Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Combatants" section

This is confusing as well as redundant. There is already a simple listing of combatants in the infobox. A more chronological organization of the article would in my opinion make for a clearer and more concise account of the war. The present strategy of summarizing the characteristics of each force (and not even all of them, there is this apparently arbitrary distinction that only those in conflicts before 1778 should be included) makes for poor flow and contributes to the current inane nomenclature ordeal. I think the section should be merged into the rest of the article, which, like most other war articles on the site, is chronological and geographical. Llakais (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And erroneous. The Massachusetts Bucks were raised in the 1780's; including them under the present title is a falsehood.

Redundancy depends on your view of infoboxes. My view is that everything they say should be in the text, so that it can be sourced, and qualified if necessary. Two examples here: Brunswick was not a belligerent, it hired troops to the King of Great Britain; it should also be stated that the Indians of New England fought on the American side, although the present text allows for it. That this did them little good is off-topic here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mysore & Ireland

Shouldn't the Kingdom of Mysore be listed as a combatant on the anti-British side, as the Third Mysore War was effectively an extension of the American Revolutionary War.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Ireland should be listed as a full combatant on the British side, rather than volunteers which is misleading. The Kingdom of Ireland was tied to the British Crown, but it did still function as an indepdent entity. There was an Irish Army, which was supported by the finances of the Irish Parliamentm, and it contributed disproportinatly to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the Kingdom of Ireland should not be included, unless Hanover is; His Britannic Majesty's realms did not conduct war independently; so Irish volunteers should be dropped. Considering Ireland's actions in 1782, however, there is an argument they made a separate peace.... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Mysore War

I have trimmed the following text from the Mysore section. It is extraneous in nature, and is duplicated in the article itself regarding the Second Mysore War. Alphageekpa (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted: "The Second Mysore war came to an end by the Treaty of Mangalore. It is an important document in the history of India. It was the last occasion when a Native Indian power dictated terms to the British, who were made to play the role of humble supplicants for peace. Warren Hasting called it a humiliating pacification, and appealed to the king and Parliament to punish the Madras Government for "the faith and honor of the British nation have been equally violated."

Discussion regarding inclusion of Hessians and other German combatants

I re-added Brunswick-Lüneburg. This state contributed significant forces to the war in North America (so called Hessians). On the other hand and as far as I know, Hanover did not though it's likely they contributed to the related conflicts in Europe. I also raised Brunswick-Lüneburg a few notches in the list as it's contingent sizes were indeed important, numerically more so than American-Indians (though those might have had more strategic impact, particularly on the war in the west and north). Though maybe we should think over the best way to order this type of information, I tend to go by contingent size or alphabetical, but in this case it woudl be logical to Great Britain in the first slot, rather than Brunswick-Lüneburg if we were to opt for full alphabetic...--Caranorn (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Likely" does not satisfy the prerequisite for inclusion in a factual article. I will thus remove Hanover for now. Organization of the infobox should definitely be by contribution to the war effort, from largest to smallest. To have it any other way would be confusing. How exactly did Brunswick-Lüneburg contribute - was the state a mere facilitator of a volunteer mercenary force, or did it actually receive sizable compensation for managing a significant part in the effort? (i.e., was it the Hessians themselves who organized their contribution, or did the actual state of Brunswick-Lüneburg directly sell (and subsequently manage) its military services to the British Crown?) Llakais (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is more information about them in the Hessians (soldiers) article. But if you still wish added information let me know overnight and I'll take a look tomorrow as that article has a seemingly excellent link (forgot whether it was in English or German, if the former you might take a look yourself) which might answer your questions. But for now I'll say that the regiments and battalions in question were regular units of Brunswick-Lüneburg, under command of their own officers etc. though they were usually integrated with other German units and/or British, Loyalist etc. I will see whether I can find any information about the Hanovrians (maybe Cornwallis knows as I have a memory of some of their units being moved to Gibraltar to relieve British regiments).--Caranorn (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all very confusing. From that article, it looks as though the mercenaries came from a half-dozen other German states as well, under various circumstances. This may be a test of the practicality of the infobox, but it would certainly be nice to have a somewhat standard list of just exactly who was fighting in the colonies. How that fits into what the infobox calls "belligerents" I don't really know. Llakais (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the total numbers given on the linked site I talked about yesterday [1]. Brunswick - 5723; Hesse-Kassel - 16992 (note there is an obvious error in the sourc which gives 6992, but has 12805 arriving in 76 and 10492 returnin, so the erro was easy to identify and correct); Hesse-Hanau 2422; Anspach-Bayreuth 2353; Waldeck 1225; Anhalt-Zerbst 1152. It would indeed make little sense to add all of these to the infobox. We could either keep it as now with just the largest two, or instead make one entry as either Hessians or German contingents, in both cases without flag (flag should also be removed from Prussian Volunteers I think as those do not seem to have been sent by that state and we don't present the Polish-Lithuanian flag either).--Caranorn (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your suggestion of one entry sans flag. It should make for less confusion overall and a short statement in the article could give the details, should we decide that they are relevant. Llakais (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

over the course of the war the British hired about 30,000 soldiers from German princes

I'm going to reword the line above. Great Britain did not simply hire Germans to go to North America. They signed treaties of support from various German states. 98.226.165.179 (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding discrepancies between infobox and main article body

I think it is also worth noting that inconsistencies now exist between the "Strength" section of the infobox, and details provided in the "Combatants before 1778" section. For example, in the infobox under Great Britain, an "Iroquouis Warrior" strength of 5,000 is listed. However, the "Native Americans" section in the body of the article states "An estimated 13,000 warriors fought on the British side; the largest group, the Iroquois Confederacy, fielded about 1,500 men." Other numbers just don't add up either. If intentional, discrepancies should be explained as such. Alphageekpa (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be very difficult to gauge the strength of Indian forces as these varied from year to year. On the other hand, the second number, in the body of the text, is sourced while the infobox number is at least not directly sourced. Therefore if in doubt I'd go for the numbers in the body of the text. Note, I will edit the infobox with the numbers I gave above, if anyone disagrees just revert and we can discuss it out here.--Caranorn (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did as I said above. After looking at the infobox now I think it might not have been the best idea as the information is now disproportionally German. Alternatively one could add up the German contingents in one number with the breakdown in the reference/note.--Caranorn (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Note also that currently Loyalists are only given one number which seems to include both Militia and Regulars. I'd propose if we can find reliable numbers that we either split Loyalists into two or deduct the number of Regulars from the Loyalists and add it to the British Regulars (with a note explaining this). Currently the British Regulars numbers appear ridiculously low (though they could be correct for just British units if we assume an average of 400 men per battalion and 30 battalions (I'd have to look up orders of battle to see whether this is indeed close to the actual number of battalions engaged). But we should also note that the numbers in the infobox are obviously just those serving in North America and thereby also fall under the above discssion about global perspective... I'm going to make one minor change to the infobox in that respect, if there is disagreement feel free to revert.--Caranorn (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what I wanted to change is part of the infobox template, so I'll leave it be for now. But I think we should make it apparent that the strength numbers (of both sides) refer only to the North American conflict and not to the related conflicts. Off to other projects now.--Caranorn (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, now it just looks plain silly and confusing. That information is all fair game for the Hessians article, but is just WAY too much detail for an infobox. The standard term of "Hessians" should suffice, or even "German mercenaries." Alphageekpa (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Caranorn is right about the Hanoverians serving at Gibraltar. They made up roughly a third of the garrison, according to the Osprey Book on the subject - and another contingent served at Minorca. Probably enough to count them as an active combatant in the war, I should think, althrough I don't know too much about infobox critirea. Are there set guidlines or is it done on a more individual article basis? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to find a simple way for the infobox to explain that the numbers are for operations in North America only. The opposite would turn into an even worse mess I fear, particularly as we will have a difficult time adding numbers from various sources. But in some form all parties involved in war globally should be represented in the article (minimally via links). Note, I cannot resolve the casualties numbers from its reference. Did someone introduce unsourced numbers at some point, the current ones far exceed anything in the source.--Caranorn (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All of these entries have a common problem: there are two figures to be computed: total number of men in arms at some time in the nine years of war, and average fighting strength over time. Only for the American army are these systematically distinguished. (For the Iroquois, there is a third figure: total male Iroquois of fighting age, but this is likely to be the same, allowing for errors of estimate, as the whole number who actually fought.)

For the Americans, we give 250,000 and 90,000; for the Loyalists, by implication, 25,000 and 10,000, about the same ratio. (25,000 is fairly high, btw; this is comparable to other estimates of total Loyalists numbers, male and female, and of all ages.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the commanders

This is just a small suggestion, but i think that the following commanders should be given the correct national flag beside their name, otherwise it is misleading for a lower educated reader:

1. Friedrich Wilhelm - Prussian
2. Kosciuszko - Polish-Lithuianian
3. Benedict Arnold - British
4. La Fayette - French
5. John Paul Jones - British (Scottish)
6. Richard Montgomery - British (Irish)
7. Horatio Gates - British

EuropeanPatriot (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Those commanders fought for the Americans, not any other nation.-Kieran4 (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

flags for the forces commanded, not country of origin.pohick (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

France Moderne

We certainly should not use the blank white flag we had been using for the flag of France; it's not visible. The eighteenth-century arms of France were blue, with three fleurs-de-lys; the argent, seme de lys or is heraldically doubtful (no metal on metal is one of the few actual rules of heraldry), unfamiliar, and appear to arise from some editor's confusion between the banner of the King (as opposed to other Frenchmen) and the arms of France (as opposed to England). The source of the confusion appears to be Template_talk:Country_data_France, where I have raised it; come and discuss there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted for now as I can only find reference to either the white semy of fleur de lis (yes, obviously à enquerre, but that doesn't discount them) or the pure white. Another alternative, but probably inapropriate would be the civil fleet flag (blue with a white cross). I'll come take a look at the template talk now, just thought I'd quickly add this note (I had not seen this entry before I reverted).--Caranorn (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I shall surrevert. This reference, from a book catalogue, is the best I can find on-line for the arms of the House of Bourbon, which appears to be the confusion involved; but see any work on Heraldry; they remained the arms of the Kingdom of France (as opposed to the banner of the King) for as long as the kingdom lasted. (And the gold on silver is unrecognizable, as much for the size of the the flowers as their heraldry.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote

what's with the quote at the beginning of the article. Should it be there? diego_pmc (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it keeps things clear. Red4tribe (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A Question

How should the countries/armies be reffered to as in the infobox? I notice that some say Great Britain, while others say the British Army. The same is for the United States and the Continental Army. I think we need to be consistent with this, so which one do you think would be better to have? The country or the army?Red4tribe (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the country, because the army represents the forces of that nation, if that makes sense? But then again, you could have the country, I'd say that country would save confusion, for example if we have say "Continental Army" some people who don't know as much about the American Revolution may not know what that army's allegience is. Or we could do a combination, say the United States Army as a combatant. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Guerrilla warfare

Is there any truth to the stories that the Americans won partly because they were shooting from trees, etc. while the British marched at them in straight lines? How important was that? Also, how important was their use of marksmen to pick off British generals? What about surprise raids? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Murray Rothbard (who wrote the four volume "Conceived in Liberty") guerrilla warfare was very important. George Washington didn't recognize this early on, and would have had his army wiped out on several occasions, were not his opponent, General Howe, even more incompetent. Here's an excerpt from a Rothbard speech:

The Americans were a people in arms, a mobile people that knew their particular terrain, and who were imbued with a deep sense of their rights and of the iniquity of the British invasion of those rights. When combating Burgoyne, the Americans, led by British-born libertarian General Horatio Gates, shrewdly avoided, until the very end at Saratoga, direct confrontation with the superior firepower of the highly trained British invasion force.

Instead, Gates, aided by influxes of armed civilians who joined the fray as their own counties and districts were being invaded, wore down the British forces by guerrilla harassment. An example particularly heart-warming to libertarians, is the case of General John Stark, who had resigned from the American army and retired to his native New Hampshire in pique at shabby treatment by his superiors. But when a troop sent out by Burgoyne invaded southwestern Vermont, Stark rose up, mobilized the militia and other volunteers from New Hampshire and Vermont, and clobbered the British troops at the Battle of Bennington.

Gates and Stark, and later the victor of the decisive final Southern campaign, General Nathaniel Greene, were following the theories and the vision of their mentor, the forgotten and unsung hero of the revolutionary war, General Charles Lee, second in command of the American army during the first years of the war.

Lee was a fascinating character, an English military genius and soldier of fortune and a radical laissez-faire libertarian, who, as soon as he heard of the events leading up to the Boston Tea Party and the developing break with his native country, rushed to America to take part in the revolution. It was Lee who fused the political and the military together to develop the principles, strategies, and tactics of revolutionary guerrilla warfare, which he called "people's war." Every American military victory in the war was fought on people's war, guerrilla principles; every defeat was suffered when America tried to play the age-old game of inter-state warfare between two disciplined state armies marching to meet each other in open frontal combat. - Libertarians of Will, Intellect, and Action, Keynote Address to the Libertarian Party Convention, 1977

PhilLiberty (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Only in the Carolinas, and there (as Francis Marion said) because the Americans ran away from field battles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

George's Flag.

HM has a Union Jack from after the foundation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Which hadn't happened at the time)whilst every other lag is the Correct Kingdom of Great Britain Flag.(Morcus (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

NPOV

Reading this article it looks like the US won the war solo, with some assistance (which was mostly inept) from some other countries, one of which happened to be France. This is evident in the introduction and throughout the article. The introduction is particularly blatant, mentioning non-American intervention only as an after thought. Should the WWI and WWII articles mention American intervention as an afterthought too? Am I the only one to think this is a problem? Codik (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the intro so that it is less laughable. Codik (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree especially Yorktown Pohick2 (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is Spain here?

I know that Spain's participation in the American Revolutionary War is less know that others, like France's help, but that's because until Spain made a public declaration of war to Britain on July 22 of 1779, helped the revolutionary form of secret, even from before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. His first contribution was made available to the Americans one million Tornese pounds (currency of the time), which were purchased significant materials of war. The economic contribution of Spain, especially through its colonial Louisiana, in the territory of North America, Mexico and Cuba, was heavy throughout the war (1775-1783). Has been tabulated, although not completely, and remains on file in Mexico and Cuba (it is unknown whether now remain in this country).

Juan de Miralles, who was born in Spain of French parents, and settled at a very young man in Cuba, where he amassed a large fortune, was the first diplomatic agent of Spain to the Continental Congress. Their efforts were important for the American rebels. Thanks to him they had an immense help from Spain, with the discretion that this nation required until the open declaration of war against the British in 1779.

In the view of historian Herminio Portell-Vilá, probably relations between the U.S. and Cuba have been different had lived Miralles when Washington became president. Although it is not possible to know the degree of friendship that came to exist between the two men, there is sufficient evidence, including letters of General Washington, to assume that the relations between them were narrow and lined with a sincere friendship.

Unfortunately Miralles only met the head of the Washington-independence forces, who admired and supported, not the Washington president of the United States. In the harsh winter of 1780, Miralles developed symptoms of pneumonia while traveling in a Filafelfia Morristown, NJ in the uncomfortable and unprotected carriages of the time, to meet with Washington. On arrival he was staying in the room more comfortable in the Ford Mansion, the residence at the time of General Washington and his family. Carefully attended by physicians and Washington's wife, Martha C. Washington, Miralles died the evening of April 28 in 1780. His funeral, led by General Washington as one of the mourners were surrounded by great solemnity. Shortly after his body was transported to Havana where he received burial.

It was precisely Havana, from beginning to end, the center of operations for Spain's help to the rebels Americans. The reign of King Carlos III had come to the conclusion that Cuba, for its size, its geographic position (it was called Key of the New World and Antemural of the Indies), its resources, its people, its shipyards, arsenals and naval stores, was the ideal territory to help patriotic Americans. It was at that moment, the most powerful stronghold of the Americas, in addition, because of its proximity to the Thirteen Colonies.

In Havana were repaired the American artillery and warships. From there started shipments of aid to war to stop and there were thousands of British prisoners of war. In Cuba are recruited and trained militia of blacks and whites. The Spaniards also used, although in smaller numbers, territory of Mexico, Santo Domingo and Puerto Rico. One of the episodes showing that Americans did not win its war of independence only with the help of the French, proclaims the majority of American historians, was the decisive role played by the Spanish Count Bernardo de Galvez, who in mid - 1779, along with the news that Spain had come openly into the war, he came from Havana his appointment as governor of Louisiana.

After a hurricane destroyed or dispersed the ships in New Orleans that was prepared to go up the Mississippi, Galvez said that he was ready to give our lives to defend Louisiana from the English, if the neighbors were in agreement and supported him in the gesture. In a few days organized an expedition of 667 men, including 330 Mexican soldiers, militiamen from Cuba, 80 free blacks and mulattoes, Venezuelans, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Guatemalans and 7 volunteers whites.

The troop was struck after the coup, beating the British and winning the whole basin of the Mississippi. In 1781, and there were no British forces in the region. This represented the rear of Pennsylvania, Virginia and southern Georgia, which prevented the English could help the Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis, head of British forces in the decisive battle of Yorktown.

Later, with other reinforcements, Galvez siege and surrendered Mobile and Panzacola, the two main British bases for trade and naval operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The attack on Panzacola, heavily manned by the British, Galvez was able to do traveling to Cuba, where he managed and was granted on 11 August 1780, to organize an expedition under his command in 4000 in Havana men, who were sumanrian 2000 more contributed by Mexico, and all who might join in Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo.

The expedition departed from Havana with men, plus ships, frigates and other vessels as well as accoutrements of war, food and medicine. But a hurricane has scattered the ships and caused heavy losses. Galvez was unable to attack Panzacola on that occasion.

But in early 1781, the firm Galvez returned to Havana and its persistent efforts succeeded another issue more or less similar, which would join later, in full conflict, a powerful fleet that went in, apart Cubans Recruits sent from Mexico, Guatemala and Venezuela. On May 8 Panzacola surrendered. The Venezuelan master Francisco de Miranda was in charge of negotiations for surrender, since they spoke English.

Francisco de Miranda, also in Cuba would manage money for the troops in Washington. Subsequently, De Miranda go down in history as a precursor to the independence of Hispanic America.

The Battle of Yorktown ended with the surrender of British forces, commanded by Charles Cornwallis, 17 October 1781. There were no peace negotiations because the victorious rebels refused to make until we recognize the independence of the colonies, which took more than a year. At the end it took effect on King George III in the speech of the crown on December 5, 1782.

A new nation, the United States, was born. But the crucial assistance from Spain and Latin America was relegated to oblivion by those who write the story without the aid of honesty.

One of the legacies from Spanish to U.S. currency was the dollar, that is a consequence of the Spanish peso.

Thanks from Spain and forgive my poor English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.222.20 (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

see the commanders: Luis de Córdova y Córdova, Bernardo de Gálvez y Madrid, Count of Gálvez pohick (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarians

I've deleted the Hungarians section from this article. We don't have subsections on every ethnic group involved in this conflict, it'd just be too unwieldy, and generally unencyclopedic in nature. Some, such as Germans in the American Revolution, have a standalone article. The bulk of the entry that was recently included in the main American Revolution article was biographical "fluff" about Michael de Kovats, who did not play a major role in the American Revolution. Notable for his own Wikipedia article? Sure. Notable enough to have a full paragraph on him in the main American Revolution article? I don't think so. I'll throw it out for discussion if necessary, and certainly will change my perspective if I am persuaded otherwise...however, I think you'll find you'll have to include sections on other groups (Polish, Italians, etc. etc.etc.) before fair and balanced coverage is established. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Historical assessment"

This section reads like a series of excuses, in effect "Why the British could not have won". It seems like it is written by an apologist for the British military command. I suggest it goes until it is completely re-written NPOV. Shoreranger (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Plains2009 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's more a list of reasons the British lost than excuses...but perhaps that's just semantics....it's certainly badly written, I'm gonna go look at 'historical assesment' sections of good articles to see what it should look like...92.4.255.185 (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Justin Tullock

The American Revolutionary War article mentions "Justin Tullock". Has anyone ever heard of Justin Tullock? I don't know anything about that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.222.18 (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

could be hoax, not at Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War, nice facebook account though. Pohick2 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

gained vs seized

The article states: Historians have estimated that approximately 40-45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion while 15-20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. The remaining 35-45% attempted to remain neutral.[5]

However the intro states in one version that those supporting the revolution "seized" control of the colonial legislatures. To state that they "seized" control is misleading since it implies that it was done violently or against the popular will. If only 15 - 20% opposed the revolution, then it follows that those supporting the revolution were simply in the majority in those legislatures. They did not "seize" control, but were rather in the majority and hence had control. Fairview360 (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

global war

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence,[1] began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and thirteen united former British colonies on the North American continent and ended in a global war between several European great powers.

I believe a link to what actual global war was fought should be used instead of a link to an article describing what a world war is. What war ending up being fought between the superpowers?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Financial Costs

What year dollars and pounds do these numbers represent? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlock this article

It seems that in order to please the canadian we have disfigured this article with a long futile explanation that serves no purpose. People are not stupid. They deserve more credit then having this stupid introduction simply because a minority of canadian are sore losers.

In this article, the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies that supported the American Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans," with occasional references to "Patriots," "Whigs," "Rebels" or "Revolutionaries." Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are usually referred to as "Loyalists" or "Tories." The geographical area of the thirteen colonies that both groups shared is often referred to simply as "America."

This article is important and canadian should not be allowed to vandalise it. It should be unlocked. We will deal with them. Plains2009 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The previous protection expired on December 19th. It has been unprotected since that time. Tan | 39 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected again, due to the high level amount of IP vandalism. Magic♪piano 12:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

J'aime pas les rats!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.231.151 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Sturcture is Flawed

The article structure is not adequate to stage a picture of one of the greatest war of Independence in human history. This is an armed revolution. A military article should invariably contain detail lists of the offensive and counter-offensive approcahes on the either side. At the begining of the article entries should be made in way so as to depict the important strategic events chronologically, so that a reader might map the entire revolution history. Moreover, this particular war which marked the birth of a new state, should include detail step by step approaches; in other words how a particular battle or campaign helped the independence movement. All the battles small or big should be enlisted: in the southern theatre the author mentions "General Nathanael Greene, Gates' replacement, proceeded to wear down the British in a series of battles,..." such outline sketch of battles must be avoided in a military article. In fact the southern theatre should begin with the list of battles involved as because it is a military article so prominence to battles is a must.

Secondly, details of commands, militia or military stucture should be provided here. Appointment of George Washington as commander in chief is mentioned under American Armies and Militia, but details of the commandment of Continental Marines are not provided, this pose problems to a reader as he cannot understand the army--navy relation. Moreover, this war involved effots of foreign forces too, so relation between commander-in-chief and other foreign commandants should be mentioned. On the other hand author frequently uses the terms 'General' etc, before the names of military personnels etc, so Military structure of the american army is indispensible.

Thirdly, words like native american etc; and their efforts to the war should be mentioned with proper reasearch. Ethnicity of the personnels is an aspect of military not strategy, so usage of enthnic terms should be incorporated under a separate heading meant of ethnic aspect of military.

From your article it seems that American War of Independence was a global war, it may be called the foreruner of World Wars.

Finally, a military article should contain details Logistics, economic factors, weapons ordinances etc, of each battle and the war as a whole, these features are either incomplete or unavailable in this article. Separate articles on all the battles should be written. (Sevenseas)

Um, most of the things you mention are actually covered in this article, or the many articles linked from here. To pick one specific item: you complain that

• "General Nathanael Greene, Gates' replacement, proceeded to wear down the British in a series of battles,..." such outline sketch of battles must be avoided in a military article.

Did you bother to read the "main article", linked at the top of that paragraph, which contains a detailed description of the campaign, including links to a whole bunch of battle articles?

The only things that I couldn't find after five minutes' looking were conflict-wide discussions of weaponry, logistics, and relations between cooperating foreign force commanders. If you're unhappy with the coverage, be bold and contribute. (All that said, there are other avenues to improve this article, but that's for another time.) Magic♪piano 16:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, be bold. As you seem to know what your talking about then go ahead a improve the articles (Large amount) of flaws. Remember no Original research, and must be written from a NPOV. No side taking. Misortie (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So what is the historical assessment section for....

It seems that this article is the only major one on wikpedia to have a 'historical assessment', so what're we doing with it....I suggest it could usefully describe the various views/interpretations given by historians....instead of trying to agree on a neutral overview, give all the major interpretations (I suspect the 4 main differing views appropriate would be from the POV of the British, Americans, American Indians, and French&dutch&spanish&otherscombatants). Say where there is consensus and where there isn't etc....

I imagine this is more realistic than trying to find a NPOV overview of the war...

Thoughts? 92.4.255.185 (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As there haven't been any replies, I'm gonna do some rephrasing etc along these lines and remove the tag when I'm next in the mood to do some editing. Any suggestions etc remain welcome. 92.5.145.148 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

why did blacks choose to join the american army? and why did some join the british army?

During the Revolutionary War,many colonies allowed black to take up arms and participate in the War. The men were not drafted or obligated by the law to serve the country;they volunteered. By the end of the war,nearly 5,000 blacks had fought with the British army.Why did blacks choose to join the American army? Why did they chooseto join the British army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.116.166 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the topic; this page is for discussing improvements to the article itself. Tan | 39 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

wikianswer here: [2], also African Americans in the Revolutionary War. pohick (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold

I am requesting that under the side that shows that Benedict Arnold served under The 13 colonies that in parenthesis it says "Withdrew Support" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.17.173 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this is necessary. He is prominently shown on both American and British command lists. Magic♪piano 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

American Revolution as Secession??

Three times an editor User:PhilLiberty has attempted to add material from a fringe source, a League of the South member, that calls the American Revolution a secession. It does not appear that there is any reason to discuss this terminology issue as part of this article. The immediate effect of adding the material would be the need to document the other, majority opinion, in this article.

The attempt to picture the Revolution as a secession is a widely used tactic by neo-confederates to justify the South’s secession in the Civil War. The editor has attempted this type of edit elsewhere and it has been discussed at length at Talk:Articles of Confederation -- see the last six sections.

I am suggesting that a consensus be reached in this discussion page before this article is opened to this material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ad hominem attacks on an Emory University philosophy professor don't hack it here. Pointing out that, technically, it wasn't a revolution is certainly pertinent. But I'll add that traditionally its been called a revolution. PhilLiberty (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Questioning the reliability of sources is not a personal attack. It is simply pointing out that as a founder of the secesionist League of the South, Livingston has a very clear agenda, and your use of his contribution to a Vermot pro-secession website further demonstraes his political agenda. The fact that his field is philosophy, not history or political science, is another reason to doubt the reliability of the source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this source does not meet the requirements of WP:SOURCES - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". Tan ǀ 39 21:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom (North Shoreman) and Tan. Alphageekpa (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How can you even have a secession if you are a dependant colony and not a member state in some kind of federation or treaty organisation?(Morcus (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

It is ad hominem to reject a well-respected philosophy professor due to membership in some club (League of the South). You are committing the genetic fallacy, i.e. Anyone associated with group X is an unreliable source. You can read his credentials in the Donald Livingston article. Yes, Morcus, colonies can secede from the colonizing state. Mexico seceded from Spain. Secession is in the news lately: Georgia, which previously seceded from the USSR, now wants to prevent South Ossetia from seceeding from them. Russia is against Chechnia seceeding, but for South Ossetia seceeding. The USEmpire was for Kosevo seceeding, but against South Ossetia seceeding. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A philosophy professor is not a particularly impressive source here; and Confederate views of treason is another article entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The text in question is

Though traditionally called a "revolution," some scholars, such as Donald Livingston, say that it was a war for independence or secession rather than a revolution, since it did not seek to overthrow the British Crown or parliament, but only to be left alone.<:ref>Secession is not Lockean revolution. It does not seek to overthrow or alter the government of a modern state, but seeks merely to limit its jurisdiction over the seceding territory. Nor is secession Jacobin revolution. It is not an attempt to entirely transform the social and political order of a modern state. Seceders typically have no interest in changing the social and political order of the region from which they wish to withdraw. Nor is secession civil war. The seceding part of a polity is not engaged in a battle with the remaining part to control the central government of a modern state; it seeks merely to free itself from the jurisdiction of that government. From these considerations it follows that there was no American Revolution, but a war of secession. - Donald Livingston: What is "Secession"?</ref>

That this was a War for Independence is a commonplace; that it was a change of society internally is also a commonplace; that it was a secession is a fringe doctrine - which Jefferson and others would have resolutely opposed. Pennsylvania had a Revolution in 1776; New Jersey enacted female suffrage; Virginia overthrew the established church.

The footnote is a long and doctrinaire irrelevance; we have an article on secession. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the six editors who have weighed in on this, five oppose the Livingston material. It seems consensus is clear. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

as a southerner, this is an amusing argument, but anachronistic: the secession and nullification arguments began after the revolution, Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, Hartford Convention; the founders did not write of their actions as secession. pohick (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Started up again, I see; this time we have the combined assertion that the purpose of the war was secession. Even if we granted the Confederate hypothesis that independence and secession are interchangeable, this would still be false; Lexington was not fought for independence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is true that very early battles were not fought for secession. It wasn't until the best-seller "Common Sense" came out that people became convinced that secession was necessary. I.e. For most of the war. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In short, this is both inaccurate and tendentious; the assertion that Tom Paine supported "secession" is WP:SYNTH. I invite others to join in reverting these deplorable edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think Paine endorsed independence in Common Sense, you're just plain ignorant on the subject. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I said "secession", and that's what I meant. A claim that the Revolution was fought for "independence" would require clarification, not removal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

se·ces·sion [ si sésh'n ] (plural se·ces·sions) noun

formal withdrawal: a formal withdrawal from an organization, state, or alliance [Mid-16th century. Directly or via French< Latin secession-< secedere (see secede)] (Encarta World English Dictionary, North American Edition)

formal withdrawal from an organization (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition)

It's the same story for all 24 definitions in OneLook.com Either you don't understand English, or you have some POV stick up your ass. But maybe I see your confusion: Encarta says that the capitalized proper noun "Secession" refers to the action of the southern states that led to the War of Northern Aggression. We're using the small "s" here.

Here's yet another quote supporting the generic use of "secession" as a synonym for "independence from an org/state":

Talk about secession makes Americans nervous. For many it evokes images of the Civil War, and is emotionally (if not logically) tied to slavery, war, and anarchy. That the word “secession” is laden with these negative connotations should be surprising since America was born in an act of secession. The Declaration of Independence is a secession document justifying an act whereby “one people...dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another.” George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were secessionists. Americans should be the last people in the world embarrassed by the thought of secession. - What Is Secession? by Donald W. Livingston

PhilLiberty (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Does using the term secession help to improve the article for general (non-specialist) understanding or does its use unnecessarily confuse matters because of the common connotations of the term. If there is no necessity for using such a value-laden term, and a more generally accepted term is available, then doggedly insisting on using the term is tantamount to POV-pushing. older ≠ wiser 20:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And secession begs several questions, in dispute in the eighteenth century and since. Were the colonies parts of the Kingdom of Great Britain? Mr. Jefferson argued not, at some length: the colonies were dependent on Great Britain only in having a common monarch. This is why half the Declaration of Independence deals with the faults of George III, personally; on this view, the only requirement for independence was deposing George as King in America.

Again, King George had put the colonies "out of his protection" some eight months before the Declaration. Can one secede from a State not exercising sovereignity?

Consider also the constitutional history of Connecticut; it did not establish a constitution, nor declare independency; it simply amended its Charter to remove the few references to London.

It may well be that we should discuss such questions in detail; but the lead to the article on the military aspects of the war is not the place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OW> "Does using the term 'secession' help to improve the article for general (non-specialist) understanding or does its use unnecessarily confuse matters because of the common connotations of the term."

It improves the article by clarifying what happened. It does not confuse anyone but the very few who don't know the meaning of "secession" and impute irrational connotations to the term. These few seem to still be fighting the Civil War.

Septentrionalis asks if the British colonies were part of Britain. Duh. The question answers itself. He notes that Jefferson saw King George as the sovereign over the colonies. I'm not sure the relevance. Maybe he wants to say that the colonies seceded from King George.

The Brit William M. Connolley wonders what your problem is,[3] saying that it is "patently true" that the 13 colonies seceeded. Perhaps it is only in US government schools that some students come out erroneously thinking that "secession" applies only to the War for Southern Independence. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Connotations don't go away because you don't like them, don't agree with them, think they're irrational, or can't find them in dictionaries. You'll have to rebut the apparently non-controversial idea that the word "secession" carries a charge in American political discourse. (Using charged words, once, in the lead, is not a way to introduce clarity to an article; in my opinion it muddies the water, especially if it is not a usage of the time. Please consider trying to make an argument for inclusion of the word somewhere else in the article first.) Magic♪piano 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that "secession" has such a strong connotation that it should not be used. All I see is a few editors who are still fighting the Civil War. According to your logic, we need to rewrite the Reference re Secession of Quebec article. I don't think so. Should we cater to people who think "niggardly" has racist connotations? PhilLiberty (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't read your own quotes, do you? Your own source said it carries a charge; it's further up this thread (which is why I said it was apparently non-controversial -- you've effectively already admitted it). Like I said, feel free to rebut, but you best slice very carefully. (And it may very well be that "secession" is also charged in the context of Quebec, but it's probably what they call it. We called the little todo here a revolution. Welcome to usage.) Magic♪piano 21:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

One nation or 13

A series of POV edits have been made to the article lede attempting to picture the relationship between the 13 colonies as strictly an alliance. Under this POV, the United States was not a nation after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or even at the end of the war in 1783. While this POV may or may not have SOME validity (certainly the nation under the Articles was differently structured than the nation under the Constitution), it is certainly a small minority opinion and does not belong in the article lede.

Furthermore, the claim that the Second Continental Congress was actually an alliance is unsourced and inaccurate -- it was a representative, deliberative body and the document it eventually generated to define its operations was not labeled as an alliance. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Treaty of Paris recognized the sovereignty of 13 different states, and that the US was not a unitary state, is not a minority opinion. It is both fact and the accepted view of historians. The US did not become a consolidated state until the paper coup called the Constitution (some would say not until the War for Southern Independence voided the principle of government by consent.) I agree that the Second Continental Congress was not an alliance. It was the governing body for an alliance. I have changed it to say that the 13 colonies sent representatives to the SCC. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While the issue of whether or not the United States formally became a nation in 1776 or 1783 is debatable I have honestly never read in any book on this war that the US wasn't a single nation after the Treaty if Paris. I can't help feeling this is a WP:Point about the American Civil War. These edits here have been made to try and make a ceirtain POV on that conflict more valid. Aside from that the idea as the text suggested that this was the first war the colonies fought as allies is incorrect. A quick glance at some books on the French and Indian War will show that the Colonies fought the war as individual allies, united under the command of a single Commander in Chief. These new edits don't appear to have improved the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, England and the US are the same nation to this day (along with Australia and New Zealand) - the Anglo Nation. A nation is a language/ethnic/cultural concept. What we are talking about here is a state, a political concept. The question: Were the 13 newly independent entities sovereign states, or were they provinces of a unitary state. The Treaty of Paris gives us an explicit answer, and even lists them. (This discussion has nothing at all to do with the War of Northern Aggression.)

You have a valid concern about the first war fought as allies. (I don't see that part in the current article.) I don't mind leaving it out, as it is not particularly informative. It probably was the first war all 13 colonies fought as allies. As far as I can see, the southern colonies were not involved (allies) in the French and Indian War. It was a northeastern thing. PhilLiberty (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Too much FRINGE theory is being advanced here. Until the 4th of July holiday is repealed, the recognitionof the birth date of the NATION is not in dispute -- there is a broad consensus among Americans and historians that Lincoln's math in the Gettysburg Address (1863 minus 87 equals 1776) was accurate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This whole issue of what happened on July 4, 1776 is being debated at Talk:American Revolution#Who started what, when? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

NS> "Until the 4th of July holiday is repealed, the recognitionof the birth date of the NATION is not in dispute."

LOL! Holiday edicts by politicians are not reliable sources. We need to go by what historians say. The consensus is that the Treaty of Paris recognized thirteen new states. As already noted (and ignored by you) no new nations were created. The US, England, Canada, etc. are a single nation to this day. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not here to revise the English language, which speaks of Anglo-American relations as "international". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. We go by Wikipedia's definition of nation - "A nation is a body of people who share a common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory." Since USAmericans, English, Canadians, Aussies, and NZers share a language and culture, they are a nation. You seem to be falling for a fallacy of equivocation by equating "nation" with "state." The Revolutionary war was a war about states. In particular, colonies seceding from a state. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I hold that membership in the American nation has nothing to do with "race or national origin"; I also comply with the national variant of English in all five states - and South Africa. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually historians have very freely participated in the two centuries of consensus, starting with the revolutionary generation, on when the nation began. There was no conspiracy by politicians to change the actual date -- although I would really like to hear your explanation for why this alleged conspiracy to promote the 4th of July might have existed. I can't think of anybody, federalist or antifederalist, that claimed the Constitution was creating a new nation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom> "Actually historians have very freely participated in the two centuries of consensus, starting with the revolutionary generation, on when the nation began."

Wrong on several counts. There is no consensus. Many/most founders went home after the Revolutionary War to participate in their own state's affairs. George Mason only reluctantly attended the Con Convention when he realized that a coup was being orchestrated by Hamiltonians.

Tom> "I would really like to hear your explanation for why this alleged conspiracy to promote the 4th of July might have existed."

I never claimed there was any conspiracy. I think the 4th of July thing only became popular just prior to or during the Civil War. Lincoln and Clay propagandized the silly "the Union preceded the States" theory to justify their war. E.g. "Fourscore and seven years ago" from the Gettysburg Address was such propaganda.

Tom> "I can't think of anybody, federalist or antifederalist, that claimed the Constitution was creating a new nation."

1) You're still conflating "nation" and "state." 2) Both federalist and anti-federalist generally agreed that the US Con created a new state, one that had the power to tax, grant lands like a king, etc. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The OED 's first citations for the Fourth of July as a celebration date from 1777, 1779 and 1807; doubtless DAE can do better. The Jefferson Administration is hardly "just before the Civil War". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As for George Mason, I quote from ANB:As an advocate of a strengthened national government, Mason became disillusioned when the convention decided in favor of an executive not answerable to the legislature, a strong and independent judiciary, and provisions that threatened the supremacy of the state governments over the national government. This is opposition to Madison's program, not Hamilton's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Treaty of Paris recognized the sovereignty of 13 different states

Recognizing the 13 colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that his Majesty relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof; Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map, see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream)

before that was the alliance with France:

The Franco-American Alliance (also called the Treaty of Alliance) was a pact between France and the Second Continental Congress, representing the United States government, signed in Paris by French and U.S. officials in May 1778.

clearly your views are not shared by a consensus of wiki editors. pohick (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sept> "The OED 's first citations for the Fourth of July as a celebration date from 1777, 1779 and 1807..."

Right - celebrating the Declaration of Independence, not a "new nation."

ANB is wrong that Mason was "an advocate of a strengthened national government." On the contrary, here's a counter-quote:

From 1775 to 1780, he served reluctantly in the Virginia House of Delegates, where he took a leading role in every aspect of formulating a new state government and almost single-handedly wrote the state constitution and the Declaration of Rights. The second occasion was in 1787, when Mason was persuaded to leave his native state to attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Here he was one of the five most frequent speakers, arguing passionately for individual freedoms and against centralized governmental authority. His prescient objections ring no less true today, and his refusal to sign the final document helped bring attention to the need for a bill of rights. - George Mason and the Bills of Rights by Gary Williams

This does not disagree with ANB; indeed, the first two sentences appear to be derived from it. It is perfectly possible to desire a government stronger that the Confederation and be passionate for individual freedoms; both Jefferson and Madison spring to mind. Mason took a different approach than they did; but that's tactics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see any evidence that Mason was "an advocate of a strengthened national government," other than the unsupported claim of ANB, who/whatever that is. The fact that Mason didn't initially want to attend the Convention at all, and opposed ratification of the Con indicates otherwise. Do you have any writings of Mason that indicate he wanted the Articles of Confederation replaced? Re Jefferson: There is no evidence that he wanted a stronger government. He was off in France when the paper coup occurred, and had only limited knowledge from letters of the goings-on. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• American National Biography (the standard reference work on American lives) "George Mason" by Brent Tarter of the Library of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
• He did support, therefore, a form of government stronger than the Articles of Confederation, indeed he voted for the Virginia Plan, which certainly was one; he chose not to support the one offered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Mr. Jefferson approved the Constitution, with the text before him (at one point he considered a tactical refusal to ratify, but that was for the purpose of secuting a more complete document, which would be ratified - and even then he changed his mind to support ratification and subsequent amendment); he took office under it immediately upon his return to America. He supported a republican federalism consistently thereafter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sept> "This is opposition to Madison's program, not Hamilton's."

Hamilton left the Convention early after he was ridiculed and lambasted for proposing a president for life, the president appointing all governors, and other ultra-authoritarian measures. His flunkies stood in for him for the rest of the convention. Hamilton was the unoffical leader of the authoritarian faction. Madison was in the middle, and flip-flopped between Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I request a citation that the signing of the Declaration of Independence created a new nation by any contemporary or any historian. (High school heroification textbooks and Civil War propaganda don't count.) The D of I declared the independence/secession of a bunch of former colonies. It had nothing to do with nations, creation, destruction or otherwise. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Try William Nisbett Chambers; Political parties in a new Nation: the American experience, 1776-1809. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Or the contemporary opinion of Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur: I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world. Americans are the western pilgrims, who are carrying along with them that great mass of arts, sciences, vigour, and industry which began long since in the east; they will finish the great circle. The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared, and which will hereafter become distinct by the power of the different climates they inhabit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the previous quote states that a new nation was formed with the signing. The first starts coverage of political parties with 1776, but does not say a nation started then. Perhaps the author thinks that the precursors of the two main political parties perhaps started then. The second mentions Americans, but this is no more evidence of a new nation than calling someone a European or African creates a new nation. Strike two. Try again. Or concede that it doesn't follow that a statement of secession implies the beginning of a new state. PhilLiberty (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hon. The Continental Congress, impelled by the dictates of duty, policy and necessity, having been pleased to dissolve the Connection which subsisted between this Country, and Great Britain, and to declare the United Colonies of North America, free and independent States: The several brigades are to be drawn up this evening on their respective Parades, at Six OClock, when the declaration of Congress, shewing the grounds and reasons of this measure, is to be read with an audible voice.

The General hopes this important Event will serve as a fresh incentive to every officer, and soldier, to act with Fidelity and Courage, as knowing that now the peace and safety of his Country depends (under God) solely on the success of our arms: And that he is now in the service of a State, possessed of sufficient power to reward his merit, and advance him to the highest Honors of a free Country. [4]

(bold added) are the General Orders by George Washington in the Library of congress definitive? pohick (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That supports my point and refutes your contention of a unitary state. to declare the United Colonies of North America, free and independent States. Plural - "states." The state that a soldier is "to act in service of" is his home state, e.g. Virginia, Mass. Georgia, whatever. Due to the alliance of 13 states, there was "sufficient power." Would you like to try again? Or are you convinced that there were 13 separate states (with a wartime alliance.) PhilLiberty (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Paris claims, in its text, "to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries [“two”, not “fourteen”] upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both [“both,” not “all”] perpetual peace and harmony . . ." Despite common claims to the contrary, the Treaty does not say it is concluded between the UK on one side and 13 independent nation-states on the other.Former3L (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating "country" and "nation" here. A country is a geographic region. It may include many nations and/or many states. The treaty was concluded between the representatives of a wartime alliance (Continental Congress) and the British State. The former party was an agent for 13 states. Strike three. But please try again as often as you like, until you are convinced that a unitary State did not exist yet. PhilLiberty (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Paris states that it is concluded between "his Britannic Majesty [embodying the nation-state of the UK] and the United States of America". Although terms like "country", "nation", and "state" can have multiple meanings depending on context, a "country" which is merely a geographical designation will not be party to a treaty. When the Treaty of Paris was concluded in 1783, the USA was governed by the Articles of Confederation, in force since March 1781. Jay and the other US representatives were appointed by the US government under the Articles, not by the Continental Congress. I don't know (or especially care) what you mean by a "unitary state", but the Treaty of Paris is simply irrelevant to any claims about the status of US states within the governing structure of the USA. It was concluded with "the United States of America" and not with individual US states, as its text clearly shows.Former3L (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

well in the same document he says: a free country; this country; a state. would you say that the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is a single state, or the States-General of the Netherlands, Republic of the Seven United Netherlands is a single country? (the style the sources may be adopting). pohick (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not on the same page here. "A free country; this country; a state" does not appear in the Treaty of Paris. What document are you referring to? PhilLiberty (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry i was quoting from my blockquote above, General Orders from Washington upon the reading of the Declaration to the Army. [5] pohick (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I request a citation of the use of the word "secession" before the Hartford convention. pohick (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. The first use of secession (in this sense), in the Dictionary of Anerican English on historical principles is from 1830. (""Make good the charge, prove the injury, and they will consent to the secession." by Henry C. Martindale of NY Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the few earlier passages to use secede is Mr Jefferson's Autobiography, in which he wrote (in 1821) about the possibility that New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Delaware might "secede from the Union" if independence were declared in June 1776. One, therefore, and existing before July 4. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the point being that there is no contemporaneous use (1776) in a primary source, or even in the Federalist Papers later. the use of the term is connected with the factionalism following 1800. the parsing of <<free and independent States. Plural>> is an argument from after the revolution, diametrically opposed to the Federalists, and George Washington. (this is the consensus?) i would be more open to the argument, if anyone could find succession in a letter. the interpretation of the quoted General Orders highlights the impasse. pohick (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

None of that is relevant. We use many words in this article that weren't in use then. In the article on Ancient Greece, must we use Olde English or a Saxon language, or whatever was spoken in England at that time? Can we not use "capitalism," coined in the 1800s, when talking about John Law's Mississippi bubble or the Hanseatic League? Of course we can. It's perfectly legitimate to use modern terminology when discussing history. PhilLiberty (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

i think it's very relevant. we cannot use historical terms that are 'loaded' with a conclusion. we would be well advised to quote the primary sources, and then explain what they meant. this is history not Historiography. i would not use the word "capitalism" to describe Law or the Hanseatic League: maybe Ponzi scheme, and Trade Federation. the fact that no primary source can be found is notable to me: if they knew the word and did not use it, maybe it's inappropriate. pohick (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

here's a use but not on point: had been the man to suceed our good peer Balcarres [6], or The Happiness of the Hanover Sucession [7]; therefore the word exists, but there is no evidence of use in connection with the Revolution. pohick (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's succeed, not secede. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm open to variant spelling too. on point - St. George Tucker 1803 [8] pohick (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"I am not a Virginian but an American" - Patrick Henry 69.132.221.35 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thirteen colonies and the rest

At the start of the war were the colonies which would later make up Canada administered as on unit and separate from the administration of the thirteen colonies? Where the thirteen colonies before the war any more of a cohesive group than the other colonies in North America? For example what was the status of Newfoundland?

Was Canada a geographical description if so what was the geographical description given to the lands of the thirteen colonies?

Before the war was there any distinction made between the colonies that would one day form the United States and those that would one day from Canada? Did the colonists from the thirteen colonies consider that they were invading Canada or were they invading Quebec? If not why do we use the term Canada and the Invasion of Canada (1775) in this article as it would seem to me to be like writing that Julius Cesar invaded France and England instead of Gaul and Britain. --PBS (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior to the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, the name "Canada" referred to the French province of Canada, New France, which roughly corresponded to modern Quebec, Ontario, with frontier areas probably in the Ohio River valley. When the British took over, they called that area the Province of Quebec (1763-1791), after its capital city. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia (which had been the French province of Acadia, and then encompassed New Brunswick until it was created in 1784), and St. John's Land (now Prince Edward Island) were all largely 18th-century acquisitions by the British, and were relatively sparsely populated. The Thirteen Colonies, in contrast, had been British colonies much longer, had larger populations, and their governance was somewhat more democratic in nature. (The governments of both Quebec and Nova Scotia were significantly dominated by their Royal Governors in the 1770s.)

While I've worked a fair amount on the article related to the 1775 invasion, I don't recall off-hand whether source documents (like correspondence between military commanders) refer more to Canada or to Quebec. For the Continental Congress' confused view, see Letters to the inhabitants of Canada for a variety of titles.

WP's coverage of the revolution period (say 1770-1780s) in the other British North American colonies (which also included East Florida and West Florida) is relatively poor; the Quebec coverage is dominated by the 1775 invasion, with relatively modest political coverage. I'm not sure it says anywhere (in WP) why the other provinces stayed Loyal and what role they might have played as military staging grounds or Loyalist refuges. Magic♪piano 14:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Colony of Newfoundland had been an English colony for longer than just the 18th-century. I am not so much interested in what the primary sources say (other than potential bias in secondary sources), but there is a POV issue in using the word Canada if what is meant is Quebec, it implies to the modern reader that there was a clear division between what is now Canada and what is the United States, and that somehow all the English colonies (apart from the recently acquired French speaking one) in North America were in rebellion when in fact it was 13 out of ... . If it is seen that way then it changes the perception of what the rebellion/revolution was in the minds of the modern reader and probably leads to a misunderstanding of the perceptions of the British and rebels/revolutionaries as well. -- PBS (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right about Newfoundland; this is why I said "largely". In the articles I've worked on (most of the battle articles related to Invasion of Canada (1775), and some covering the military personnel involved), I always call the place Quebec, linked to Province of Quebec (1763-1791), unless I'm quoting someone. (I've not worked on this article much.) There were clearly cultural, religious, and political differences between Quebec and the other colonies, due to some of the provisions of the 1760 surrender of Montreal and the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which were also an issue in the Thirteen Colonies when the Quebec Act passed in 1774 (never mind that some of those differences persist to this day...).

The section entitled Canada in this article is IMO over-using "Canada" (the section should probably not even have that name). (It's also inaccurate in its characterization of the province's geographic boundaries in 1775.) I'll work on it sometime soon. Magic♪piano 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Newfoundland was not part of Canada until 1949; the real problem here is Nova Scotia, which was an American campaign goal in 1775-6. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotia was a campaign goal? Do say more (or provide references I can follow up). I can't see Jonathan Eddy's activities as being much of a well-supported goal (in fact, the opposite), and that's the only significant activity I know of (along with John Allen's failed planning in 1777). Magic♪piano 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That is to say, if the colonists succeeded in taking (or enlisting) Quebec, the joint force was going to take NS next. Needless to say, this never happened. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Magic♪piano 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

semi-protected status

I was going to edit the Dutch-Republic section (that has a citation needed in it, and is not factually correct on the whole; it needs much more nuance), but the semi-protected status got in the way. Let me state my objections here, therefore.

The citation-needed tag challenges the assertion that the British declared war on the Dutch Republic because the Dutch government was sympathetic to the American cause. This assertion is indeed incorrect. It is doubtful if the Dutch government of the time was sympathetic; certainly the stadtholder was hostile to the Americans and so was the Orangist faction he controlled in the States-General. On the other hand, the anti-Orangist faction was pro-American, mostly because they opposed the Orangists on any point. Prominent in this anti-Orangist party was the city of Amsterdam which had important interests in the trade on France and the American colonies (by way of Statius), that was hindered by the British in contravention of the "free ship, free goods" provision of the Anglo-Dutch commercial treaies of 1668 and 1674. France came to depend more and more on Dutch carriers for its supply of naval stores, that the British considered contraband, and the Dutch did not. France insisted on the Dutch defending their treaty rights in this respect, exercising economic pressure on the Republic to this effect. This was the main motive for the Dutch to attempt to join the League of Armed Neutrality, which made the same claim of neutral rights. Great Britain declared war to forestall this, or at least to forestall the League giving armed assistance to the Dutch in this conflict. For that reason, the British grievances pretended to be different (mainly the draft-preparatory treaty of amity and commerce between Amsterdam and the Continental Congress found in the effects of John Laurens on his capture by the British; the facilities given to John Paul Jones in 1779 when he sought refuge in Dutch territorial waters; and the refusal of the Dutch to lend their Scots Brigade to Britain for service against the Rebels in America). This formulation of the casus belli gave Russia a fig leaf to refuse armed assistance to the Dutch, despite the fact that the Republic had been admitted to the League just before the declaration of war by Britain. She limited herself to offering mediation which of course came to nothing.

In sum, the Dutch participation in the war was forced upon the Republic by the belligerents, principally Britain that sought to assert her dominance over Dutch foreign policy. An adequate Dutch defense was frustrated by the absolute deadlock in Dutch politics between the pro and anti-stadtholder factions, which prevented either a built-up of the land forces, or a naval construction program. The Republic did not become allied to the Americans or the French during the war because of this deadlock (although after the peace of 1783 a short-lived alliance with France was signed that was superseded in 1787 by a Dutch-British-Prussian alliance after the suppression of the Patriot Revolution in 1787, when the Republic formally became a British vassal state). The Republic did sign a treaty of amity and commerce with the Continental Congress in 1782, however (being the second European power to diplomatically recognize the U.S.) and allowed the public subscription to an American loan of $5 million in the same year. All of this can be referenced by several sources, probably most conveniently, however, by Edler, F. (1911) The Dutch Republic and the American Revolution (reprinted in 2001 by University Press of the Pacific).

Finally, I was going to put a citation-needed tag by the final sentence of the current section which contains the usual needless and unsubstantiated claims.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you (as a registered user) have trouble editing the article. Your explanation above sounds interesting, but I'm puzzled by your statement about lack of alliance with France. The military actions in the East Indies were all effectively conducted by the British and the French, including the capture of Dutch holdings in India. The French fleet appears to have in effect acted in ways that in effect assisted the Dutch militarily (e.g. retaking Trincomalee). If the war was only between the Dutch and British (similar to the way in which the Spanish seem to have been more against the British than with the Americans), what sort of agreement (if any) was there with the French that led to this sort of support?

Here's a proposed replacement for the current paragraph, based on very cursory reading of Edler's book and a few military sources:

In 1780, Britain declared war on the United Provinces of the Netherlands in order to preempt Dutch involvement in the League of Armed Neutrality, a declaration of several European powers that they would conduct neutral trade during the war. Britain was not willing to allow the Netherlands to openly give aid to the American rebels. While the Statdholder supported the British, Dutch commerce was strongly dependent on trade (including military supplies) with France, which in Britain's view conflicted with earlier treaties between them. The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War lasted until 1784, and was militarily disastrous for the Dutch, since their politics was deadlocked over how to respond, preventing the development of adequate defensive measures. Although Britain captured Dutch colonies in India and the West Indies, French action recovered some, and all but Negapatam were returned to the Dutch after the war in exchange for trade concessions. The war was disastrous to the Dutch mercantile economy, and led to the eventual collapse of the Dutch Republic and the rise of the Batavian Republic.

Let me know what you think. Magic♪piano 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this does not change much :-) Maybe I was unduly intimidated by the "semi-protected" status and should I just have made an attempt at editing the section. However, I do not object to first try out the draft of the edit. I have already given my objections against the current text (which is basically the same as the new version above). Instead of repeating those, I would propose the following alternative text.

1 "The Dutch Republic, an old ally of Great Britain since the days of the Glorious Revolution, had ostensibly maintained a neutral status in the conflict between Britain, and France and the American Rebels, to the annoyance of the British who tried to invoke the several Anglo-Dutch treaties of alliance of 1678, 1689 and 1716 to get Dutch assistance. In reality the Dutch provided valuable practical assistance to the Americans by making their entrepot on the island of St. Eustatius available, through which much trade in contraband with Americans was conducted both by Dutch merchants and by the French. France herself profited from trade in naval stores, carried in Dutch bottoms under protection of the privileged neutral status those enjoyed under the Commerce Treaty of 1668 with England that established the principle of "free ship, free goods." This treaty explicitly exempted naval stores from British confiscation, but the British unilaterally considered it contraband anyway. This difference in interpretation led to much friction with the Dutch about Dutch shipping being seized by the Royal Navy and British privateers. After much hesitation the Dutch instituted a convoy system to counteract these seizures, but this proved useless in the Affair of Fielding and Bylandt of 30 December 1779 in which Dutch naval escorts under vice-admiral Van Bylandt proved powerless to prevent the capture of a Dutch convoy by a British squadron under captain Fielding. This incident motivated the Dutch to attempt to accede to the League of Armed Neutrality, formed by empress Catharine II of Russia to defend the principle of "free ship, free goods" for other neutral powers, by force if necessary. The Dutch so hoped to get the support of the other members of the League in case of further incidents. To stave off such an alliance Great Britain declared war on the Dutch Republic shortly after the Dutch acceded to the League in December, 1780, on a number of pretenses ostensibly unrelated to the League.

2 Among the grievances the British used as a pretext for starting this Fourth Anglo-Dutch War was a draft commerce treaty between the city of Amsterdam and the Continental Congress, intended to be signed as soon as the latter would have concluded peace with Britain. This draft was discovered among the effects of Henry Laurens, the prospective American ambassador to the Dutch Republic, when he was captured on the high seas by the British cruiser Vestal on September 3, 1780. The war, entirely fought at sea and in the Dutch colonies, went disastrously for the Dutch. The Royal Navy successfully blockaded the Dutch coast and a number of Dutch colonies were captured by the British, among which St. Eustatius, which was devastated by admiral Rodney after its capture on 3 February 1781. The Dutch basically stood alone in the war as internal political divisions prevented the conclusion of a formal alliance with France and its allies. The French did, however, recapture a number of the Dutch colonies that had been lost to the British (like the port of Trincomalee in what was then Ceylon) for their own military reasons. These colonies were later restored to the Dutch, except for Nagapatnam. Though there was no military alliance with the Americans either, a treaty of amity and commerce was concluded with the Continental Congress, despite quiet obstruction from France, on 8 October 1782. The Dutch Republic likewise was not a party to the general Peace of Paris (1783), but was forced to accept an onerous peace treaty (signed only on 20 May 1784), because France and her allies did not support her in the separate negotiations with Britain. Though formally the conflict between Great Britain and the Dutch Republic was only tangentially related to the American Revolutionary War, there was an important political faction, led by baron Joan van der Capellen tot den Pol that was sympathetic to the American cause. During the war with Great Britain this pro-American and pro-French faction was deadlocked with the pro-British forces led by stadtholder William V, but after the war it briefly gained power as the Patriot party in a struggle to reform the Dutch Republic along democratic lines. This "Patriot Revolution," which was strongly influenced by the ideas of the American Revolution, was put down by a Prussian military intervention in 1787, but the same faction succeeded in founding the Batavian Republic with help from the French revolutionary armies in 1795."--Ereunetes (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of inserting bolded numbers in your text in order to facilitate comparison. Your paragraph is interesting, but is significantly out of balance in terms of length for this article (in my opinion; others may feel free to differ on this point).

This seems to me to be a satisfactory summary of part 1:

In 1780, Britain declared war on the United Provinces of the Netherlands in order to preempt Dutch involvement in the League of Armed Neutrality, a declaration of several European powers that they would conduct neutral trade during the war. Britain was not willing to allow the Dutch to trade with its enemies, which had been happening in spite of British attempts (by means of diplomacy and seizure) to curtail it.

Note that it specifically addresses your underlying cause of Britain's declaration, rather than the formally-stated causes.

Let me attempt a summary of part 2:

The war, also known as the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, was a disaster for the Dutch. The British blockaded the Dutch coast, and seized colonial outposts in India and the West Indies, most of which were returned after the war. Internal political divisions prevented alliances with others, although a treaty of friendship and commerce was signed with America in 1782. Peace did not come until 1784 with a treaty that was largely on terms unfavorable to the Dutch. The Dutch political divisions, which included factions sympathetic to American democratic ideals, eventually led to the French-assisted formation of the Batavian Republic in 1795.

I know I've cut details out, but I think the basic ideas are retained. I notice you didn't say anything about the economic consequences; were they severe, and did they contribute to William's fall?

By the way, I think at least parts of what you wrote above probably make a decent addition to Fourth Anglo-Dutch War. I've also stubbed Siege of Negapatam and Capture of Trincomalee to add basic coverage of those military events. Magic♪piano 03:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with your wish to shorten the proposed section, but I am afraid I do not agree with the parts you want to salvage and the parts you want to leave out. Let me explain: this is an article about the War of American Independence. The section in question should explain what the "Dutch" contribution to that war was. In my opinion (and maybe I should have phrased that better) the main contribution was the trade in weapons and munitions "neutral" Dutch merchants provided to the Americans in exchange for colonial wares (primarily tobacco) via the St. Eustatius entrepot, and the supply of naval stores (masts and spars) to the French. Both were considered "contraband" by the British, but under the existing privileged status of the Dutch under the Anglo-Dutch Commercial Treaty of 1668 (which by the way was a consequence of the Second Anglo-Dutch War the English lost, hence this concession) the Dutch could claim exemptions from the British blockade of belligerent shipping (the principle of "free ship, free goods"). This privileged status, based on treaty rights, instead of more general "neutral rights" the League of Armed Neutrality claimed, in combination with the fact that the Dutch still had a preponderant role in the European carrying trade, helped undermine the British embargo against France and America in a quantitatively significant sense (unlike the other members of the League, whose carrying trade was far less significant). Hence the motivation for the British to single the Dutch out for punishment and the motivation of the French to keep the Dutch neutral (but insisting on their treaty rights, which the pro-British faction of the stadtholder was loath to do). Everything else is superfluous. The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War of course was a direct consequence of the British desire to close the Dutch loophole, and it was a move in the chess play with the French to counter the move of accession to the League (It is a misunderstanding that the British wanted to prevent "open" Dutch support to the Americans; the surreptitious support was bad enough). As such that war must be mentioned briefly, but (paradoxically) once the Dutch were at war with the British they lost their utitility to the French and the Americans, because they did not provide significant military support to the war effort (due to incompetence and unwillingness of the stadtholder mostly, and the total paralysis of decisionmaking in the Republic), and the flow of Dutch trade vanished. The Anglo-Dutch War itself and its outcome is therefore immaterial to the article, as is the influence the American Revolution indirectly had on Dutch history. What would be material is the fact of the Dutch-American treaty of amity and commerce (because of its diplomatic significance for the young American republic) and the loan John Adams managed to procure which at the time was essential for the Americans (though that was not a government loan, but one placed on the still-important private Dutch capital market). In other words, if I had to choose I would scratch exactly what you want to retain and replace it with the facts from the period 1775-1780, preceding the Anglo-Dutch War, that I just summarized. (What happened in that war is already covered in the wikilinked article and need not be repeated here).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) OK, I see your point. Let's have another go at this then:

In 1780, Britain declared war on the United Provinces of the Netherlands in order to preempt Dutch involvement in the League of Armed Neutrality, a declaration of several European powers that they would conduct neutral trade during the war. The Dutch had been facilitating trade between France and the Americans (including the transportation of French military supplies), primarily through poorly-disguised covert activity based in St. Eustatius. The British considered this trade to include contraband military supplies and had attempted to stop it, first diplomatically by appealing to previous treaty obligations. Britain's war declaration began the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, which was a military and economic disaster for the Dutch. Paralyzed by internal political divisions, the Dutch Republic was unable to effectively respond to British blockades of its coast and the capture of many of its colonies. In the 1784 peace treaty between the two nations, the Dutch lost the Indian port of Negapatam and were forced to make trade concessions. The Dutch political divisions, which included factions sympathetic to American democratic ideals, eventually led to the French-assisted formation of the Batavian Republic in 1795.

I'm sliding over the the issue of British seizure of Dutch ships, but does this cover the economic aspects better? Magic♪piano 13:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate your attempts to come up with a new formulation, but unfortunately you keep coming back to a rehash of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War instead of noting the events preceding that war that are really relevant for the article (and apparently not adequately treated elsewhere in wikipedia, though there are bits and scraps in other articles). But I should have offered an alternative text myself. Let me first offer a few objections to your latest text though: The Dutch "had not been facilitating trade between France and the Americans," but conducted their own profitable trade in arms and munitions, and they did not disguise the use of St. Eustatius at all. Why should they? They did nothing illegal, though the British did not like it. Moreover, the British did not just "attempt to stop it diplomatically" but used force in peacetime to harass Dutch shipping, despite Anglo-Dutch treaties exempting Dutch shipping from such harassment. This would have been a casus belli for the Dutch had not the Dutch government (dominated by the stadtholder) bent over backwards to accommodate the British. The Dutch government might even have acceded to British demands to offer military support under the treaties of alliance, had not the French government exerted strong pressure (amounting to economic warfare) on the Dutch to remain neutral. A neutral status of the Dutch was useful to the French as the latter were dependent on Nordic naval stores (timber, masts and spars) for their naval construction and only the neutral Dutch merchants (not the government) were prepared to brave the British blockade. The Dutch found themselves between two fires, in other words. But now the alternative text. On rereading what we both have written before I do not see anything wrong with the text you have labeled with "1" above. This is about the same size as your own alternative text. I may even write an article on the Fielding-Bylandt Affair, in which case it may even get shorter still (but then I would like to insert references to John Paul Jones' "visit" and the attempt to "borrow" the Scotch Brigade by the British, to take up this slack :-)What you have labeled "2" could then be scratched if there are objections to its length. It is more or less covered by the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War wikipedia article that is referred in the text. Text 1 could be augmented with a few references to John Adams' accomplishments. For instance: "Internal divisions prevented the Dutch government during this war to conclude formal military alliances with the Americans or their French and Spanish allies. However, after the American victory in the Battle of Yorktown John Adams managed to receive accreditation as American ambassador to the Republic. The Dutch Republic so became the second European state to recognize American independence. Furthermore, Adams negotiated a treaty of amity and commerce, which was signed in October, 1782, and succeeded in raising a $5 million loan in the Dutch capital market for the Continental Congress." Would that be an acceptable compromise? I am of course prepared to pepper the proposed text with references, but that could wait.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A first draft of the Affair of Fielding and Bylandt is ready.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a brief summary of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War is in order. The trade relations also clearly ought to be documented. It appears that there is generally a lack of coverage on economic activity related to war materials, which the Dutch role as an outside supplier and transporter would clearly be a part of.

Let me clarify my objections to what is in section 1. The details of the early treaties between Britain and the Republic are not important -- what strikes me as important is that (1) the British and Dutch disagreed on interpretation of them, (2) the British used them to apply diplomatic pressure to stop the Dutch trade, which was followed by escalating search and seizure that then led to the British war declaration to counter Dutch entry into the League. Allow me to refocus on the commercial aspects.

The Dutch, nominally neutral, had been trading with the Americans (including the transportation of French military supplies), primarily through activity based in St. Eustatius, before the French formally entered the war. The British considered this trade to include contraband military supplies and had attempted to stop it, at first diplomatically by appealing to previous treaty obligations, interpretation of whose terms the two nations disagreed on, and then by searching and seizing Dutch merchant ships. The situation escalated when the British seized a Dutch merchant convoy sailing under Dutch naval escort in December 1779, prompting the Dutch to join the League of Armed Neutrality. Britain responded to this decision by declaring war on the Dutch in December 1780, sparking the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War. The war was a military and economic disaster for the Dutch Republic. Paralyzed by internal political divisions, it was unable to effectively respond to British blockades of its coast and the capture of many of its colonies. In the 1784 peace treaty between the two nations, the Dutch lost the Indian port of Negapatam and were forced to make trade concessions. The Dutch political divisions, which included factions sympathetic to American democratic ideals, eventually led to the French-assisted formation of the Batavian Republic in 1795. The Dutch Republic signed a friendship and trade agreement with the United States in 1782, and was the second country (after France) to formally recognize the United States.

It's not clear to me that anything much longer than this ought to be in this article -- the detail probably belongs in other articles, like Dutch Republic in the American Revolution or International trade in the American Revolution, Dutch Republic, or even Fourth Anglo-Dutch War. (All my opinion, of course. For perspective, you might look at how much text in this article is devoted to German contributions to the war.) Magic♪piano 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the content of the Anglo-Dutch treaties was immaterial, but I don't want to make too much of it. I think your draft text is acceptable on the whole, except for two claims. Firstly, the subsentence "...(including the transportation of French military supplies) ..." seems based on a persistent misunderstanding. The French traded directly with the Americans before 1778 and used St. Eustatius for its convenience after 1778, but using their own bottoms, but this is needless detail. It is important, however, that Dutch merchants provided their own arms and munitions to the Americans in this period. France was not the only supplier of the Americans, in other words. Also, the fact that American merchants after 1775 traded tobacco via St. Eustatius was a contravention of the Navigation Acts. I therefore propose the following amendment to the first sentence: "The Dutch, nominally neutral, had been trading with the Americans, exchanging Dutch arms and munitions for American colonial wares (in contravention of the Navigation Acts), primarily through activity ..." Secondly, the claim in the sentence "The Dutch political divisions, which included factions sympathetic to American democratic ideals, eventually led to the French-assisted formation of the Batavian Republic in 1795." is highly debatable in this form. It needs far more nuance and hence more space. Which is lacking here :-) I therefore propose to simply scratch it. With those amendments I think your draft is better than the current version of the section.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposed amendments are fine; I was not misunderstanding, merely over-editing. I've made the changes; I assume you will add appropriate citations in due course. Magic♪piano 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cooperation. I have put in the necessary references, using Edler.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)