Talk:American Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Revolution was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones

Date Process Result

December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

January 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

March 7, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept

March 5, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted

Current Status: Delisted good article

 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject United States      (Rated B-Class)

United States portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Comments: ^{edit  Â· history  Â· watch  Â· purge}

okok, i don´t agree

WikiProject England

England portal

This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

WikiProject History

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=yes/no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=yes/no
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes/no
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes/no
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes/no
<!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. -->
|B-Class-6=yes/no

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces (nations and regions):

British military history task force

French military history task force

United States military history task force

Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):

Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792)

American Revolutionary War task force

WikiProject United States History (Rated B-Class)

American Revolution is part of WikiProject United States History, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

---

WikiProject United States History To-do:

edit

Template:United States History tasks

This article has an assessment summary page.

WikiProject Echo      (French)

American Revolution is a featured article in the French Wikipedia.

edit Â· history Â· watch Â· refresh To-do list for American Revolution:

Add role of the native americans.

Merge article on Colonial Scrip into Origins section as Benjamin Franklin, Peter Cooper, and others have written Parliament's passage of the Currency Act in 1764 was detrimental to the colonial economies, as it outlawed the circulating medium and caused a depression created widespread dissatisfaction among the Colonists. Many prominent Americans have called this the primary cause of the American Revolution and it deserves mention. Black Loyalists! Under-commented on group... Black Loyalists were slaves lured to promises of land, freedom, and provision in the British empire..namely Nova Scotia and Canada West..though some west to Trinidad I believe... investigate that group and its a very interesting trail. Add details about the effect of the Seven Years' War as a cause of the American Revolution Add information about the Boston Tea Party to the section titled "Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party" Rewrite "Crisis" section, converting bullet points into text. Be sure to include Massachesetts rebellion of 1774 that forced royal officials out of office. Add section about historical interpretations on the effect of the Revolution on society, including:

emergence of more "democratic" notions and practices in America role of women effect on "race relations"

rewrite "choosing sides" section, discussing how various segments of the population decided to act rewrite "War for Independence" section, discussing issues not covered in the American Revolutionary War article, such as

Domestic issues: Congressional management of the war Foreign policy issues: Treaty and alliance negotiations

Rewrite "America after the war", converting bullet points into text, with some discussion of the issues confronting America under the Articles of Confederation

Under the "Loyalists" topic it says, "Loyalists took some part in fighting, especially near Canada. 70,000 left the 13 colonies during or after the war. About 45,00 later settled in Canada, which they profoundly influenced." What is the number supposed to be? A new Web site provides first hand information regarding the American Revolution... from a British point of view : [ http://www.haldimand-collection.ca Haldimand Collection ] The 232 series fully indexed !

National Debt section needs a generality to be specified. Add the word "merchants" after the phrase "were debts owed by the national and state governments to Americans" in the section on National Debt. ---- estherannelittle

Priority 1 (top)

[edit] Link distinction

Notice: when linking articles to the American Revolution, be aware of the distinction between the American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War.

[edit] Canada

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

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

[edit] Archive

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

[edit] Immigrants and Loyalists

The assertion that immigrants were more likely to be Loyalists is not universally accepted, and particularly in the case of the Scots-Irish the opposite is often claimed, as it is contended that by-and-large they had a distrust of authority based on perceptions of mistreated by the British Crown. I suggest removal of the following from the article:

"Recent immigrants who had not been fully Americanized were also inclined to support the King, such as recent Scottish settlers in the back country.^[1]"

You have overlooked the word "recent". Immigrants since 1770 or so were unlikely to trust the rebellious American authorities, either. Flora Macdonald is the test case here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTgg)

[edit] GA/R

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

[edit] Citation on Rousseau?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Callout at top of article.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Real Americans

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

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

End rant  :)

LookingGlass 13:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] End date

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

Articles of Confederation:

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

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

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

[edit] Boston Tea Party? Boston Massacre?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Black Loyalists

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Constitution again

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

[edit] Should this be here?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Port Bill

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

[edit] North America---a Continent???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] When

By late spring 1776

By summer 1776

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

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

[edit] Townshend Acts

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

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

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

[edit] Some Causes of the American Revolution

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

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

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

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

[edit] Accurate List of Enlightment Influences, Please!!!!

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

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

[edit] France

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Where's the Revolution?

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

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

[edit] [Blank] Cornwallis

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

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

[edit] Numbers unclear

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

[edit] Join or Die

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

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

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

[edit] Edit to section Taxation without representation

The existing article stated:

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

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

[edit] Rum industry could not support taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

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