Jump to content

Talk:Colonial history of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colonial history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colonial history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colonial history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colonial history of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

First women in Jamestown?

Someone recently added a sentence to the article that claims that the first "females" arrived in Jamestown in 1619. We know that the first woman in the 13 colonies arrived long before then (since the first baby, Virginia Dare was born in 1587), and I find it hard to believe that Jamestown existed for twelve years as an all-male settlement. --Smack (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The first women came over when the first colonist were sent over.[citation needed]

Merge

I think it's time to stop arguing on talk pages, and more time actually improving articles. Neither of you addressed my concern after all that. Anyway, I'm suggesting a merge to Thirteen Colonies, because it's a pretty detailed history of them (or of the land that became the 13 colonies anyway). The current 13 colonies article is essentially a list. I propose we merge this over there, and use this page (Colonial America) for disambiguation. It could either be an actual disambig page pointing to various colonies, or it be a summary of the colonial history of the rest of the US as well (before the semantics police jump me, we already have European colonization of the Americas to describe the wider Colonial America(s); this could easily be retitled Colonial United States). Other than expansion, which would make it way too long, I think this is our best option. Any thoughts or objections?--Cúchullain t/c 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Titling this Colonial United States is an obvious violation of the naming convention for articles with no real justification. We already have European colonisation of the Americas for the other subject - as long as the two are interlinked, you can only see the problem from the top of a soapbox. WilyD 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
For the love of God, Wily, that was only a suggested solution to a hypothetical problem! It seems you are more interested in arguing on talk pages than on improving articles.--Cúchullain t/c 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Preventing degredation of articles is easier than improving articles, so it what I'm more likely to work on when I only have a few free minutes. WilyD 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In recent years historians have mostly talked about the Atlantic connection, and have not emphasized the 13 colonies. Rjensen 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish colonial America.

This theme needs to be expanded.

Please do so in the Colonial America Article, I'm not much up on Spanish History, except that which directly impacts Florida, and I've tried to incorporate that into the Colonial America article. Bo 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe it has now been corrected. Though the article could use some streamlining. Deepstratagem 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Read This First

I would recommend everybody to read this article and then choose title: Use of the word American. Dentren | Talk 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs more Canada

The opening sentence correctly identifies Colonial America as including parts of today's USA and Canada. But I can't find anything in the article on colonies in Canada. This requires inclusion.

Another item: the definition says Colonial America ends in 1776. Huh? Only 13 colonies declared independence then, not all of America, and not even all of British America. Colonial British America continued in Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Upper & Lower Canada, and Newfoundland. It's not complicated. Just say Colonial America technically covers the period up to 1776 in what became the USA, and through years when colonial status ended in other areas: 1867 in NS, NB, ON, and QC; 1873 in PEI; 1949 in Newfoundland. Then, to keep the article focussed, say that it deals with the era you wish to talk about, united by whatever themes you fix upon. - Yoho2001 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has undergone several shifts in focus, and is not yet internally consistant. At one point, it was only a history of the 13 British colonies which became the first 13 states of the US. There was some suggestion that the focus be shifted to "British North America", apparently meaning the British colonies in the US and Canada. Then someone changed the focus to include information on all European colonies in what is now the United States before 1776. And finally, someone decided the article should be about "Colonial North America north of Rio Grande" and moved the page to that spectacularly unweildy title, but did not include any new information about territory not now part of the United States, and of course did not fix the redirects. It's very confusing, and I don't think the article will ever be improved unless consensus can be achieved on what the article is supposed to be about. If it's the colonial history of the United States, perhaps Colonial United States would be a better title. If it's supposed to be about the Colonial North America north of Rio Grande, information on Canada needs to be added.--Cúchullain t/c 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New France?

Given the current title of this article (Colonial North America north of Rio Grande), New France should be included as well; it was located in North America, north of the Rio Grande. If we are to exclude it, then we may need to rename the article. 68.40.64.186 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

good point, so I added a section that links to the main articles. Rjensen 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been brought up elsewhere on the talk page. Since the article was originally about the colonial history of the United States (or at least parts of what is now the United States), there was formerly no info on elsewhere. Then someone moved it to "Colonial North America", a poor title for the subject. This was exacerbated by someone who decided all "North America north of Rio Grande" should be the subject. The renamings have caused considerable confusion, and as I've said above, I don't think the article will ever be improved until we get a clear idea of what we're supposed to be writing about. Why just "Colonial North America north of Rio Grande"? I would suggest moving the article to "Colonial United States", except that now good editors have included info on colonial Canada, because judging by the title, Canada should be included. But why the Rio Grande should be the dividing line is beyond me. This is a cluster fuck, and I don't see any way out of it without some bold strokes.--Cúchullain t/c 06:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ways of Life?

The "Ways of Life" section is poorly titled since it includes alot of architecure and furnature details. Maybe this should be sorted out. Zaphodyossarian 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaphodyossarian (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Colonial America

I was bold and moved the page back to its old title of "Colonial America" from the extremely awkward and confusing title Colonial North America north of Rio Grande. There is still the issue of the Canadian material that has been added here by various good editors. Perhaps it should be merged to one of the Canadian articles, or perhaps this article should be renamed "Colonial America and Canada". My vote is to move out the Canadian parts, and perhaps retitle this article "Colonial United States" to avoid the inevitable confusion the name "Colonial America" causes. Whatever is done, I don't think it should be moved again without a vote at requested moved.--Cúchullain t/c 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! We may all agree, then! I recently edited British North America to cover the loyalist provinces from 1783-1867 and move the pre-1783 material to British America. I think that this could possible to merge British America and Colonial America, with a redirect from British America to here. The British America article is crap, I was just fixing structure, but this article has substance. Can you folks review this and tell me if you think it can work? I am also not happy with the 13 colonies article, it needs pruning! WayeMason 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Colonial Northern America / Colonial North America

'Colonial Northern America' is surely a name used nowhere in history. 'Colonial North America' would be a more useful name for this article. Any objections to changing it? Hmains 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original name is most appropriate (Colonial History of the United States). It describes what happened in the colonial times area of the USA before it came to be. See the talk on the top of this page. Spryde 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving it back to what it was a few days ago. The title for this article has caused so much confusion that renaming should be done by gathering consensus at requested moves. I've detailed some of the problems this article has faced up above.--Cúchullain t/c 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way the title I moved it to is Colonial America, which has its own set of problems. But as I said, fixing this will require more serious steps than just retitling. My personal vote would be for something along the lines of "Colonial history of the United States", as Spryde suggested, but as I've said above, this would require moving the information on Canada out. But let's not do it without gathering consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The title Colonial history of the United States is the most accurate for this article and could avoid many edit problems. JC 29 September 2007 14:35 (PST)

Colonial British North America / Colonial America / Colonial history of the United States of America

As the article is about the colonial history of the U.S., I've moved it to Colonial America. As per User:WilyD above, this is the most common English-language term for the region and period. The name Colonial British North America was especially inappropriate as British North America is used to describe those British colonies which remained part of the British Empire after 1783.[1] Spacepotato 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Colonial history of the United States of America is the most appropiate name for this article and it has no conflict with any other suggested name. JC 14:30 17 Octuber 2007 (PST)
Although objections have been raised about this name (there was no USA at the time covered), I think it is the best choice so far presented. The British ones don't work because California and Louisiana Territory, etc. weren't ever British. However, this article still has a lot to cover - Oregon Territory, Santa Fé de Nuevo México, Alta California, etc. Rmhermen 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone not realize that Colonial history establishes that there were colonies, and United States represents the area involved as represented by the current country. I think it is perfect when you look at it as two distinct parts, i.e. Colonial history of the United States, and not the History of the United States part. Monsieurdl (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

English Civil war

what happened in the colonies during the english civil war? did the conflict spill over?

This was going to be my question as well, there is no mention of what happened during this period.
Not too much. There was a new governor in Virginia and during Cromwell's "reign", few Puritans moved to New England but some Royalists moved to Virginia. The later Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia is sometimes linked to the Civil War. Rmhermen (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've read some stuff about this. It's actually quite interesting, because the colonies tended to be quite aristocratic in their administration, and many were closely linked to the royalist cause. This particuarly affected the Carribean, as well as the future United States. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - looney toons

I don't know how to undo vandalism, but there's all kinds of stuff about Bugs Bunny and Acme Corporation in the intro paragraph. Just letting you guys know. Ingridjames (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Going to history and reverting is the easiest way. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Female breeding 'most successful in South Carolina' ... WTF?

I have no idea what

Once women were married, their main duty was to produce offspring and tend to the family. These efforts were the most successful in South Carolina, where wealthy rice planters lived in townhouses in Charleston, a busy port city.

was supposed to mean to the person who wrote it, but (esp. since the aside on women is true of all premodern societies anywhere outside of Amazonia) nixed it into as good a shape as could be made. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Old talk page post: Why did the British colonize America?

Help needed - the english colonised america for land, religious, political, freedom, trade. can you tell me about this? mav 03:27 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

'British' Law

The article talks about 'British' Law, does such a thing exist? Should this be 'English' Law, which certainly does exist. The Scots have their own legal code.--Pat 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The question is, did such a thing exist two hundred and fifty ago? In other words, was the separate Scottish legal code created recently, or does it date back to the Act of Union? --Smack (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the important aim is accuracy in Wikipedia articles. This article talks about British Law which I suspect is wrong. I think (but am not certain) that the law of colonial America was English law.
Frequently there is a confusion between when it is correct to say English, and when to say British. This could be one of those confusions.--Pat 17:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
it follows the english tradition, of common law and jury trial not scots law which is more similiar to the european style.
British law certainly exists. It is this article. English law is this article. But in this context (discussing common law, jury trials, &c.) you're right that it's English law that's meant. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing Motivation

"Practical considerations such as commercial enterprise, over-population and the desire for religious freedom played their parts."

In this article a central theme is overlooked. The main players of the colonialism partook in colonialism inorder to create an empire. They also wanted to prove their dominance of their country and hold it over other countries. Topics such as mercantilism should be addressed as well.

Lawrence DiLorenzo describes in his book "How Capitalism Saved America" that the early colonies in Virgina were financed by aristocratic investors and then wealthy industrialists, but that because they wanted to maintain control over the colony, they didn't allow settlers to own any land. All goods produced were to be sold in the company stores, the colonists would in turn benefit from the growth and development of the colony. What happened was that people worked very little as they had no 'real' personal stake in the colony. That is why so many of the colonists died of starvation and the reference to 'the Starving Time'. Thomas Dilorenzo has much more detail than this in his book, but there is some very relevant information that would help anyone looking into this - as well as references cited in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.146.105 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote given describes the motivation of the colonists. Your points have to do with the motivations of the colonizers (the British gov't & charter holders.) You're right the latter is important, but they're different topics. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

former spanish colonies should include Texas

I think Texas should be listed if you're including sections on New Mexico and California.Nitpyck (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What a cute user name. Anyway, yes. Absolutely. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PoV text and weasel words

In the section British Colonies: Puritans, beginning in the second sentence, it reads "They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. Within two years, an additional 2,000 settlers arrived. The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States[citation needed]. They hoped this new land would serve as a 'redeemer nation.' Seeking the true religion, they fled England and in America attempted to create a "nation of saints" or the "City upon a Hill,' an intensely religious, thoroughly righteous community designed to be an example for all of Europe." These PoV phrases and weasel words have no place in an encyclopedia. Any thoughts about how best to cut them out and wikify the entry? Bricology (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Easier for me to follow it like this:
The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. Within two years, an additional 2,000 settlers arrived. The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States. They hoped this new land would serve as a "redeemer nation." Seeking the true religion, they fled England and in America attempted to create a "nation of saints" or the "City upon a Hill," an intensely religious, thoroughly righteous community designed to be an example for all of Europe. Roger Williams, who preached religious toleration, separation of Church and State, and a complete break with the Church of England, was banished and founded Rhode Island Colony, which became a haven for other religious refugees from the Puritan community. Anne Hutchinson, a preacher of Antinomianism, likewise was exiled to Rhode Island.
Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash-crop oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of individual hard working farmers, who harvested enough crops to feed themselves and their families and to trade for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. On the other hand, town leaders in New England could literally rent out the town's impoverished families for a year to anyone who could afford to board them, as a form of alms and as a form of cheap labor. Along with farming growth, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, often serving as the hub for trading between the South and Europe.
Now, lookit: there's not much wrong with the first and third passage you bolded. They accurately describe what the Puritans sought and attempted to create. The second one is kinda iffy: the author was intending to present their POV but stated it declaratively. Otoh, there are some weasel words and other POV issues (New England was "hard working" "unlike... the Chesapeake region"), so my thought is:
The Puritans, a much larger group, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. Within two years, an additional 2,000 settlers had arrived. The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit, and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States.° They hoped this new land would serve as a "redeemer nation." They fled England and in America attempted to create a "nation of saints" or a "City upon a Hill:" an intensely religious, thoroughly righteous community designed to be an example for all of Europe. Roger Williams, who preached religious toleration, separation of Church and State, and a complete break with the Church of England, was banished and founded Rhode Island Colony, which became a haven for other refugees from the Puritan community, such as Anne Hutchinson.
Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves.[citation needed] There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake.[citation needed] On the other hand, town leaders in New England were empowered to rent out the town's impoverished families for a year to anyone who could afford to board them,[citation needed] as a form of alms and as cheap labor. Along with agriculture, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving°° as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.
Which is what I left in the article. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
°Removed [citation needed] from this point as it depends on a mass of information more appropriate to the Puritan article linked at top of section. If the tagger has a dispute with any of the points, he should just edit them out. "Politically innovative" seems suspect to me, but perhaps they were more distinct than I remember reading about. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
°°Removed "often served" as it either served as the hub or didn't. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What does colonize mean?

Starting in the late 16th century, the English, Scottish, French, Swedes, Germans and the Dutch began to colonize eastern North America. Change to began to settle in because there were no Scottish or German colonies. This is to differentiate between the countries which colonized and the peoples who settled in those colonies. There was no Finnish colony but there were Finns in New Sweden. The countries of Spain, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and England attempted to claim and colonize the area under discussion in this article. England succeeded and their colonies admitted or absorbed peoples from many parts of Europe. The footnotes make no claim of a German colony, because there was no German colony in continental North America. Nitpyck (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

good point--let me add Scotland DID try to set up colonies (they failed), and none of the many German states tried. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Colonial Experience

"centuries-old experience of conquest and colonization during the Reconquista" But Spain established few colonies during that period- they were too busy re-conquering the Moors. And how would conquering an arguably more developed and more highly civilized country next to you be better than the English experience of trying and failing to conquer France? Spain got its experience by having New World colonies for over 100 years before most of the other Europeans began. Nitpyck (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for one, as the English failed to conquer France they had no opportunity to colonize it. At least not in the way Spain was conquering and colonizing the Iberian Peninsula bit by bit and developing systems of colonial imperialism. Perhaps it doesn't sound like "colonization", but as I understand it, the Spanish conquest of Moorish lands went hand-in-hand with establishing colonies (perhaps today we'd say "settlements") and "colonial" systems of administration. Anyway, if additional sources are desired, I have some that make this argument quite effectively. Pfly (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think that the additional info is not needed on this page; but perhaps, it could be added to section 8 of the Reconquista article. Nitpyck (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

New France Map

What a terrible map - it shows the land area that was claimed by France at any time between 1534 and 1803. It does not show New France at it's greatest extent (1763?). For example, Fort Caroline is shown as part of New France, but only lasted a year (1564) before being obliterated by Spain. Does anyone have access to a better representation of New France?75.69.101.208 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing historical information

There are some important missing historical information missing in this article. There is no mentioning of King Philip's War, Queen Anne's War, and King George's War. These colonial wars were fought in the present day United States and Canada and both wars were part of the French and Indian Wars (not to be confused with the separate French and Indian War of 1754-1763). So why is there no research or section dedicated to the French and Indian Wars? --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All three wars are mentioned already but in general these wars had little effect upon the American colonies' development at a scale that would be covered in a general article like this one. (The removal of the Acadians and development of Louisiana is not mentioned and probably should be but that is associated with the French and Indian War.) Rmhermen (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Puritians

The article makes a statement: "The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit, and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States.[neutrality is disputed]" I more than dispute the neutrality, it is factually incorrect! As a historically aware descendant of several Puritans and Separatists, who is still living in the region of those colonies, I must say that the colonists' culture, government, priorities, religious commitments, economy, etc. are completely foreign to present day New Englanders. It would have been nice to have found here an article that discussed some of those differences instead of one that made un-cited, nonfactual statements like that. Wikipedia is currently very weak in its coverage of the structure of colonial government and society. If it was accurate we would all know that the Puritans' way of life, in the 17th century, was completely altered by the time The Revolution occurred. Wasn't that apparent to us in grade school?--Ishtar456 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion, religion, nationality

The sentence the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of New England (later called "Yankees"), the Anglican settlers of Jamestown, I changed said Pa settled by Quakers, New England was settled by Puritans and Jamestown by English. But ALL were settled by English. They were predominately but not exclusively settled respectively by Quakers, Puritans, and Anglicans. It is stylistically and logically better to have all three the same kind. It's like saying in Iraq there are Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds. Or saying there are gas cars, electric cars, and Ford cars. Nitpyck (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmains is right. We're not primarily talking about ethnicity or religion, but what the motive force was. In NE the Puritans took charge of the migration of their own people as did the Quakers in PA. There was no religious force involved in early Virginia, but there were English businessmen who recruited English men in the name of glory for England.Rjensen (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
First, they carried an Anglican priest Robert Hunt with them because they were Anglican.
Second, Look at the sentence - The Dutch of New Netherland, the Swedes and Finns of New Sweden, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of New England (later called "Yankees"), the English settlers of Jamestown, and the "worthy poor" of Georgia, and others—each group came to the new continent for different reasons and created colonies with distinct social, religious, political and economic structures.[4]

New England's first settlers were not Puritans, and at no time were all the settlers Puritans, although they dominated. And the same is true of PA., the Quaker weren't first or only but were the dominate group. In Virginia the Church of England was first, the Anglicans weren't the only group but they did become the established church in Va. The three regions had three dominant denominations two of which were established until after the revolution. And the three regions were distinct social, religious, political and economic structures. I'd be willing to accept - The Dutch of New Netherland, the Swedes and Finns of New Sweden, the English settlers of the Virginia, New England, Pennsylvania and Georgia colonies, and others—each group came to the new continent for different reasons and created colonies with distinct social, religious, political and economic structures.- but to disregard the Anglican settlement is POV implying the Anglicans were not as religious as the Puritans and the Quakers. Nitpyck (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is who dominated. the Quakers owned and rules Pennsylvania, the Purtitans controlled New England and the English controlled Virginia. All correct and appropriate and necessary to know. Saying "Puritans in New England" gives more information than "English in New England", likewise Quakers in PA. There was no similar Anglican settlement in Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Rhode Island was not Puritan but was a colony in New England. The Proprietors in Pa soon became Church of England and political decisions were split between them the Quakers, Germans(Reformed, Lutheran, Mennonite, Moravian) and Scotch Irish (Presbyterian). To ignore the tensions between these ethnic and religious groups is to miss much of what happened in the colonies. When Va expanded other religious groups entered, but the Anglicans dominated by use of taxes to support the Church of England. In the lede we don't need all this extra detail- it belongs in the article under the individual colonies. Again I think the lede says enough with "each group came to the new continent for different reasons and created colonies with distinct social, religious, political and economic structures". Nitpyck (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
well yes there is a lot of history here. Rhode Island was founded chiefly by dissident Puritans led by Roger Williams, who had been exiled from Mass. Bay. The text in question does not mention Rhode Island in any case. Penn and his Quakers set up pennsylvania and the Quakers dominated until the 1750s. The Puritan church was central to forming NE, and the Quaker meetinghouse in PA. In Virginia the first leaders were Puritans but they did not set up a system like New England; indeed religion was pretty back-shelf. 67 clergy arrived in VA 1607-1660, 33 Puritans, 12 Anglicans and the others of unknown status (Cooke 3:565). the clergy were controlled by local JP's--not by any bishop--Virginia insisted there be no bishop. So the local churches were nominally Anglican but the church was a minor player until James Blair arrived in 1685, set up a college and had some authority.Rjensen (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
As a aside, saying RI settled by Puritan dissidents is like saying New England settled by COE dissidents.
You have failed to convince me that the majority religion of the colony is more important than the home nation of the colony. And you still have failed to respond to why there should not be consistency in the list: The Dutch , the Swedes, the Finns, the Quakers, the Puritans, the English , and the "worthy poor". Listing by nation in the lede - the Swedes, the Finns, and the English just makes more sense to me. What information is lost by calling English colonies English? Nitpyck (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
To nitpick your aside, "saying RI settled by Puritan dissidents is like saying New England settled by COE dissidents." By my understanding, both statements are broadly true. The puritians were COE congregationalists who believed in a state church, but wanted their brand of chuch to be the state church. Roger Williams was a Baptist who believed in separation of church and state, something the Puritians wouldn't accept, so he left and founded RI on those principles. Where am I wrong? - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Williams started out as a Puritan clergyman, but became a heretic (on the Baptism issue and also demanding tolerance) in Massachusetts and was exiled. So he and his followers bought some Indian land and founded a colony that was outside the boundary of Mass. Bay. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

He didn't "become" a heretic. The magistrates of Massachusetts branded him a "heretic", primarily over the issue of compensating Native Americans for their land. From a Rhode Island POV, there were no religious difference between Williams and the clergy of Mass.--Ishtar456 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How does that differ from the statement in question? - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
But I would oppose VA settled COE, NE settled COE dissidents and PA settled by COE separatists even though this is true because it is too much info to be in the lede. Nitpyck (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

New France

The French did send a few hundred fur trappers and settlers into the western areas, and that gets the space it deserves, according to the RS that cover this topic. Their history has always been part of Canada/ New France, where it is well covered. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Colonial "America"?

What is the scope of this article? It seems in some places to focus on European colonies in what would become the 13 colonies. No mention is made of earlier settlements in Florida, Puerto Rico, etc., or visits to other parts of the United States by Old Worlders. If this is the case, it should be made clearer in the intro.--Cúchullain t/c 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention there is nothing on the Spanish and French colonies in Mexico and Canada, or further down in South America. -Deepstratagem 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't start that here. This article is obviously supposed to be about the colonial history of the United States, or at least some parts of it.--Cúchullain t/c 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection. If this article was obviously about the United States it would have a different title. -Deepstratagem 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be coy. If you've read the article you can tell it's obviously about the colonial history of the nation now called the United States. My point is that it either needs to be retitled to reflect that it's a history of only the territory that became the 13 Colonies or it needs to be expanded to include the colonial history of other parts of the United States.--Cúchullain t/c 07:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, this, "Oh, don't start that here." is the objection I don't understand. Deepstratagem 08:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's naming convention is that articles are placed at the name they're most commonly refered to by in english. Thus Colonial America is an article that should cover the colonial times of the United States - as it is widely used to mean in english. It may upset you that the usual english usage (in all registers) of America means the United States of America but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox WilyD 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
(1) It wasn't called the United States then. (2) America refered to something else unambiguously at that time (and still does). Therefore this is inconsistent with naming conventions. Furthermore, this page has an Anglo-American focus, which is clearly against NPOV policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. Deepstratagem 01:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Deep, the term Colonial America - today - in english - means What would become the United States at the time it was being settled by peoples from Europe. Thus it is what is required by the naming convention. Furthermore, because it's an article about British colonies, and Anglo-focus is entirely appropriate, just as it's appropriate for England. WilyD 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be the case that it is a popular name for What would become the United States but it conflicts with British Colonial America and it conflicts with Spanish Colonial America, so it is already wrong at many levels. Furthermore, "History of the 13 British colonies" would be more appropriate and much less ambiguous. Deepstratagem 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be less appropriate because it would violate the naming convention, and would be more ambigious (there are certainly more than 13 British colonies). Having a Colonial America (disambiguation) linked from the top for British Colonial America and Spanish Colonial America might be reasonable - but the naming conventions are pretty well establish. You can challenge them generally if you like, but trying to do so on specific articles isn't appropriate (and won't work). WilyD 12:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you are not paying attention, and you are back to double standards. "There are more than 13 colonies"... well read the article - that's what it is about. Deepstratagem 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the definition Encarta uses:

This article focuses on the history of the English settlements that achieved independence as the United States of America. It covers their experience during the colonial period, which lasted from 1607 to 1763…

I think that would nicely define the article if it's name was changed back to Colonial America. That's not just Encarta's definition of Colonial America, either. Author after author, site after site, Colonial America seems to almost always be defined similarly. I think the article should be moved back to Colonial America and have the focus restored. It really is a cluster fuck with the current name. Prometheusg 07:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
i love history  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.169.255 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

European colonization of the Southern United States

I suggest that this stub be merged into this page. It looks like someone's abandoned half-finished page but I am not certain what the purpose was. Rmhermen (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Freedom From Religious Persecution? Not exactly.

Currently, the article says "People fleeing persecution by King Charles I were responsible for settling most of New England". This is extremely simplistic, almost to the point of being completely false. In terms of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, a colony whose government practiced a particularly brutal form of religious fundamentalism, it is a gross misrepresentation of why people left England for the American colonies.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was set up by Puritans. This group was absolutely NOT being persecuted in England - on the contrary, they had great influence there, but they were rather frustrated at England's liberal attitude towards Catholicism and other views that the Puritans regarded as heresy, so they wanted to set up a more Godly (i.e. extremist/repressive) state.

After setting up their new colony in 1630 the Puritans almost immediately came into conflict with those who didn't share their views, and within the decade they were banishing religious outsiders like Anne Hutchinson. A few years later they were hanging people like Mary Dyer, whose only crime was that she insisted on preaching Quakerism in the colony. It got so bad that Charles II actually had to intervene in 1661 to prevent further persecution of Quakers.

So in this case, what was happening in Europe was liberal (relatively speaking), while what was happening in America was extremist. And the English government was a moderating influence on Colonial American religious extremism. I'm not saying that Europe wasn't also extremist at times, but the idea that the Puritans came to the New World to escape religious persecution is a myth, as is the implication that Colonial America was more enlightened and/or free from brutal religious regimes.

As for the idea that King Charles I persecuted Catholics, this is nonsense. Charles I's own wife was a Roman Catholic! Much of the reason for the English Civil War had to do with the sense among the English people that he was too much under the influence of Catholicism.

I have amended the section in an effort to get closer to the reality of the situation while remaining as brief as possible. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Pilgrims most assuredly were suffering persecution—not only in England, but the persecution was following them to Holland. They were the initial group to settle in New England, and they established the foundation upon which others built. It is you who are being overly simplistic by making sweeping statements which encompass a very large group of people who emigrated over an extended period of time, involving at least two kings of England plus Cromwell. I think it's best to leave that section as-is. —Dilidor (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Quite true. What the section (and article) really need are sources.Cúchullain t/c 13:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Define which "Pilgrims". Based on the article on the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony), their background is a little more complex. And their eventual fate was not so simple either.

  • The core ideology of the original group was based on the English Dissenters, a 16th-century Protestant religious movement which left the Church of England because they disagreed with its beliefs and because they opposed state interference in religious matters. The Dissenters quickly split into various branches with different theological and political beliefs, some of which are still active in the 21st century.
  • One group of Dissenters became known as Brownists, named after their leader Robert Browne (1550s-1633). They faced persecution and some of them were executed. Browne himself eventually left the group, and changed his religious beliefs several times. He remained a non-conformist, imprisoned 32 times for propagating heretical beliefs, and ended his life as a prisoner.
  • In 1586, a Brownist vicar called Richard Clyfton (d. 1616), set up a separatist church in Nottinghamshire. His activities were illegal, but apparently tolerated by local authorities. He managed to attract a group of followers, and was not actually persecuted until 1605. The Archbishop of York for much of this period was Matthew Hutton (1529-1606, term 1595-1606), who apparently shared some beliefs with the Puritans and was trying to reconcile with various non-conformists.
  • Clyfton and the remnants of his congregation continued secretly meeting at a private residence in Scrooby. Meanwhile the deceased Hutton was replaced as Archbishop by Tobias Matthew (1546-1628, term 1606-1628). Matthew started purges against Dissenters, non-conformists, crypto-Catholics (and those suspected of wishing to convert to Catholicism), and "disobedient" clergy. Several prominent Dissenters found themselves fined and/or imprisoned. An increasing number of Dissenters chose self-exile rather than facing the purge or changing their beliefs.
  • The so-called Scrooby Congregation fled the Kingdom of England in 1607-1608, migrating to the Dutch Republic (which also harbored several other English exiles). They mostly settled in the city of Leiden. Some of the leading members found employment in Leiden University, and the local textile, printing, and brewing trades. Others, however, were unable to find sources of income and found themselves either destitute or financially dependent on the more successful congregationists.
  • By 1615, the Congregationists were frustrated with conditions in the Dutch Republic. They were a linguistic minority in a country with few English-speakers, their children were increasingly assimilated into Dutch culture, and the Dutch Protestants (in their view) had loose morals. They viewed them as Libertines. Soon members of the Congregation started abandoning it and heading elsewhere. With falling membership and worrying about their continued existence, the Congregation leaders started planning to the Americas in hope of creating their own settlement.
  • In 1619, representatives of the Congregation were in negotiations with the London Company about gaining a land patent for an area around the recently-explored Hudson River. Other representatives were meeting with Dutch colonial companies, with similar requests. They Congregation eventually decided to follow the London Company plan. Since the Congregation did not have enough money or supplies to move all its members to the colonies, they decided to send some of their younger and stronger members. The rest of them would eventually follow.
  • The would-be colonists purchased the ship Speedwell and leased the ship Mayflower, in order to make the voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Neither ship was a good choice. Speedwell was a decommissioned war ship, built in 1577. The ship was 43-years-old and was twice found taking on water and needing repairs. The colonists gave up on using it and eventually sold it at an auction. Mayflower was an aging merchant ship of unclear background. Records of it mention the ship as having been active at least since 1609, though it may have been older. The 11-years-old ship was "nearing the end of the usual working life of an English merchant ship in that era, some 15 years." It had a design flaw, a "30-foot high, square aft-castle which made the ship extremely difficult to sail against the wind and unable to sail well against the North Atlantic's prevailing Westerlies". This caused most of the delays in the cross-Atlantic journey.
  • Eventually the Mayflower set sail with 102 passengers (instead of the planned 120). Only 28 of the adults were actual members of the congregation, the rest of the Colonists came from various backgrounds. One of the passengers died during the journey, but a newborn called Oceanus Hopkins replaced him as the 102nd passenger.
  • After a months-long journey, the Mayflower failed to reach the Hudson River. The colonists set anchor at Provincetown Harbor, far from their original destination. They did not have a patent for the area, but decided to settle anyway. 41 adult males signed the Mayflower Compact. The passengers actually included 73 males and 29 females, so 61 of them had no effect on decision making. Not that much of a surprise, since 22 of the passengers were servants. 19 male servants and 3 female servants. The elected leader of the group was John Carver, the wealthiest man among them.
  • From the original settlers, 45 died in the winter of 1620-1621. Mostly due to disease and winter conditions, though a few died in accidents. The youngest casualty was possibly an indentured servant called Mary More, who was only 4-years-old.
  • Of the Mayflower passengers who were never Puritans, the most famous was probably John Billington. A troublemaker who fought constantly with others, was involved in a revolt against the Church in 1624, and was executed in 1630 (due to murdering his enemy John Newcomen).
  • The Plymouth Colony turned into a theocratic colony, where church attendance was mandatory. "Many perceived social evils, from fornication to public drunkenness, were dealt with through church discipline rather than through civil punishment." And superstitious beliefs were commonplace. "Richard Greenham was a Puritan theologian whose works were known to the Plymouth residents, and he counseled extensively against turning to magic or wizardry to solve problems. The Pilgrims saw Satan's work in nearly every calamity that befell them; the dark magical arts were very real and present for them. They believed in the presence of malevolent spirits who brought misfortune to people. For example, in 1660, a court inquest into the drowning death of Jeremiah Burroughs determined that a possessed canoe was to blame. "
  • On the other hand, the Plymouth Colony was relatively reluctant to persecute anyone on actual charges of witchcraft. "Massachusetts Bay Colony experienced an outbreak of witchcraft scares in the 17th century, but there is little evidence that Plymouth was engulfed in anything similar. Witchcraft was listed as a capital crime in the 1636 codification of the laws by the Plymouth General Court, but there were no actual convictions of witches in Plymouth Colony. The court records only show two formal accusations of witchcraft. The first, of Goodwife Holmes in 1661, never went to trial. The second, of Mary Ingram in 1677, resulted in trial and acquittal. "
  • The use of the death penalty was surprisingly rare in the Plymouth Colony, though the motivation for this is unclear. "The laws also set out crimes and their associated punishment. There were several crimes that carried the death penalty: treason, murder, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, rape, bestiality, adultery, and cursing or smiting one's parents. The actual exercise of the death penalty was fairly rare; only one sex-related crime resulted in execution, a 1642 incidence of bestiality by Thomas Granger. Edward Bumpus was sentenced to death for "striking and abusing his parents" in 1679, but his sentence was commuted to a severe whipping by reason of insanity". ... "Though nominally a capital crime, adultery was usually dealt with by public humiliation only."
  • There were constant tensions in the Plymouth Colony between the Puritans and the so-called "Strangers", settlers who came to the Colony for other reasons and "did not necessarily adhere to the Pilgrim religious ideals". "As early as 1623, a conflict broke out between the Pilgrims and the Strangers over the celebration of Christmas, a day of no particular significance to the Pilgrims." Basically the Strangers celebrated Christmas, while the Pilgrims thought it was a pagan holiday. Quite a reason to fight each other.
  • Like other English colonies, the Plymouth Colony tried importing black slaves. Given that most of the population was actually too poor to own a slave, the experiment was not a success. "Some of the wealthier families in Plymouth Colony owned black slaves which were considered the property of their owners, unlike indentured servants, and passed on to heirs like any other property. Slave ownership was not widespread and very few families possessed the wealth necessary to own slaves. In 1674, the inventory of Capt. Thomas Willet of Marshfield includes "8 Negroes" at a value of £200. Other inventories of the time also valued slaves at £24–25 each (equivalent to £2.81 thousand in 2010, or $4,300 at PPP), well out of the financial ability of most families. A 1689 census of the town of Bristol shows that, of the 70 families that lived there, only one had a black slave. So few were black slaves in the colony that the General Court never saw fit to pass any laws dealing with them."
  • In the 1690s, the Kingdom of England was re-organizing its colonies in North America. The Plymouth Colony was discovered to had never held a formal charter from the English government, and was unable to secure one despite their efforts. The English decided to merge some of their smaller colonies into a larger and potentially more successful one, called the Province of Massachusetts Bay. The new colony was no longer dominated by Puritans, and had a growing merchant class which "held relatively liberal religious views". Dimadick (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

@Alexander Domanda: Please discuss the changes that you want to make to this article, rather than engaging in a revert war. It appears that you are attempting to add legitimate content, but there are numerous problems with your edits. You are removing sourced content and the sources, replacing it with undeveloped statistics and details, and frequently not providing any sources. When you do offer a source, it is not formatted as a note but is simply thrown into the body of the article.

Please refrain from reverting my reversions; discuss it here first. —Dilidor (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Cite sources for the 'Scotch'-Irish claims

There were significant Irish settlements in Colonial America. In a Hidden Phase of American History, evidence was provided to support the claim that the majority of the settlers from Ireland in the colonial period were Irish, and not "Scotch"-Irish, "Anglo"-Irish, or any other hyphenated sectarian label.

Wikipedia is not a platform for ethnic tribalism. Represent the appropriate ethnic groups responsibility, or let's have it out with a source war.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

religion is an important code-- anglo-Irish were Anglican; Scotch Irish were Presbyterian, and plain Irish were what--Catholics? If so we need evidence of Catholicism. -- like prists or churches or devotions. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Presumably you are referring to this 1920 book by Michael J. O'Brien, a contemporary review of which claimed "No one could read any five pages of this book without realizing the author has undertaken his task in a spirit of an advocate." [2] Rmhermen (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you want to move to arbitration? Because I'll do that right now.
Please explain to the other editors that Thomas Dongan, one of the earliest governors of NY, was a 'Scotch'-Irishman because he was a Protestant. Or perhaps you'd like to check the Revolutionary War rolls,

https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/revwarmuster/

What's the most Irish name you can think of? Kelly? Over 9,000 hits. Murphy? Almost 2,000 hits. Here's an easier approach: Find me an Irish name that 'isn't' represented in the colonial muster rolls, and then try to justify your exclusion of this ethnic group.
Michael J. performed an exhaustive genealogy search of land warrants, muster rolls and archives, and Rmhermen, who did a quick search with no other intent but to discredit him, a scholar he didn't even know existed not 10 mins ago, is ready to dismiss what is, by all hands, a reliable Wikipedia source. To exclude an Irish ethnic group based on religion is tantamount to saying the Huguenots weren't 'really' French because they were Reformed. And yet I don't see anyone making that argument.
And RJensen, I will remind you that I published a consensus proposal on the Irish American page, with the same sources back in Dec, that you supported. I just haven't gotten around to writing it yet.


If you want to move to 3rd part mediation, I am ready.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
One of the leading specialists on the History of the American Catholic Church is Jay Dolan at Notre Dame. He states: "In the 1780s very few Catholics lived in the colonies, most of them of English or Irish descent. Though no one knows for certain, they probably numbered no more than 25,000, with the bulk of them concentrated in Maryland and a few thousand living in and around Philadelphia." In Search of an American Catholicism: A History of Religion and Culture in Tension (2003) p 14 By Jay P. Dolan. The total US population in 1790 was 3.9 Million in 1790--see [1790 United States Census]] Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be educated in American history, but you know very little about Irish history and it's obvious. Prior to the late 19th Century, there was no deliberate effort to link Irish Nationalism to Catholicism. Most 18th Century Irish emigrants may have arrived here as Catholics, but most converted to the various Protestant denominations soon after. This is supported by Michael J. O'Briens A Hidden Phase of American history, and it's further supported by recent research by Michael Carroll,

https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/71487

Another reliable source by Wikipedian standards. Again, you are seeking to exclude an ethnic group based on religious identity, and this is unheard of in encyclopedia history. I'm ready to move to arbitration.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The very first link I found showed that your original source was considered dubious even at the time it was written. Surely you can find something more modern and better accepted to support your claim. No one but you is mentioning any exclusion based on any reason. Rmhermen (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing colonization

I think it's misleading and propagandistic to suggest that the US has not been colonial since independence from Britain. The United States continues to colonize the land and its inhabitants in various ways. Official institutions of the United States have made no real effort at decolonization, either. The entire history of the United States is a colonial history.

--Caffelatteo (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bacon's Rebellion

It has been my understanding that the introduction of chattel slavery allowed for the luxurious lifestyles of many wealthy colonist. Although the colonies did not practice chattel slavery until after Bacon's Rebellion, I feel the Slavery section doesn't do justice to the role that it played in the history and evolution of the colonies since its start in 1492. Correct me if I am wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.240.224.196 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Other Possible Titles

Other possible titles "History of the 13 Colonies" (in line with the 13 Colonies article. "British North America" "Colonial era history of the United States". What else? Suggestions, comments? -- Infrogmation 17:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is rather a dumb term. It suggests the colonizers stopped being colonizers in 1776. Burraron (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colonial_history_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1185327238"