Talk:American Revolution/Archive 4

Edit request from Twilighttremolo, 3 July 2011
At the bottom of the section "Republicanism," Please change "Historian Bernard Bailyn wrote that:" to "Historian Bernard Bailyn wrote:" because it precedes a direct quote.

Twilighttremolo (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

✅--JayJasper (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

# 10.3 As an example or inspiration
The spirit of the Declaration of Independence led to laws ending slavery in all the Northern states and the Northwest Territory, with New Jersey the last in 1804—long before the British Parliament acted in 1833 to abolish slavery in its colonies.

I understand that this is a direct quote from Greene and Pole (p.409, 453-54) and I have no problem with the first part; however, isn't the second part redundant? Why compare a half (North Western United States 1804, Southern States 1863) to a whole (Slavery illegal in Britain 1772, British Colonies 1833)? Shouldn't this be removed as it's misleading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.24.185 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixing that would be easier if this was an "unprotected" page...Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that the emancipation movement to end slavery where it was legal began in the US. (the Somerset case by the way only applied to England, not Scotland)Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One; the first case of slavery emancipation occurred in England before the american revolution, thus it is impossible to say that the movement originated from the deceleration of independence. Two; in 1804 while most northern states had abolished slavery that only constitutes a portion of the united states as a whole and thus is no different from the British outlawing slavery in England proper (only a portion of the empire) some 30 years earlier. Finally total abolition occurred in united stats in 1863 de jure, again 30 years after the British did the same. (Regulaz (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Enough of this biased POV nonsense I have updated the entry to reflect the actual historical reality.Twobells (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, the French played a big part here
To put it bluntly, we could not have won the war without them. We needed their guns, men and navy. I don't have time at this moment to cite outside sources, but consider that without the French navy to keep the Brits from reinforcing Cornwallis at the Battle of the Chesapeake we wouldn't have won when we did. Also, while he does look like a wuss, the marquis de Lafayette did a lot for us too and he was a French volunteer.

I know we tend to see the French today as, well, irritating surrender monkey jerks. If we forget what they did for us then we become the jerks. (For crying out loud, they gave us the freaking Statue of Liberty.) Anynobody(?) 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They did indeed. Are you proposing any particular edits to the article? Hertz1888 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, but this article is about the political revolution, as specifically noted in the article's preface, NOT the war. The French also had a philosophical influence on the Revolution, though lesser than the military contribution to the War, and it has been argued that the American Revolution was a significant philosophical contributer and influence to the French Revolution that followed it. Shoreranger (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
There is a recent edit located [here]. As you can see the edit was: "Modern American economic historians have challenged the view that Britain was seeking to place a heavy new burden on the colonies and have suggested the real cost of defending the North American colonies from the possibility of invasion by France or Spain was £400,000, five times the maximum income from them."

I looked up the book and found that in the 1999 edition on page 188 it states. "Modern American economic historians have challenged the view that England was seeking to place a heavy new burden on the colonies and have suggesteed that the real annual cost of defending the North American colonies was £400,000, five times the maximum income from them."

Is this a copyright violation? Dwalrus (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rousseau?? not
The RS downplay any major influence by Rousseau. For example, "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 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we giving undue influence to just this one source? I checked on Rosseau's page, and the same one source appears....can we at least show this is the prevailing opinion of reliable sources, or balance it? Given that this is arguably against the traditional consideration of the influence (which, of course does not make it wrong per se), I think we need more than one source204.65.34.216 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that "the traditional consideration of the influence" needs a source. I think most historians gave up that notion sometime in the 1930s when Carl Becker found no trace in the Declaration of Independence. (Conor Cruise O'Brien is an outlier in this regard--he is seldom cited as an expert.) Some evidence: 1) "many scholars, too numerous to mention here, have been quick to deny any influence whatever of Rousseau on Jefferson. Carl Becker rejected the ..." [Rousseau in America, 1760-1809 by Paul Spurlin  (1969)]; 2) Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1978) by George Havens used many original sources and found no conclusive evidence of Rousseau's political influence on Jefferson or in general on America. Rjensen (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Standing army
I don't know a great deal about Asa Briggs, but he appears to be a Reliable Source. As Dwalrus states above its possibly a copyvio unless it is turned into a direct quote of Briggs.

I'd have to question Rjensen's claims that 1)"britain wanted a large army for patronage purposes not defense" and 2)"no modern historian claims invasion was a threat (they would have to get by the Royal Navy)".


 * Jeremy Black. Crisis of Empire p.104 "George III was more concerned initially with the security of the new acquisitions Canada from France and Florida from Spain, arguing, in February 1763, that 10,000 troops should be stationed in North America to protect it in the event of a new war with France".

Added to this external threat of the Bourbon powers was the Interior threat posed by the Native American tribes in the interior and the Canadiens in Quebec.


 * Fred Anderson Crucible of War p.560-561 covers both the patronage issue and the security threat. While suggesting the first was more important in the mind of the gov't, he details the Franco-Indian Interior threat.


 * Gordon S. Wood. The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin p.105 describes the Interior threat noting that Amherst "estimated that he would need 10,000 troops to keep the peace with the French settlers in Quebec and the Indians and to deal with squatters, smugglers and bandits in the West".

In December 1762 the British cabinet were wary of the continued French presence in neighbouring Louisiana. The gov't believed that the French were stirring up Indian rebellions in order to reassert their own control over much of the interior territory France had recently handed to London. Hence the need to have a standing army protecting the Interior. When Pontiac's Rebellion broke out in 1763 it seemed to vindicate this policy of a large garrison as well as apparently confirming their suspicions about the French. The gov't regarded the Canadiens as a fifth column in any French war of revenge.

Its sometimes overlooked that the new "American Establishment" of the army was to be stationed in British possessions throughout the Americas rather than just the traditional Fourteen Colonies. Their task was to protect and police the new acquisitions including West and East Florida and Quebec. Others were to be stationed in the more vulnerable (and valuable) West Indies rather than on the mainland. For a whole host of reasons these other territories were far more exposed to Franco-Spanish invasions and required troops to defend them. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * there was no threat to the 13 colonies is the point the colonists made. Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dwalrus (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Asa Briggs mentions that the British action was also related to debt incurred during the Seven Years' War. In the paragraph just before the material already quoted he states: "The Grenville government that took office in London in 1763 believed that for reasons of defence a permanent standing army of some 10,000 men should be kept in America and that American colonists should be taxed to help to cover the costs. It suggested, too, that since the Seven Years' War had doubled the national debt, the increasingly prosperous colonies should not complain about making a contribution."


 * One of the problems is your acting with post 1775-1783 hindsight and automatically dividing the colonies into those that later rebelled and those that stayed loyal - an option that Amherst, Bute (etc.) didn't have in late 1762. When the gov't brought in this policy they did so across the whole of British America rather than making the distinction you have. The decision was taken in the wake of the devestation reaped on the frontiers of the colonies during the recent war by French-allied Indians. In many areas the colonial assemblies had proved ineffective or unwilling to protect their own outlying settlers during the recent war, leading to large parts of the frontier being depopulated (various sections in Anderson's Crucible of War detail this). The presence of regulars was intended to protect against that. The outbreak of Pontiac's Rebellion the following year with its fighting in around Pittsburgh apparently served to vindicate this.


 * Whats are your sources for the lack of foreign invasion threat against the Thirteen colonies? Surely the external threat of Bourbon invasion was demonstrated in the 1750s and 1760s (when France was able to bring significant numbers of troops to North America) and again in the 1770s and 1780s when France and Spain did so again (occupying West Florida and capturing a British army at Virginia amongst other things). The Royal Navy was a reasonably effective blockader, but it was unable to completely seal off the European ports of its enemies. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The colonists and British and historians all agree that the French threat ended in 1763. "The peace treaty signed in 1763 lifted the French threat that had hovered over New England for three generations.' [Conforti, Saints and strangers: New England in British North America (2006) p 198];  "[Britain] dispatched nearly 35,000 troops to conquer Canada and destroy forever the French threat." [Nester "The frontier war for American independence" 2004 p 24]. "With the French threat gone, Americans found their liberties besieged by a new enemy — their own Parliament and king."[Nester, Global War 2000]; "without the French threat" [Minks Revolutionary War 2002- Page 108]; "The removal of the French threat in North America after the 1763 Treaty of Paris" [Holsinger, War and American popular culture (1999) p 3]; "Because the British navy controlled the Atlantic Ocean, the American colonies did not face a French threat from the sea." [Rorabaugh, America's promise (2003) p 90]; "The removal of the French threat" [Kennedy, American Pageant]; etc etc Anderson Crucible p 561 shows the main reason for the new battalions was patronage for well-connected British officers. Once GB had all those troops it had to station them somewhere, hence Canada, Florida, Indian areas, etc. Thus none of the new forces were stationed in the 13 colonies.  Rjensen (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't responded sooner, I've been a little busy.


 * I've briefly looked around to try and find sources that support Briggs' invasion claims. Sources I've come across are often unhelpfully vague. An example being Christopher Hibbert's Rebels and Redcoats. p.xviii which refers to the force as "a safeguard against French revenge and Indian depredations" without describing the nature of the French revenge. Altagracia Ortiz's Eighteenth Century Reforms in the Caribbean p.25 speaks of a Spain preparing for "a revanchist war that was expected to return all lost territories to Spain and France" without really expanding on how that would come about. Troy O. Bickham Savages Within the Empire. p.127 "The Peace of Paris in 1763 substantially reduced, but did not eliminate, the threat from European Powers to Britain's mainland American colonies". Is it possible Briggs is referring to the costs of the Royal Navy in defending the colonies? I can't say for certain as I haven't access to the book.


 * Thanks for providing the sources on the invasion. Glancing at some of them on Google books, they mostly seem to be describing the disappearance of the immediate French threat from Canada rather than discussing the global threat of future French expeditions. Nor taking into account that it wasn't just the French navy but the combined Bourbon navies that posed a threat to Britain's Empire or considering the heightened Spanish threat after they gained Louisiana and implemented their large-scale reform and expansion of their colonial forces. Saying that the Royal Navy could prevent the Bourbons bringing out forces to the America jars with the reality that in the Seven Years War and the War of Independence they often failed to do so.


 * Anderson does describe patronage as the main reason for the American army, although he partly undermines this claim soon afterwards on p.562. He illustrates the political advantages of the move but then says "The King of course understood that perfectly, but his real interest in keeping so many under strength battalions on active service was to render Britain more secure in the event of war" and describes the need for experienced officers, NCOs and regimental structures to serve as a skeleton for a large army to be formed swiftly in the event of war.


 * What constituted the boundaries of the thirteen colonies at the time, given that some of the colonial charters stretched to the Pacific Ocean? The fighting during the war had taken a heavy toll on the outlying settlers in the middle and southern colonies, therefore stationing British troops to protect against Indian attacks was defending those colonies. Their presence doesn't seem to have offended the majority of colonists. Anderson p.560 "By the end of the summer [1763] few Americans and no Englishmen doubted that the redcoats were the colonies' best bulwark against Indian attacks". Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The British at the time--and historians since--have realized that by far the main protection of the Empire was the Royal Navy. Soldiers stationed in the wilderness were of minor importance. Tracy and Scott have good discussions--see Scott article and Tracy article As far as this article is concerned the issue was never the size of the tax (it was small) nor its purpose (patronage mostly) but whether Parliament could impose it without representation. Rjensen (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The rationale behind the new "American Army" is relevant to this article, because its presence partly triggers the chain of events that eventually leads to 1775-1776.


 * British politicians, particularly Pitt and Grenville, were very concerned with a potential Bourbon war of revanche both in Europe and in the Colonies. That is the cornerstone of Pitt's "Armed Truce" argument. In March 1763 he supported the new American army, but thought it too small in the context of the Bourbon threat. [Jeremy Black. Pitt the Elder. p.241] The decision to provide increased security throughout the empire such as despatching a battalion to Senegal, larger garrisons in Ireland & the Americas (etc.) [Peter Thomas. George III: King and Politicians, 1760-1770. p.82] was a logical way of dealing with this. The new American Army element was designed to protect both the older and newer mainland colonies and the West Indian islands, all of which were threatened in some way to a greater or lesser extent.


 * Yes the RN was large and pretty good but this theory seems to award an infallibility to the RN to protect the colonies which just wasn't borne out by subsequent events. I'll admit the RN often proved crucial against the Bourbons - demonstrated, for instance, at the Battle of the Saintes where Rodney's victory ended the menace to Jamaica, left the nearby Spanish colonies in fear of being attacked, and wrecked Washington's plans/hopes to break the post-Yorktown stalemate on the mainland. Yet that doesn't alter the fact that during the previous year Bourbon naval superiority allowed them to gain victories at Pensacola, Minorca and Yorktown. Its the potential danger of this that motivated British global strategy during the 1760s and 1770s.


 * I was questioning your initial claim that defence concerns played no part in the army being stationed in the Americas. I'd agree with you that the main protection was the navy, but it wasn't a surefire safeguard and was complimented by the garrison of regulars whose presence on the frontiers also policed the more immediate threat of attacks by the Indians. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument goes like this. 1) the main defense against France and Spain was the Navy. Small army units in remote inland areas did not protect against France or Spain. 2) The main reason for the king increasing the army was the need for patronage--the officers were a politically powerful group: 3) the army was stationed in the west to protect the Indians from advancing Americans (this is part of the Proclamation of 1765 order keeping Americans out of the west); (the Indians were a minor threat to Americans, who had always handled them without the British Army) --the units could and were moved to the coast when the Americans proved troublesome; they protected the Empire from the American patriots (that's why the redcoats were at the Boston Massacre). 4) small units were stationed in Canada to guard against an Quebec uprising. 5) having lots more soldiers did indeed strengthen the overall military forces, but it detracted from the more urgent need to build up the Navy. 6) The Americans did not want British soldiers hanging around--fears of a standing army were strong; 7) The British never asked the colonial assemblies for money--rather odd if they really wanted the money. 8) Parliament levied small taxes on stamps/sugar/tea on the Americans not so much for cash as to prove the supremacy of Parliament--which Americans denied. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, apologies for taking so long to reply.


 * The motivation behind the American Army is important to this article. It served as the catalyst for the first violent protests against the government's policies, the American Duties Act and Stamp Act, given that they were a programme intended to help offset the imperial defence costs for British America. [Anderson. ’’Crucible of War’’ p.616]. The navy was the main protection against the Bourbons, but had to be complimented by the army and the long-standing policy of paying subsidies to European Allies. The Newcastle-Pitt government’s wartime strategy was based on this combination, as were post-war governments‘ plans.


 * The Taxation/Representation is certainly a major issue and the one that resonates most in the popular mind. However, without wanting to get sidetracked from the main question at hand, numerous books on the subject detail many other issues behind the crisis. Various factors such as land, slavery, religion, regional political tensions and the massive post-war economic depression, sparked in part by the Amsterdam Banking Crisis, all played a part.


 * I wouldn’t describe the Indians as a minor threat, at least in the initial years. An estimated 2,000 settlers were killed during the Pontiac war and many others suffered in some way. The frontiers were depopulated again. The traditional French trading networks formed an effective alliance system as they had done in the recent war. Control of New Orleans and the Mississippi potentially allowed France (and later Spain) to stir up the native tribes in the event of future war. The gov’t believed (wrongly) that this was what had happened during the Pontiac rebellion. Given their behaviour in the recent war, the Gov’t clearly lacked faith in the colonial assemblies’ ability to protect the frontier inhabitants. Equally, the assemblies appear to have been reluctant at first to challenge the new Imperial reform programme given the protection they were receiving from the redcoats. [Anderson. P.616  “particularly when the blood was that of British soldiers spilled in defense of American colonists”].


 * Before long, in the wake of the Proclomation (I presumed you meant the Proclamation of 1763. I‘m not aware of a seperate 1765 proclamation, although I could be mistaken) the troops did indeed end up protecting the Indians from the settlers. However this was motivated principally by a desire not to provoke the Indians into fresh fighting. By 1765-66 the frontier had significantly calmed down, largely through the resumption of gift-giving, and Gage was able to withdraw the bulk of his troops to the eastern seaboard to deal with the violent disorder that erupted in response to the Stamp Act. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * [outdent] some comments. France was gone--Spain controlled New Orleans-- and played no role with Indians. It is not true that "the Gov’t clearly lacked faith in the colonial assemblies’ ability to protect the frontier inhabitants."  The colonies did not ask for and did not want and did not need the Army.  The Army & proclamation of 1763 were designed to prevent the expansion of the colonies in violation of sea-to-sea charter rights.  The British intended to create an Indian state in the west controlled by Quebec (as late as 1814 they demanded one).  The British moves were generally hostile to American interests.  As for money, the British never asked the assemblies for funds.  They wanted power, not money. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Bute and Grenville ministries weren't aware of the Treaty of Fontainebleau when drawing up their initial defence strategies for the postwar Empire. Louisiana continued to all intents and purposes as a French colony until Antonio de Ulloa arrived there in 1766, with far too few troops to enforce Spanish rule, and sparked the Louisiana Rebellion. Versailles even briefly flirted with the idea of creating it as an Bourbon-allied independent Republic, but Spain insisted on its rights and Alejandro O'Reilly arrived with troops to subdue the rebels in 1769. [Colin G. Calloway. The Scratch of a Pen. p.138 "Spain did not take effective control of the province until 1769".]. Spain and France were close allies and in the "Armed Truce" concept, the Bourbons provided a combined, single threat. Louisiana remains a gray area in strategic terms during the decade and a potential threat in any future war. In the coming war New Orleans did serve as the strategic base for the conquest of West Florida.


 * I'd refer you to Anderson in regard to your suggestion colonies did not want and or need the Army. He suggests some assemblies may have been inhibited in protesting Grenville's imperial reforms because of the gratitude they felt at the protection of regular troops [p.616] while "few Americans and no Englishmen doubted that the redcoats were the colonies' best bulwark against Indian attacks" [p.560]. Weren't the Paxton Boys' crimes motivated by their anger at the Assembly's failure to protect settlers? Attitudes to the army later changed and many (but not all - colonists rarely felt the same way about anything) resented them once the Indian attacks slackened and they moved to the eastern seaboard to uphold civil order when the militia failed to. However, standing armies were also disliked in Britain yet still fulfilled an important role in the island's defence.


 * There are two schools of thought on the 1763 Proclamation. Some see it as a permanent "Magna Carta" for the Indians, others that it was intended as a temporary measure to diffuse the immediate crisis. [Robert S. Allen. His Majesty's Indian allies. p.239-240] It was likely a balance of the two. The British intended to create a permanent homeland for the Indians, safe from settlers, but hoped to refine the borders over time to open up more territory for settlement. In the meantime they hoped it would act as a check on western settlers, thereby reducing the prospects of future Indian rebellions, and funnel potential settlers to the Floridas, Georgia, northern New England and Nova Scotia instead. Obviously this was frustrating to those in both Britain and the Colonies who had large stakes in western expansion projects like Vandalia.


 * Grenville's reforms were about raising money to pay for defence. Parliament scarcely appeared to consider whether it had the right to legislate for the colones - they generally took it for granted (Perhaps because it was dominated by Whigs reared on the belief in the post-1688 supremacy of Parliament). Grenville's explanation on the Stamp Act to the colonial agents was that it was naturally progressive and wouldn't impact unfairly on poorer colonists or poorer colonies something he believed requisitioning funds from the assemblies wouldn't achieve. [Anderson p.645]. He believed the tax would contribute increasing funds each year and would eventually cover the entire burden of defence of the colonies (which presumably covers the army, navy and the not inexpensive gift-giving to the Indians to stop them attacking the frontier). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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: I second that notion.

such as recent Scottish settlers in the back country. "
 * 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)

use of the term 'revolution'
Is there not a bias inherent in the use of the term 'revolution' when discussing the American war of independence? From a British point of view, it was a 'rebellion' against the established government. Probably the same would be said by the Loyalists who fled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennr1000 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * America won, thus they choose the term (as libyan revolution, russian revolution, chinese revolution, yada yada yada) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia standards about naming are related to common usage, so that casual users can find information with minimal searching. For example, even though Catholics might well call events started by Martin Luther as "the Protestant Rebellion", since the largest number of sources refer to it as "the Protestant Reformation" that is what the wiki article on it is named. Variant names should be included in the intro, so if you can find a source stating what the British called the American Revolution it should be included there with a short explanatory note and make sure to include the reference cited.Wowaconia (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

When did it become a 'revolution'?
Does anyone know at what point in time the American War of Independence became styled the American Revolution? The article states that contemporaries called it this, but what proportion of the colonists as a whole used the term? It sounds to me like a retrospective interpretation of events. Wouldn't the majority of contemporaries have called it "the war"? And does anyone know why Wikipedia prefers the term 'American Revolution' to the 'American War of Independence' as the page title? Kim Traynor 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
Second paragraph, 4th line states "understanding of liberalism" when it should be "understanding of Classic liberalism." There are minor, but important differences between the two. Can someone make the change and link it to the proper page? --Korentop (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Classical liberalism was a 19th C reactionary response to enlightenment liberalism. How can the united states have been "based on" it unless the genius of the founding fathers also extended to time machines?

Terminology
In reference to the question of when the American War of Independence became known as the American Revolution/Revolutionary War, I do not know without researching. It's interesting to note that Washington himself, in his 1775 letter to the people of Bermuda, refered to it as a civil war: We equally detest and lament the Prevalence of those Councils, which have led to the Effusion of so much human Blood and left us no Alternative but a Civil War or a base Submission. Aodhdubh (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I might add that it's probably not the case for any war that it has been named while it is raging. Usually only descriptive terms are used. Aodhdubh (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

ITS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INDEPENDENCE NOT REVOLUTION
These because a revolution is a change of political system or social system in an independent country, and these article talks about independence of USA from Great Britan not a revolution, so please change the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HSaac (talk • contribs) 03:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is unquestionable a revolution, they start as loyal subjects of King George and do not consider themselves to be anything but Englishmen, and so worthy of the same right of representation as people living on the soil of England. The revolution occurs when they cast off allegiance to King George and all forms of hereditary aristocracy and the social system of paternalism that accompanied it. While some pressure Washington to make himself King on several occasions, he refuses. So even while the fighting is going on, it is a political revolution (the end of recognizing monarchy) and a social revolution (the end of hereditary aristocratic paternalism). It may well be argued that there is actually no better example of revolution out there. While yes it is a war for independence it is also a revolution. I have not found any source claiming that a thing can only be considered a revolution if it is as you say "in an independent country", if you have such a source I would enjoy seeing it.Wowaconia (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think most people would regard the the French Revolution of 1789 or the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 as better examples of revolution. I don't suppose it would go down too well in the US if the American war were to be called a "colonial revolt", which it surely was! Also, I think you'll find that in terms of powers the US President is King in all but name. The King (or Queen) of Great Britain can't declare war independently of Parliament, but I believe the US President can declare war independently of Congress. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Only Congress can declare war (or nowadays authorize paying for the troops and bullets for a war). Rmhermen (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in American Revolution
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of American Revolution's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "forbes": From Thomas Tudor Tucker: Keith Archibald Forbes, Bermuda's History from 1700 to 1799 at bermuda-online.org, accessed 25 February 2011 From Princeton University:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bermuda and the American Revolution
The entire section on Bermuda has just been deleted by editors who rate it not worthy of mention. I propose that the purpose of an Encyclopedia is to share information, not to deny the sharing of it. Furthermore, that the information shared is relevant, and important enough to rate inclusion. The previous historiography of discounting from the historical record what doesn't fit with, or confirm, the opinions of a specific quarter is hardly sufficient authority on which to delete an important chapter of history. No one contests the facts, only whether they are worthy of mention, which is a highly subjective question. I feel the entry was wrongly removed, and that its inclusion in this article, rather than in one that is safely removed from this article, is warranted, and its summary removal unjustified. I will be re-instating it, but will allow time for discourse before doing so. Something which was not done before removing it. Aodhdubh (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the material belongs in the article on the history of Bermuda, not here. Everyone can read it there. No RS on the Am Revolution gives it more than a couple sentences, because experts have concluded it was not very important for the Revolution. Wiki's role is to reflect what the RS (reliable sources) consider important. Rjensen (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rjenson's assessment, and would point out that the external political entity with the greatest influence and direct participation - France - receives something like a quarte or less of the coverage Bermuda was getting. It's just not proportionate and, by comparison, amounts to trivia in the contxt of this article. However, as noted, might be deserving of a large section of the Bermuda article, or even one of its own. I'd suggest a significant amount of additional citations, however. Shoreranger (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot concur with either of you. Wikipedia is not censoring this article, to self-appointed censors are. The fact that you cannot find other RS that cover the subject in greater detail than a few sentences indicates you have not delved deeply. I can think of an entire book on the subject: "Bermuda & The American Revolution 1760-1783", by Wilfred Brenton Kerr, Associate Professor of History at the University of Buffalo. Published by Bermuda Maritime Museum Press, 1995. ISBN: 0921560095. Perhaps you should order a copy, as it's not hard to find. Any reputable historian of the war is doubtless familiar with it. You might als0 look for "The Andrew And The Onions: The Story Of The Royal Navy In Bermuda, 1795–1975", Lt. Commander Ian Strannack, The Bermuda Maritime Museum Press, The Bermuda Maritime Museum, P.O. Box MA 133, Mangrove Bay, Bermuda MA BX. ISBN 0-921560-03-6, and "Bermuda From Sail To Steam: The History Of The Island From 1784 to 1901", Dr. Henry Wilkinson, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-215932-1, just to get yourself started. Even the CIA finds the subject worthy of mention on its history of American intelligence operations, and both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin worked separately on obtaining Bermudian assistance. That what you consider RS don't devote more attention to the subject could call into question their repute. In any case, it's not Wikipedia's role to only parrot what has been written elsewhere. Written history has been subject, historically, to the narrow knowledge, and prejudices of those for whom it has been written, as well as that of the authors. Wikipedia, if it is to be good for anything, must go beyond what readers will find in the received wisdom of commercial history and provide researchers with a breadth and depth of knowledge they would not find elsewhere. To say that this section belongs in the Bermudian history article, where no one researching the history of the American Revolution need fear encountering it, is absurd. It is certainly relevant to both. Rather than relying on the two of you to determine what information should be made available to the researcher (who will doubtless be one of a great many more than two people) into the war, I insist the researcher should be given the option to read it and decide for himself whether it is relevant, or to scan over, or skip it as is his want and priviledge. I am re-instating it now. Aodhdubh (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it is Wikipedia's role to " parrot what has been written elsewhere" if it appears in the major journals and books. How much attention should be given to a local episode -- we have local studies on the Revolution appear in several hundred American towns just like the local studies published in the Bermudas. The latter material belongs in its very own article. The RS experts who look at the revolution as a whole-- which is the primary mission of this article do not give Bermuda 1% of the attention they give to Yorktown, Saratoga, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston etc etc Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes to opening paragraph
The previous para. seemed pretty stable, and the new edits don't seem necessary. Some of it seems to need explanation or comes off as opinion. Additional citations might take care of some of it, but expanding the paragraph with more text for explanations would make an already long introduction event longer. The expansion of the paragraph with the latest edits already made the introduction overly long, correction of which was a major motivating factor when editors arrived at the last, stable, version. The new edits also concentrate on the military aspect, which a large amount of effort went into the last, stable, version to avoid as the War has its own extensive article referred to right in the beginning of this one. There doesn't seem to be anything in the recent edits that is not covered adequately elsewhere in the article or is linked to, and readers would not lose much if anything if reverted. Shoreranger (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the opening was full of old "states rights" history that has seldom been seen in RS in the last 50 years (it has phrases like "Ultimately, the states collectively determined that..." when actually it was Congress that was responsible. Thus it falsely says that the states severed their ties in 1776 (no, it was Congress) and makes unsourced claims about "legitimacy" that are not in the article itself. The lede has to be accurate and has to summarize the article, not introduce new, unsourced material. As for the military action, all the political historians emphasize the political importance of actions such as Boston, New York, Saratoga and Yorktown; this is a summary of section 8.   Washington and Jefferson need mention, as do the terms of the peace treaty & resulting boundaries. Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I never realized how that could be interpreted to be a "state's rights" perspective, I believe because (if I remember correctly) the genesis of using the word "state" in the opening paragraph was in correction of earlier versions that consistantly and vervasively used the word "colony" in the introduction, giving the impression that a)they were not self-governing entitites at one point and b)while independent and forming a new nation they were somehow still part of the empire in some sort of anachronistic commonwealth situation. The phrase "the states collectively determined" refers to Congress - that was the collective body and seemed clear.  The "legitimacy" information was also in response to colonial arguements about the British Parliament's constitutional authority to pass laws on British subjects that do not have representation in that body, and *is* discussed in the article. Washington and Jefferson are important figures, but where to stop? Why not Adams, Paine, Henry, etc.?  The introduction is very long. I still think this needs work. Shoreranger (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * phrases like "the states collectively determined" deliberate downplay or erase the role of Congress, which made the decisions, not the states. That reflects the old StatesRights argument long rejected by historians that the states were the actors in declaring independence or fighting the war. The old text was a) unsourced b) not a summary of the conents of the article c) in my opinion not supported by scholars of the last 25 years. "but where to stop?" is a bad argument. All the main history articles are very brief summaries of topics that are covered in many long books. All sentences are summaries. What events get mentioned? only the most important ones (according to the attention given by the RS). What leaders get mentioned? Ditto--the important ones according to the RS. The "legitimacy" information, furthermore, is misleading because the terminology used at the time and by historians today uses "rights" not "legitimacy". Rjensen (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2012
In the opening section there is a phrase: "in 1781, effectivly ending the war."

the word "effectively" is spelled incorrectly.

12.191.24.66 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Rmhermen (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2012
Hi,

Would it be possible to add www.colonialamerica.com to the list of external sources?

Thanks

68.0.244.90 (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not done, it seems promotional in nature.  Hot Stop   11:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Little clarfication
A part of the page says in 1791 a scheme did not work because most wealthy merchants supported the crown.Wasnt this  after  the war when no one really supported the crown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.161.201 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012
Please change the date of American Revolutionary war date from lte 18 centry to late 1700. Because the date the war started was 1764 and the war was ended in 1780

Harry081898 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: 18th century = 1700s. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note about some of the dates above: The war (in the sense of actual fighting) began in 1775 and ended in 1783.  (The major fighting ended in 1781 but there were still some small battles here and there, and the British Army continued to occupy several major American cities until after the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, so that's probably the better date for the end of the "war.")  The "Revolutionary Era" began before the war did, the article uses 1763 as the starting date, but that's not the same as the "war."  Neutron (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Harry was born in 1998, Kuya-san, which would explain why he(?) may not have not known that difference. Still, it makes you wonder what they are teaching sometimes.Joshua Torelli (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The American Revolution "is" the political upheavel...
The first sentence is incorrect. How can an event that occured in the past currently "be" anything? It should say what the American Revolution WAS not what the American Revolution IS. The American Revolution isn't anything anymore, since it's not happening right now. If we were currently in the year 1780 the word "is" would make sense. Why is the article refering to a past war in the present tense, as if using "was" would make it too hard to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.155.71 (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Brooklyn, or Battle of Long Island?
I noticed in the first paragraph of the section titled "British Return", a minor link error. It's missing the word "battle" in the visual of the link, and the link itself points to the Battle of Long Island. Should it continue to be called the Battle of Brooklyn in the article, as the next sentence immediately following the link also references it, and just fix the typo; or should we call it the Battle of Long Island?Joshua Torelli (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Typo fixed. Linked article begins, "The Battle of Long Island, also known as the Battle of Brooklyn..", so apparently they are interchangeable, along with a third name. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

SubSection: Role of women
The first sentence "Women contributed to the American Revolution in many ways, and were involved on both sides." is strange overall and written in that short clipped style particular to pre-teens. Has there ever been a conflict where women were involved on one side of a revolution, while completely forsaking the other (there are nuns in the Vatican too)? Has there ever been a revolution where women have not made the very same contributions the subsection proceeds to list (cooking, cleaning, washing, sewing, running the household)?

Boilerplate 1st paragraph. If one substitutes the name of any armed conflict prior to the 20th century instead of the 'American Revolution' (Trojan War, for example), the 1st paragraph remains valid, with the exception of a phrase or two. Since there were a number of important contributions made by women that were specific to this particular conflict (2nd and 3rd paragraphs), might we focus on those, and leave cooking, etc., for a general article describing women's historical contributions in all warfare prior to the 20th century?

The location of the subsection seems out of place in the article, (squeezed between Patriots and Loyalists, prior to me moving it to bottom, see edit), especially since there is a second section focusing on women further on. The purpose of this subsection is closer to those describing African American and Native American roles and contributions, and should be moved there, to improve the flow of the article.

Cheers Meishern (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Jean Shepherd contended during a 1976 radio broadcast (17:00) that the American Revolution was not technically a revolution ("we did not go and unseat Parliament") but rather an insurrection. Is that distinction important to those researching the topic? Asat (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jean Shepherd was not a historian or expert. The experts on the era use "Revolution" all the time. Rjensen (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I cast no aspersions on Shepherd, but agree with the fact experts use the term "Revolution" reqularly: political scientists, historians, politicians, and contemporary sources. Shoreranger (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yorktown
The introduction claims the surrender at Yorktown effectively ended the war. However it only ended the war between the United States and Britain. For the next two years the British were still fighting the French, Spanish and Dutch in the West Indies, Gibraltar and the Atlantic. (92.7.19.192 (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC))
 * It effectively ended the conflict that is related to the American Revolution, the subject of this article/entry. The other conflicts are external to the subject of this entry. Shoreranger (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The involvement of France, Spain and the Netherlands ensured the conflict had become a world war by that stage. The conflict in North America could only end when France and Spain agreed to enter negotiations, which they only did after their failure to capture Gibraltar and Jamaica. (92.7.7.217 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC))
 * That is covered in the article on the war. This is the article on the "revolution", though. Rmhermen (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then this article should not pretend the war ended with the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown. (92.7.20.88 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC))
 * good point--I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Subsection "Natural rights and republicanism"
Is John Locke the sole philosophic contributor to the foundation of American thought on natural rights? This seems a little Unbalanced and biased. Shoreranger (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also I found it unbalanced that the two first paragraphs are centered on Locke's religious motivation. It is certainly undeniable that Locke an its influence on the American revolution had religious components but it is precisely rational thinking what characterizes liberalism as the foundation of politics and economy in contrast to previous forms of legitimization of power exclusively based on religious principles. Barandiaran (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The injection of religious overtones was an addition after my initial posting. I agree with you. Shoreranger (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Locke was the influential political thinker in the American Revolutionary age, at least according to Breen (2010). Although many Americans might not have known his name they would have encountered the principle of the right to revolution and the idea of natural rights granted by God. Bailyn suggests that there were longer-term influences but admits that the classical knowledge even of the Founding Fathers was utterly woeful; Locke was the only thinker with such wide currency. 131.111.193.7 (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The section is heavily biased towards religion. There's a difference, for example, between the Deist god and any Christian one. 67.243.4.94 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bad history by Sidney Fisher
The True History of the American Revolution by Sydney George Fisher was rejected by historians as incompetent popular history based on poor sources and misleading readings when it came out in 1902 and it does not belong here as a reliable secondary source. See review by: C. H. Van Tyne, The American Historical Review Vol. 8, No. 4 (July 1903), pp. 773-776, online free here. Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead is too long
The lead of this article is too long. Can't it be summarised? 86.1.102.119 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Imagine that, I come here and found this also to be an issue. The lead is far too complex. Some of that information is too detailed for inclusion in a summary of the subject. per Wikipedia LEAD.--Inayity (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the lede is short and reasonably simple -- it covers a very complex event. I trimmed it and simplified it. Rjensen (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be short but it contains too many details which belong in the body, look at this: In early 1778, after an invading army from Canada was captured by the Americans, the French entered the war as allies of the United States. The naval and military power of the two sides was about equal, and France had allies in the Netherlands and Spain, while Britain had no major allies in this large-scale war. The war turned to the South, where the British captured an American army at South Carolina, but failed to enlist enough volunteers from Loyalist civilian to take effective control. A combined American–French force captured a second British army at Yorktown in 1781, effectively ending the war in the United States. A peace treaty in 1783 confirmed the new nation's complete separation from the British Empire. The United States took possession of nearly all the territory east of the Mississippi River and south of the Great Lakes, with the British retaining control of Canada and Spain taking Florida. Alot of this content is not lead material, it should summarize the thing, not go into detail. Most articles cover complex topics, even more reason to make the lead stripped down so someone who never heard of the AR can grasp it quickly in one sitting.--Inayity (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the lede has to summarize the details that indeed are in the body of the text. What we want is a self-contained lede. That is all that many people will read and they should get the main story. There are TWO sentences on the peace treaty -- is that a lot?  There are two sentences on the international war that enabled the US to come out on the winning side. One sentence on the decisive battle at Yorktown. that's terse writing. Rjensen (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will let others weigh in, but should this sentence The American Revolution was the result of a series of social, political, not be the last sentence? i am offering an independent appraisal of an article I have zero connection to aka fresh Eyes. --Inayity (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead is to long. For instance most of the last paragraph.  The lead should, to my limited understanding, be a short introduction to the main issues of the article.  I see nothing in the article about a Strong National President, National courts, or The Bill of Rights., or at least nothing that expands the concepts from what is in the lead.  Also the first three paragraphs probably could be reduced down to two paragraphs, which seems to me to be a good length to entice me to read the the article itself.  --Plmerry (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the "Concluding the Revolution" section was intended to provide an abbreviated version of all of the subjects you mention, with links to the lengthy and thorough articles about each, so as not to clutter this article. The idea was to give an introduction here where those very complex and varied ideas could be expanded upon elsewhere.--Shoreranger (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Many readers only look at the lede. It should tell them all they need to know in a nutshell. It was a very long, complex historical event involving several countries with many features that shape the USA to the present day. the lede is just long enough to give the basics. Rjensen (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC).

The terms used to refer to the American Revolution differ in the US and Britain, but that has nothing to do with the difference between American and British English, but with the historical perspective, the side which you were on, and perhaps even which side won.

Makeup of Colonies (Patriots, Loyalists, etc) needs citation
In the introduction there is a quote that reads

"While precise proportions are not known, about 40% of the colonists were Patriots, 20% were Loyalists and the rest were neutral or kept quiet."

It seems to me a citation is in order. I'd be curious to know who is making this assumption and how they came to it. Desire Mercy (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with estimates of Loyalists/Patriot percentages is that they are far from exact figures. They tend to fluctuate wildly between sources with the added problem that they often only include male, white inhabitants. Then there is the additional factor of changes during the war - support didn't remain static, with people switching sides or more frequently withdrawing from active participation to a neutral stance. Its hard to say with any accuracy, other than that the Patriots were slightly ahead at crucial moments and were far more effective at converting their support into territorial control. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The 20% Loyalist figure is sourced in the body of this article to Robert M. Calhoon. The 40% Patriots is not sourced in this article but also comes from Calhoon (see the sourcing for this info in the article Patriot (American Revolution)). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the sourcing. see the RS  Calhoon says he is giving the "best estimates" by historians--which is what Wikipedia wants.. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox needed
How does this page not have an infobox? Surely it should have one. Jbeyerl (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * American Revolutionary War has one. This is a different sort of article. Rmhermen (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Major error with starting date of the Revolutionary War
There is a major historical error on this page that needs correction. This page clearly reads as follows:

The American Revolution was a political upheaval that took place between 1765 and 1783 during which theThirteen American Colonies broke from the British Empire and formed an independent nation, the United States of America.

The Revolutionary War itself begins in 1775 with the battles of Lexington and Concord. It technically becomes a revolution the following year with the Declaration of Independence. The causes of the revolution commence in 1763 at the end of the French and Indian War. In no way, shape, or form does the revolutionary war era or the war itself begin in 1765.

Citation: Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/617805/American-Revolution

Please e-mail me with questions: waluzaka@gmail.com Amanda 10/8/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.142.36 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The revolutionary movement ("revolution") begins around 1765 with the resistance to the Stamp Act, the formation of the Stamp Act Congress as the beginning of unified, organized political resistance, and the subsequent formation of the Sons of Liberty. Lexington & Concord and the DoL did not spring full-fledged from Zeus' head. They were culminations, not origins. Shoreranger (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits
I don't understand what is wrong with my edits.

''English colonization of North America began in the 17th century, with the first permanent settlement established in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. The colonies that were established along the coast were governed by charters granted by the King, each permitting a substantial amount of self-governance. Crown colonies (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) imitated the "mixed monarchy" constitutional structure of Great Britain. Each had an elected assembly which constituted the lower house of the legislature, a council appointed (except in Massachusetts) by the crown constituting the upper house, and an appointed governor with executive powers representing the King. All laws had to be submitted to the home government for approval, but otherwise there was little interference. Proprietary colonies (Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) also had elected legislatures but the proprietors, not the crown, appointed the governors. Charter colonies (Connecticut and Rhode island) elected both legislatures and governors and did not have to submit their laws for approval.''

''Britain controlled the foreign relations of the colonies and, as far back as the time of Oliver Cromwell, maintained that the British parliament could bind the colonies with their acts. In practice, Parliament usually only legislated regarding matters of an imperial concern. The Navigation Acts of the late 17th century restricted colonial trade in accordance with mercantilist theory. Other acts would impose custom duties, establish a postal system, restrain paper currency, forbid manufacturing, and authorize the seizure of private property for debt payments.''

''The French and Indian War broke out in 1754 over conflicting claims of the British and French to the Ohio country. The war ended in 1763 with the conquest of French Canada and the virtual expulsion of France from mainland North America. A major consequence this, foreseen by the French foreign minister, was that the American colonists could now afford to challenge British rule without the fear of leaving themselves at the mercy of France. British policymakers were nonetheless determined to push for various reforms. They wished to maintain a standing army of 8,000 in the colonies, impose taxes so the colonies would share the defense burden, and make the crown-appointed governors and judges more independent of the assemblies which paid their salaries.''

What exactly about this is open to dispute?

CJK (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is already long, but this is not a bad summary if citations are provided and redundant information in the article removed. Much, if not all, of this is already covered. Shoreranger (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * what's wrong?? 1) the edits do not deal with the American Revolution--it wastes the time of readers interested in Am Rev; 2) it does not cite reliable secondary sources--adding Lecky from 1880 makes that obvious; 3) is is full of old-fashioned misreadings and errors (such as charters usually did not deal with self-govt; "virtual expulsion" is wrong; Brits never made use of Cromwell's precedents because they considered him illegitimate); 4) the French quote is misleading (the Americans did not think that because they had always protected themselves from the French); 5) historians all start with the 1760s not with this scattershot of older events. Rjensen (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

1) The edits deal with the constitutional background to the American Revolution much like the Origins of the American Civil War article discusses the background regarding slavery.

2) Lecky is a secondary source, there is no Wikipedia policy placing a time-limit on sources. If you think otherwise please cite the relevant policy.

3) The charters certainly provided much self-government, I don't know anyone who disputes this. The French ceded everything on the North American continent to Britain and Spain except two islands in Newfoundland, so "virtual expulsion" is correct. Cromwell's laws were deemed binding on the colonies by Charles II, who expanded upon them.

4) The Americans defended themselves, true. But that was because the French never made any serious effort to conquer the colonies, and the reason for that was the implicit British protection.

5) A brief sketch of pre-1763 events does no harm and is found in many histories.

CJK (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A brief sketch of pre-1763 events does no harm --that's the rub--it does harm. It wastes the time of readers who come for info on the Am Revolution.  Lecky is secondary all right but his 1880s work is no longer considered reliable by any historian (his approach was upended by the Imperial School of 1900 and scholars  like Charles Andrews, Osgood, Beer). Where CJK gets all his ideas--he keeps secret about that--he does not get them from modern reliable sources which talk about quite different topics (like ideas--liberalism, republicanism; like slavery and ideas of freedom; like local elections & juries; etc etc . That is not allowed when challenged. Historians start the textbook chapters & the monographs in the 1760s and that is the standard model --changing it is fringe and OR  Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is largely consumed with constitutional questions: the jurisdiction of Parliament, rights of Englishmen, the formation of new state and federal constitutions, etc. So why ignore the colonial constitution? The reader is kept completely ignorant of the nature of how Britain ruled its colonies. A Revolution is defined as a change in the constitution, how on earth can you describe the change without mentioning what things were like originally? Lecky is not being used for his opinion, but simply facts. Do you have any evidence that the facts I cited are wrong? As for where I get my ideas, here is an online library of the American Revolution. It lists Lecky along with hundreds of other authors. I never have questioned the influence of ideas, nothing I wrote contradicts that. Wikipedia does not operate like a textbook, and many histories have no problem with briefly discussing the background.

The English Civil War article provides a good example of what I am talking about. It gives a brief overview of the powers of King and Parliament before the controversy in Charles I's reign.

CJK (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * there are hundreds of good scholarly sources on constitutional issues but zero are used or cited here. Any college student who wrote that when the topic was the American Revolution would flunk. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The constitutional background to the American Revolution is just as relevant as the constitutional background to the English Civil War, both deal with similar subject matter. The facts that I mention are widely known to historians of the era, if you want a different source you can submit one.

CJK (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * CJK has not read or cited any of the constitutional studies. "Facts" need reliable secondary sources, which he lacks.  He points to a website with hundreds of thousands of pages of pre-1900 books which he has not read either. Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you arguing that my edits are factually inaccurate, or are you just criticizing the source used? You need to provide some proof that it does not meet WP:RS. Even supposing it doesn't, the edits in question report facts that are not remotely controversial among historians. I reiterate that the English Civil War article contains a brief overview of the constitutional background, so this article should too.

CJK (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I am arguing your edits are a) off the main topic according the practically all the main books & textbooks--it is fringe to cover that material which is MUCH better covered in the colonial articles; and b) do a poor job of summarizing the constitutional issues involved because you refuse to use any modern scholarship whatever of the last 98 years. It is not true that "facts" were fixed before 1900--historians had to work though the sources, which Lecky for example did not do but which scholars like Andrews & Osgood did accomplish after 1900. Rjensen (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

History textbooks are fundamentally different than Wikipedia. Textbooks will cover information in different sections, but Wikipedia has self-contained articles. The readers of Wikipedia are not students and they shouldn't be forced to read the colonial articles to understand this article. You have also not shown how modern scholarship differs from what I wrote.

CJK (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have self contained articles on major history topics. Instead the articles here all overlap and support each other. For example there are many stories and each of the 13 colonies has a history section that covers its experience in the Revolution. Singling out Virginia suggests falsely that there is a typical story as exemplified by Virginia. That is false history.  All the RS on the AM Rev start in the 1760s, so let's hear why Wikipedia -- which relies on those RS-- should be radically different??  And why so much attention to Jamestown--no constitutional issues are mentioned. Likewise the section on French & Indian war is garbled (it depends on a mistake made by the French who knew little about American thought) is not about constitutional issues.  Rjensen (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You admit they "overlap" yet you seem to want zero overlap in this article. I only mentioned Jamestown because that is when the first colonial government was established. The French and Indian War is widely recognized by historians as the precursor to the American Revolution.

I repeat myself: how are you supposed to write an article about a revolution (defined as a change in constitution) when you don't even describe what the constitution was originally.

CJK (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Revolution = constitution ???? who said that???? The Patriots said they were upholding the unwritten English constitution (because it does not allow taxation without representation). The main text covers all that very well. It means getting rid of king and parliament and the dull details of which colonies were formerly proprietary is irrelevant according to the RS. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course the Patriots claimed they were merely upholding the constitution. Gay marriage supporters in our time claim they are simply following the constitution as well. The fact of the matter is that they overthrew the government, a mixed monarchy frequently regulated by the British parliament, and established a new independent republican government founded on the "rights of man".

CJK (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * well yes--that's all covered here. They overthrew the government in the name of republicanism, which gets left out of your background. historians only started to pay attention to republicanism in the 1960s (see Bailyn, Wood, Pocock). Rjensen (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not "all covered here" because the form of government that was overthrown is left undescribed. The reader is left with the impression that American history began in 1763 and that the Patriots were conservatives who only upheld the constitution. It is also not true that people only looked into republicanism in the 1960s, contemporary British and loyalist observers frequently called the Patriots "republicans".

CJK (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * actually we have thousands of articles on American history. It's the Revolution that began in the 1760s--did you look at Lecky's book on the American Revolution? It begins in 1763. As for the Loyalists they are well covered too. Historians ignored republicanism until the 1960s, which is why it is not covered by Lecky. It takes a while for historians to discover the facts. Rjensen (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. This article is about a revolution. According to that article, a revolution is a change in the constitution. A change in the constitution cannot be described without mentioning what the constitution was originally like. The article English Civil War contains a background section on constitutional issues even though the disputes between Charles I and Parliament only began in the 1620s. Why is this article different?

CJK (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the focus of most American historians (and I'm guessing here as I don't know the specific historiography) is that various specific grievances and actions by and against Britain culminated in the American Revolution, and as per wikipedia policy, the article chiefly reflects that relatively narrower perspective. On the British side (and, again, I am guessing here as I don't know the specific historiography), the focus is more on the general role of colonies within the British Empire of the era, more specifically the need to finance the Seven Years War and its aftermath, the elimination of any serious external European threats, which had the effect of hugely opening up the American frontier and the subsequent "opportunism" of the American colonists, their substantive grievances notwithstanding. So, the "context" you desire here, CJK, is from a British perspective, but the article is an American one, hence the different focus as per wikipedia policy. Canada Jack (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, not from anybody's perspective. All I want to do is include very basic background information, which is what other articles do. It is utterly ridiculous to have an article about constitutional issues not mention what the constitution of the colonies were.

CJK (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why was the Gaspee burned?
Simple question, can someone please tell me why the Gaspee was burned? What 'unpopular trading regulations' was it enforcing?

Simple answer, if you still care. *Gaspée* patrolled to enforce customs and regulate maritime trade to, from, and within the colonies, and to discourage smuggling of untaxed, foreign, or otherwise contraband goods. (Then as now, smuggling and tax evasion were a significant enterprise in the American economy, and heavy enforcement was understandably unpopular.) She had also gained a reputation for aggressive and sometimes arbitrary seizure of colonial cargoes. Many of the laws enforced by *Gaspée* were recently imposed (and extremely unpopular) taxes and restrictions. Thus, when the opportunity presented, the aggrieved colonists needed little encouragement to burn the foundered ship. I would also speculate that there was not much else to do in 1700's Rhode Island ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.198.218.33 (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the taxes were not recently imposed, since they were first levied in 1629. They were just ignored for more than a century with the tacit acceptance of the British government, hence the expression 'Salutary Neglect'. By 1765 the colonists had become so accustomed to recieving preferential treatment that it probably did feel like they were being oppressed, unlike the actual British themselves who paid very high taxes, as did India. The Taxation that the patriots were complaining about wasn't really any new levies, just the fact that their smuggling was no longer as acceptable to London as it had once been. The figures show that no area in the empire paid so little - practically nothing - as the American colonists, and it was only when the British tried to actually collect the taxes that the trouble began. As Professor Peter Andres of Brown University states in his book Smuggler Nation; How Illicit Trade Made America, 'No taxation without representation' really meant 'No taxation under any circumstances'. Rather ironic, considering how they protested that they were defending their rights as Englishmen --Godwhale (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015
i want to put in that the boston tea party was involved and it happened in 1774

108.20.158.117 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Boston Tea Party is already mentioned in the article, and it happened in 1773, not 1774. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  20:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Outdated American propaganda
Much of this article is based on outdated American propaganda that every American has been taught since childhood, for 300 years.

Read "The American Counter-Revolution" by Professor Gerard Horne of Houston Uni. to educate yourselves, instead of just regurgitating the propaganda and brain-washing that has infected the American psyche (and beyond) for 300 years. [UNSIGNED]
 * 1) No mention of the huge sums of money and British men dying, to protect the Colonists from mono-religious France and Spain in the 7 years war and afterwards, for which taxes were needed to keep that protection for the Colonists, against these strict mono-religious states of France, Spain, and Catholic Netherlands.
 * 2) No mention of the court case rulings against slavery, in Scotland, then England (which have always had different legal systems) in 1771 and 1772, that led the Colonists to fear their only chance of livelihood and survival would disappear.
 * 3) Hardly a mention of the "Black Loyalists" slaves owned by the Founders, who escaped to British Canada, and to freedom, who were called "Those fugitives from these States" by Thomas Jefferson.
 * 4) No mention that soon after the French entered the war, and the Spanish in Europe and Caribbean, that the British, in their faster copper-bottomed boats chased down the French, Spanish, Dutch (Catholic coalition), and sunk their navies to the bottom of the ocean, changing the course of history forever (eg. The dictator Napoleon had no navy to speak of, and that gave the British the advantage over him when they and the Prussians defeated him, because they only had to focus on land battles. Napoleon could not take to the ocean to fight. )
 * 5) No mention that Washington had no money left to pay his troops, the French and Spanish had gone, and the British drafted the Peace Treaty with the French and Spanish without even consulting the Americans, and forced Washington to the table.
 * 6) No mention that the treaty demanded trade and business from the Americans, but that they should cause no more aggression, or the British would come back. In 1812, the Americans attacked British Canada, so the Brits came back in and burned the White House to the ground. The Americans behaved themselves after that. (except when they had to kill 600,000 of their own people 70 years later in order to put an end to slavery, which most places had already simply outlawed or voted out of existence.)
 * 7) The Colonists went to war to keep their slaves. That was the reason.


 * Read American Revolutionary War, which is the article about the actual war. This article covers the revolution as a whole. JOJ   Hutton  18:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaken. The article you refer to is only about the military actions (although it doesn't mention the virtual annihilation of the French, Spanish, and Dutch navies, one of the most significant military victories in human history, and which was the actual war, of which the American Revolution was just a regional battle. ) The article this "Talk" page refers to says  "This article is about political and social developments, and the origins and aftermath of the war. "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Items 1-3 and 5-7 are badly garbled and false. (#4 makes a good point forthe post-Yorktown period even though it says the Dutch Protestants were Catholics.) As for Horne: he himself says near-unanimous verdict of scholars stands in opposition to his speculation--Wikipedia follows the scholars not the fringe theorists.Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Unsigned blather, the lack of a signature being a red flag for in-authentic, ad hominem critique of this, overall well-written and well-edited article. The citation of the revisionist historian Gerald Horne is another glaring red flag. 10stone5 (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

huh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.207.224.238 (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I LOVE #7. Absolutely adore it. The Americans went to war against the largest slave trading nation on earth because they were afraid the slave traders would take their slaves away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome 71.160.33.132 to the mirror image world of wiki revisionists. Juan Riley (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016
United is misspelt and is missing an i

Search for Unted Replace with United

Aveeshkumar (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done and thanks Cannolis (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"American war of independence" hatnote
As a Brit I'm a bit confused by the hatnote on this article saying that American Revolution isn't used in British English. The "American War of Independence" generally refers to the actual American Revolutionary War, as indeed the latter article states, and the term "American Revolution" is, in my experience, standard usage here as well. I can find unambiguous examples of this, for example this website from the British Library (note usage of "Boston harbour" rather than "harbor" which identifies it as BrE), or this course guide from here at Cambridge (p. 39). A footnote to the Revolutionary War article also somewhat strangely mentions "British writers generally favor[ing]" the term "American Rebellion", which as far as I can tell has not been true for about a hundred years (except when describing British reactions at the time of the events). In my opinion the hatnote at least ought to be removed from this article, but since it's a well-established article I thought I'd seek comments here first. — Nizolan  (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed the relevant part of the hatnote, but am happy to listen to counterarguments. — Nizolan  (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2016
The last sentence of the second paragraph reads as follows: "In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government to better coordinate their resistance efforts against Great Britain, while other colonists preferred to remain aligned to the British Crown, known as Loyalists."

This reads as though the British Crown was known as Loyalists, not the colonists aligned with the Crown. I believe we have a misplaced modifier and the following would read better:

"In late 1774, the Patriots set up their own alternative government to better coordinate their resistance efforts against Great Britain, while other colonists, known as Loyalists, preferred to remain aligned to the British Crown." Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Good catch - thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Both sides offering freedom to slaves?
As of 2017-03-17 the current section on African Americans includes, "Both sides offered freedom and re-settlement to slaves who were willing to fight for them, recruiting slaves whose owners supported the opposing cause." The current article documents the British doing this but not the Patriots. I can believe that this may have been done in a few isolated cases. However, I believe it was too rare to justify a sweeping claim like this. I hope someone more knowledgeable than I will either provide a citation for that or revise the wording. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

War of Independence
This is what the title should be. it wasn't just a revolution against the elites in the US or a revolution like the industrial revolution, but a War of Independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is about the social revolution. The war is discussed at American Revolutionary War. Rmhermen (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Revolution. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117073405/http://www.blackloyalist.com/canadiandigitalcollection/story/exile/chaos.htm to http://www.blackloyalist.com/canadiandigitalcollection/story/exile/chaos.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216045633/http://jrshelby.com/sc-links/bancroft.htm to http://jrshelby.com/sc-links/bancroft.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017
I am objecting to the claim that the Boston Tea Party resulted from a tax on tea. Wikipedia's own page on the Boston Tea Party notes that the issue was monopolies, not taxes. In fact, if you dig deeper, you will find that the East India Company, which had a glut of tea on their hands at the time, was not only given a monopoly on tea sales in  the Americas, thus putting Colonial shippers out of business, but their tea was specifically EXEMPTED from tax at a time when taxes for other products were going up. It was this hypocrisy, not taxes per se, that led to the Boston Tea Party. This all feeds into a false narrative about American history: that it was all about taxes and ergo taxes are always bad. NO! There was NEVER any opposition to taxes per se: the opposition was to a government based in London that consistently favored metropolitan merchants over colonial ones. This is why the merchant cities were all in the forefront of the revolution. 185.101.236.204 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I don't see where this article attributes the Tea Party solely to a tax on tea, indeed, the lede introduces the Tea Party as a protest against taxation without representation. Can you point out specific wording in the article where you see the claim you object to? Cannolis (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest deleting ill-fitting content
The colonists did not object that the taxes were high (they were low), but because they had no representation in the Parliament[...] '''Stationing a standing army in Great Britain during peacetime was politically unacceptable. London had to deal with 1,500 politically well-connected British officers who became redundant; it would have to discharge them or station them in North America.''' In 1765, the Sons of Liberty formed [...] to ensure that the British tax laws were unenforceable...

Neither of the two sentences I've bolded above seems to have anything to do with the 1764–1766: Taxes imposed and withdrawn section or even to connect with its preceding or succeeding sentences. Suggest they be deleted--thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.179.44 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Britain needed money to pay its soldiers stationed in USA -- it could not station them in Britain. The soldiers had no military mission, it was a pension deal.  I added this passage based on Shy's book: London had to deal with 1,500 politically well-connected British Army soldiers. The decision was to keep them on active duty with full pay, but they had to be stationed somewhere.  Stationing a standing army in Great Britain during peacetime was politically unacceptable, so the decision was made to station them in America and have the Americans pay them. The soldiers had no military mission --they were not there to defend the colonies because there was no threat to the colonies.  Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Rjensen, can you explain under what mechanism the colonies were to pay for the soldiers?--Godwhale (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * the stamp tax was to be used to pay the british soldiers stationed in the 13 colonies. See the good discussion in leading textbook =   Rjensen (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct national definitions
Be careful not to treat the terms Great Britain and United Kingdom as synonymous. At the time of the American Revolution Great Britain and Ireland were not formally politically joined, although they had the same monarch. Union came in 1801 after which year it is correct to speak of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The term United Kingdom is not correct prior to 1801 in any context. England, Scotland and Wales make up Great Britain. The addition of Ireland (later Northern Ireland) created the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.141.62 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Revolution. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120525184607/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/105.1/ah000093.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/105.1/ah000093.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)