Wealths', with legislatures that were effectively 'absolute within their respective Dominions' and barely 'accountable for their Laws or Actions' to the crown.

But this proved to be the cue for a fresh wave of centralizing initiatives from London before, during and after the Seven Years War. It is in this constitutional context that the debates over taxation in the 1760s need to be understood. The heavy-handed attempt by Lord North's government to bring the unruly legislators of Massachusetts to heal after the Tea Party by simply closing the port of Boston and imposing military rule was merely the last of many affronts to colonial legislators.

In fact, Ferguson's work, in emphasizing the issue of "taxation without representation" and British efforts to flex their muscles in order to politically and economically control the colonies, is fully consistent with the existing article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

i haven't read his books, speaking to the arrogant bastard was more than enough of his viewpoints to last lifetime

I think you are correct, Tom. The tag is unjustified. Canada Jack (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Amen. Amen, already. Shoreranger (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

i'm glad the pre existing editors all agree that the prior status quo was fine unfortunately i dispute than thus it is disputed, i would recommend putting forward a request for comment

Put through the RFC if you want -- nobody is stopping you on that. The discussion on the alleged dispute has been pretty one-sided. The IP raised a SINGLE point and has failed to address any of the responses made regarding that point. The article itself has numerous cites and the dissenter has only one reference (from an "arrogant bastard") which does not even agree with the IP's allegations. Absent any sincere effort to actually engage in debate, tagging the article, IMO, is frivolous. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

British change of approach

The history describing the causes of the revolution seems to me a bit lacking in some important fundamentals.

The reality is that, despite the American attitude that the colonists invented their form of government, the British had inadvertently invented it for them and then, without realizing it tried to change it. In order to allow the colonies to thrive (bearing in mind that originally the British had trouble even getting any colonies to take hold) the Crown essentially gave the colonies mostly full control of their destinies and asked next to nothing in return. The British essentially provided a military which protected the colonies and a high-level but very limited legal framework that guaranteed certain basic rights. Other than that, though, the individual colonies were given a lot of (de facto) freedom to regulate their own affairs and Britain was, for a long time, simply grateful that they could claim a colonial empire and, later, that it was prospering to the point of giving them a powerful trade network. This de facto formula of governance that the British never intentionally tried to formulate was what the colonists tried to follow when they set up their government and separated powers between the States and the central government (at first out of paranoia they made the central government extremely weak but soon realized they had to create a central authority with at least a little bit of power). The Revolutionary War essentially came about as a result of the fact that many British began to resent the free ride the colonists were getting and began to demand that they pay their fair share (this, of course, was not an entirely correct perception in Britain but still ...). The colonists, in a sense, had developed a gross misperception (largely enabled by Britain's never doing anything to challenge that perception) that the British regarded the colonies as separate states from England with their own rights, legislatures, etc. When reality came down the colonists simply refused to accept it.

This whole history explains a lot of how the early U.S. developed and why a lot of things happened (not to mention clarifying how the British and the colonists got on such completely different pages in their thinking). The philosophical ideals that fed into the justification of the revolution are important to but (and forgive me for being a little cynical) the reality is that the philosophical ideals cited by the founding fathers and others were at least in part rationalizations to justify their wanting to resist the changes to the de facto arrangement they had had with Britain for a long time. This is not to say that their statements were not sincere or that there isn't merit to their arguments, but one should be careful not believe (as this article a little bit implies) that the colonists made their decisions based simply solely on rational Enlightenment.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

First Republican goverment?

Not sure it can claim to be the first republic since Rome (even the first democratic one). The Corsican Republic, Dutch Republic and English republic (before Oliver Cromwell became a dictator in 1653) all preceded it. I have a feeling there may have been others too. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the Dutch example, and so looked into it a little further, and it appears that there was no direclty elected representation, and so the democratic element is missing. The Cromwellian, and certianly the Corsican, examples seem more like failed experiments than effective comparisions. With the existing qualifications, the statement appears justified. Perhaps rephrasing to the first "successful" democratically elected republican government since anceint Rome would fully capture it? Shoreranger (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The wording is much better now thank you, but it should possibly include a reference to the Corsicans. While the English and Dutch Republics fail the "successful" and "democracy" tests (the Dutch like a number of Italian states called themselves "republic", but lacked any significant democratic apparatus and the English republic failed because of the coup by Cromwell, and the later restoration of Charles II) it could be contended the Corsican Republic was both democratic and successful.

It lasted for fourteen years, and it was ended by external forces - an invasion by the French rather than a domestic failing as a system. The Corsicans and their founder Paoli were a cause celebre in the eighteenth century particulary in Britain and America (where several places were named after him), and were an influence on the founders of the American Republic. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mercantilism and Depression - Economic Causes of the Revolution

I have noticed that these two causes of the American Revolution have not been addressed by the article. Both of these subjects do play a factor in igniting the American Revolution.

The first factor is Mercantilism. One of the core principals of Mercantilism is that a colony exists for only two purposes: 1) the manufacture of raw materials for the home country; and 2) the consumption of finished products from the home country. The American Duties Act of 1764, the Currency Act, Stamp Act, and the other acts are more than just tax bills. They are also economic bills that affect the economies of all the British Colonies. These acts did cause economic distress throughout all of the colonies as merchant companies and businesses were damaged by provisions that exclusively favored British merchants. The best example of how Mercantilism played a part in the American Revolution occurs in the American Duties Act with the importation of Madeira Wine from Portugal by British colonial merchants. The Act imposes a tax of seven pound sterling per tun (a cask holding about 252 gallons) on Americans buying wine from the Portuguese while British merchants only paid 10 shilling per tun. The reason why these provisions were placed in the Duties Act is the following: 1) The elimination of direct trade between British colonists and the Portuguese 2) The elimination of Colonial merchant companies from competing with British merchant companies 3) The elimination of Colonial barrel makers and fishermen from competing with British barrel makers and fishermen. The barrels manufactured by colonists and fish caught by colonist were the principal trade items sold by Colonial merchants for Portuguese wine. 4) The boosting of profits of British wine wholesalers who can pay more taxes by driving up the price of wine to make the colonists pay for it. 5) The imposition of multiple duties that the colonials would have to pay as the wine is taxed each time it enters or leaves a port, sold from one merchant to another, or transported from one colony to another colony. 6) The forcing of colonists to buy cheaper alcoholic products made by British businesses.

The second factor that caused the American Revolution was economic depression. In the summer of 1763, the leading Amsterdam money house of Gebroders de Neufvilles went into bankruptcy. Their collapse leads to the failing of over 30 financial companies in Amsterdam and 95 financial companies in Hamburg. This financial collapse would sweep across every European nation and plunge the continent into an economic depression that would last into 1771 to 1773 depending upon the country. This financial collapse and economic depression spills over with more severe effect in the American colonies. The combination of the Currency Act which deliberately devalued colonial currency to favor British merchant and financial companies affected by the depression; the demobilization of nearly 90,000 Americans who served in the provincial militias and provided manpower for construction and operation of the supply lines; the collapse of American merchant and financial companies that dragged down other businesses that were tied into them; and the flood of nearly 350,000 immigrants fleeing the depression in Great Britain to the colonies provided another catalyst for the American Revolution.--Thebigmac100 (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

volcanic eruption

wasnt there one that occured and had a global effect during this war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murakumo-Elite (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of the Laki eruption of 1783. It came a bit too late to effect the revolution much. -Duribald (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When did they cease being colonies?

There have been some edits that seem to stem from confusion about the status of what was the Thirteen Colonies after they became self-governing, but before the United States Declaration of Independence. This is a good question, and can be answered by looking at the facts.

Colonies, by definition, are governed by a state. The Thirteen Colonies became self-ruled ("self-governing") before they signed the Declaration of Independence, many (if not all) declaring themselves states by 1776. They did consider themselves a part of the British Empire, but were not ruled directly by Parliament, similar to Canada or Australia today and their relationship with the Commonwealth of Nations (similar, but not the same). Perhaps one could look at it as the Thirtten Colonies seperating themselves from the United Kingdom Parliament, but not from the Crown, at first. Therefore, the signing of the Declaration did not determine the change in colony status (that had already occured), but a change in status in relation to the Empire - which was a seperation from it. At that point they were seperated from the governance of Parliament AND the Crown. These are different things, and follow an evolutionary pattern in relation to the Revolution. Shoreranger (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is a matter of definition. Do you have an academic source that defines the colonies/states as non-colonies in 1774? The British called them the Thirteen Colonies until the Treaty of Paris was signed. We can't just make up our own definitions. -Duribald (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Trying to prove "non-colony" is a logical fallacy, I think. What needs to be determined is if, after 1774-1775, they meet the definition of colony. Colonies are under the direct political control of a state. That definition does not apply to the 13 'political entities' between 1774/75-1776. Shoreranger (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
    • You will need a published source supporting this. It does not seem to be a standard interpretation. Rmhermen (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I did not think this was anything but a common definition. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

col·o·ny (kl-n) n. pl. col·o·nies 1. a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country. b. A territory thus settled. 2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency. (emphasis added)

There was no precedent for the American Revolution, so modern definitions are a little anachronistic. I believe that would be true of the first definition, which I suspect is only true *since* the American Revolution, when the Empire eventually changed its policies to allow some self-governance of its overseas territories as long as they remained "subject to" the Crown, in order to avoid any more Revolutionary Wars - becoming colonies no more, but Dominions or Commonwealth Nations. Throwing off the governance of Parliament, while staying in the Empire, had no precedence. That is part of what makes this revolutionary. Seperating from the Empire in 1776 was more revolutionary, and republican democracy just went even further revolutionarily.Shoreranger (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may add a comment and then let you all decide.

The moment that the declaration of Independence was adopted should be the time when the colonies stopped being colonies and became states. This is because, if for some reason the vote on Independence failed, then that would have meant that congress had decided to remain colonies rather than become states. The declaration itself admits that That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.... That says they are not colonies until after a vote. Thank you and Happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is a bit tricky to go by what the British called the "13" up to 1783. We don't go by what the Americans called George III (a "prince") now do we? On a side note, Shore, I think you grossly exaggerate the links between Canada and Australia to Britain today. While Britain had some say in both countries' rule up to the last century (in Canada's case the last vestige was removed in 1982) the current status is merely an association, a glorified club of states with related histories. Canada and Australia in no way consider themselves to be part of a "British Empire."

• • • • Upon further research it seems that, for instance, New York did not declare itself a state until 1776, though a sepearate act from signing the Declaration. I still think the defining element is self-governance, but if they did not refer to themselves as states until 1776 that is counter-indicative to my point. Shoreranger (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • Joj: It was not my intention to draw a parallel to the current Commonwealth (that is why I included paranthetically "similar, but not the same") - and I was refering to the period after the American Revolution and before they were *given* more independence, but not full, regardless of their current status. They all, techinically, nevertheless recognize the Crown as the head of state (who's on the money?). Being given independence is not the same as soverignty, and without soverignty the implication is that whatever is given can be taken away. Practical impossibility? Perhaps. Legally and theoretically - perhaps not. I also don't agree with your assessment of the Declaration. Your quote holds the key: "ARE, and by rights aught to be, free and independent states". Plainly, the "ARE" means they were already states, before signing. This is actually a point in favor of my arguement. Shoreranger (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Shore, the comments on Canada were made by me - forgot to tag it properly, sorry about that. But when it comes to the Head of State, you are wildly incorrect. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen's role as Head of State is defined by the Canadian constitution. Who that person is is irrelevant, we define who that person shall be and what that person's powers are. She could be a Canadian or a Brit, or from Costa Rica. The fact that she is not a Canadian is irrelevant - her powers as we define them are what is relevant and what she can do in her role is, basically, what we tell her to do.

As for there being a distinction between being "given" independence instead of fighting for it, that's a rather bizarre thing to say. If it is ceded or gained through war, it is still sovereignty. Are the liberated countries of Europe post WWII in some ways less sovereign because foreigners fought for their freedom, their sovereignty? Canadians have no role in Dutch politics nor can we expect to have some role because we "gave" them independence. The determining role on sovereignty is whether the structure of government is such that foreign entities have a say. In Canada, that ended in 1982 when the last vestige of foreign control was removed. Britain via the Queen in no way has "control" theoretical or otherwise over Canada than Austria does over California by dint of one of its sons being the governor there. In America, clearly, sovereignty commenced the moment people there declared their governments to be beholden to no other powers. And that was in 1776. That reality was recognized in a legal sense when Britain effectively gave up its claims to its American colonies in Paris in 1783, but that was the de facto case from 1776 as nothing Britain did or tried to do was actionable within the United States. Canada Jack (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Shore, your argument for the 1774-76 status works at best strictly from an American POV. As far as the British were concerned, the 13 (whatevers) were in fact colonies under the political control of parliament until 1783, regardless of the difficulties in actually enforcing that control. To use a different analogy, were the states of the Confederacy independent of the U.S. from 1861-65, or did they remain continuously part of the United States and under federal control, despite Lincoln's difficulties in actually enforcing that control? Unless we simply let the victors write history, it would seem that the answer is, both. Which is to say, there are valid arguments to call them colonies, or states from some point variably around 1774-76, but "former colonies" seems wrong to me. CAVincent (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In the rule that history will continue! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.97.189 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)