Talk:American Revolution/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

great fighters

there were many great fighters in this war that were all a contribution to the victories —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil whitte3 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Morocco and the independence of the US

In this article, it is stated that France was the first independent country to recognise the independence of the United States. This is incorrect, as Morocco (at that time the Empire of Morocco) was the first to recognise the independence in 1777.

I think it is important to highlight this fact and correct this point in this article. It is important that Americans learn that the first country to help them in their fight for their independence was a Muslim country.

Hicham - 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Economics of Revolution

There doesn't seem to be much on the economic causes but rather more ideological causes. I just want the editors to consider it. I actually agree more that the Revolution had a more bent toward ideology than economics, but having both arguments would not hurt. Suggestions are http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/baack.war.revolutionary.us http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/RDavies/arian/northamerica.html The Causes of the American Revolution By John C. Wahlke Thanks 98.226.198.234 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Typos

In the second paragraph, the word "contrained" is missing an s.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.237.155 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Who won?

It'sd false to say that independent states won the revolution. They banded together in a new nation in 1776. This new nation--not the separate states--formed military/diplomatic alliances with France etc that proved decisive. The national army--not the state armies--took the surrender at Yorktown that ended the war.Rjensen (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

try again. it is NOT true that the colonies formed self-governing independent states. These states then united against the British to defend that self-governance from 1775 to 1783. Rather The national government was formed first and it --the national government--declared independence, not the states. The National government (ie Congress, its diplomats, its Continental Army under George Washington) ran the war and formed alliances and won the war. The old text was not based on any reliable sources, like John Alden, "Am Rev" (pp 79-82)Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The national government was indeed formed by independent states who agreed to cooperate under the Second Continential Congress. The Declaration itself states "These United Colonie ARE and by right ought to be, free and independent STATES": "ARE...STATES". That seems pretty unambiguous. There is no contradiction in the article that Congress acted as the national government, nor that the Congress acting on behalf of the states, united, declared independence. First they were free and independent states, then they became the United States - that is the chronology. Please do not revert again without consensus. The edits were de-emphasizing the political revolution and placing focus on the war, which is already covered elswhere in the article.Shoreranger (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My problem is with the false assumption, "First they were free and independent states, then they became the United States - that is the chronology." The Declaration of Independence starts out with "United Colnies" and ends with "United States of America." It was the Congress that (in May) requested the colonial governments to become states. It was the USA that declared independence and signed treaties and fought the war, not the 13 states.Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is neither false nor an assumption. Prior to 1776 the former colonies through represetnative legislatures individually declared themselves independent states. The war begins in 1775 in Massachusetts before the Declaration declares unity. There has to be 'seperateness' before there can be 'unity'. In 1776 the "free and independent states" declare their independence and soverignty (soverignty - in this case seperation from the monarchy - being the main point of the Declaration, since they were effectively already individually self-governing since 1775), to become the nation of the United States. Even so, it was only a loose confederation where the states gave up little soverignty to the - yes, very real and undeniable - national government, which was to remain the situation until the Constitution of the United States a decade or so later created a much more centralized federal government to replace the confederal. Shoreranger (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone fix a typo?

I would just fix it myself, but the article is locked, so I figured I'd get it out of the way as quickly as possible. The typo is under American_Revolution#Incendiary_British_legislation: "...acts of a government that had no rght to pass laws..."

Thanks
24.231.167.92 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done! :-) -Duribald (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Who started what, when?

There seems to be some confusion that can be cleared up by reading the Declaration of Independence. It states that the "United Colonies" declared the independence of a new nation called the "United States of Ameirca." Historians agree that the nation came first, then the states. Congress declared independence, Congress fought the war, Congress made peace. Congress in May 1776 instructed the colonial governments to become states. None of the 13 declared independence on its own. None fought a war on its own (there were no state armies!--the state militia were loaned to Congress and under command of generals selected by Congress.)) but each acknowledged Congress as the leader, The article must explain that Congress, representing the 13, had charge of the war effort and the diplomacy during the war and peace negotiations. It's the reason Americans to this day celebrate July 4 as the national birthday. Rjensen (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to cite a lot of this, if you can, since it appears to me that evidence conradicts it from a political theory and political science perspective. For instance, New York became self-governing with the Provincial Assembly in 1775 and the british governor expelled. This meets the criteria for a state, not a colony - which is governed directly from the home country. Provincial Congresses all across the continent did the same. Massachusetts was fighting the beginning of the war by itself - this is a major point in American history, as John Adams (primarily) dramatically has to convince the other states in Congress to join Massachusetts in the war. The states had to exist first in order for them to "Unite" into a nation. There is no contradition in any of this to your last claim that Congress directed the war and diplomacy, and July 4th is the date the states become soverign and united on July 4th with the rejection for the first time of the monarchy with the Declaration - before this they were only rejecting Parliaments right to represent them, not the legitimacy of the monarchy to rule over them. These may be subtle differences, but they are VERY important, and indeed what many think makes the whole thing revolutionary.

This article is about political theory and political science, and ideas like states, soverignty, allegience, legitimacy etc. are integral and need to be correctly used and understood. The point of a Wiki, as I understand it, is to have these words in the article linked to other articles explaining them, so the full depth of the original article can be understood. I suspect some readers are not taking advantage of this and using their own interpretations of these ideas and considering them contradictory to preconceived notions, where - in fact - they may not conflict at all. Shoreranger (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a problem here: Shoreranger thinks this article is about political theory not history??? No, it's about history and the political theory is already included here under the heading "Liberalism, republicanism" No expert in history or political science calls the the 13 colonies states before July 1776 so that passage cannot stand without a citation. New York did not decide to become independent until late June 1776 (the last colony to so decide). Bailey-Kennedy textbook The American pagean : "Members of the Philadelpia Congress, instructed by their respective COLONIES, gradually edged toward a clean break." Ayers textbook (2007 p 153): "Virginia (June 1776) proposed Congres take measures for forming a "confederation of the colonies." Now let's ask Shoreranger for a couple of cites that support his position. Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• "None of the 13 declared independence on its own." The Virginia Convention declared independence on May 15, 1776. They did so on the same day that the Continental Congress recommended such an action. The distance between Williamsburg, VA and Philadelphia, PA, is over 200 kilometres and there were definatetely no phones... They did it at their own initiative. The Declaration of Independence was, by the way, a Virginian idea. No wonder that the constitution of the commonwealth was enacted in June 29, 1776 - before July 4th.
• "None fought a war on its own..." Massachusetts fought on it's own until their militia was taken over by the Coninental Congress after Lexington and Concord.
• As to the question of state vs colony, it seems obvious that de facto there were states before 7/4. There were defined political units, controlled by governments that taxed, administrated, exercised judicial authority and recruited military units. De jure statehood may have been declared later by most, but it seems obvious that in the Declaration of Independence, when it speaks of the states being independent, it uses the present tense to indicate something which is already a fact. -Duribald (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One reason Duribald does not cite sources is that his fact are wrong. He says The Virginia Convention declared independence on May 15, 1776. False. Virginia did NOT declare independence on May 15. Here's what it said: "Resolved, unanimously, That the Delegates appointed to represent this Colony in General Congress be instructed to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States." online It asked CONGRESS to declare independence, which Congress did in July. Note that Virginia resolution speaks of "colonies" not "states". Using the wrong word ("state") at the wrong time is the way to mislead readers. As soon as the fighting started Massachustetts turned over its military forces to Congress. The Declaration of course does NOT say the states are independent before July 1776, and no colony said it was independent before then. Duribald cannot cite any experts because none agree with his inaccurate theories. Rjensen (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjenson’s scenario is also fully supported by Pauline Maier in “American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence”. She goes in to some detail in relating state decisions with the decisions being made in Philadelphia.

With respect to Virginia, I’m don’t believe it is correct to claim that “The Virginia Convention declared independence on May 15, 1776.” Historian Virginius Dabney in his history of Virginia (Virginia: The New Dominion) states (page 135) that what was adopted on May 15 was a resolution directing its Philadelphia delegates to vote for immediate independence. Dabney indicates that there was a division between Henry, who wanted to delay independence until the intentions of France and Spain were determined, and Charles Lee who was in favor of immediate independence. The compromise to ask Philadelphia to declare independence was suggested by Edmund Pendleton.

Jeff Broadwater in “George Mason: Forgotten Founder” (page 78) tells the same story regarding the convention’s decision to only make a recommendation, although he admits that “Virginians treated the convention’s resolution as a declaration of independence itself.” However in discussing the creation of the state constitution he writes (page 80), “On May 10 the Continental Congress had asked the individual colonies to organize new governments, and five days later, the Virginia Convention passed a resolution creating a committee to draft a bill of rights and a new constitution.” Assuming it was the new constitution that legally declared independence for the state, does that mean that Virginia’s history as a sovereign state lasted about a week?

In any event, I think it would be worthwhile to flesh out the state by state details within the article itself in the section “Creating new state constitutions” and keep the lede as general as possible. I would suggest changing the sentences in question to something like this:

In this period the colonies first rejected the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them without representation, assumed control of their local governments, and united against the British to protect their self-government in the armed conflict from 1775 to 1783 known as the American Revolutionary War (also: American War of Independence). On July 4, 1776 the Declaration of Independence formalized the creation of a single nation that rejected not only the governance of Parliament, but also now the legitimacy of the monarchy to demand allegiance. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to go through the excercise of re-explainig and defending what I wrote, except to say I never wrote this article is "not about history", and to point out that a state as a political entity can be independent without being "soverign" - so "soverign state" is not synonymous with "state." Beyond that, for now, I will just say that I could live with Tom's comprimise text. Shoreranger (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few comments that hopefully might help editors as they work on the article. The reason for the little tiff above, if I may be so bold, is that editors have been arguing for precision in what was historically, and remains for many historians, an ambiguous situation. And so both sides here have made some errors. ;-) Shoreranger is right about Virginia: Virginia did declare independence, and call itself a "state", before July 4: they did so on June 29 with the adoption of the 1776 Constitution, proclaiming "the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED." Pauline Maier, in an appendix of her book on the Declaration, lists a number of colonies, including Virginia, that declared independence before July 4.

Thomas Jefferson considered the colonies to be "states" even before 1776: in his 1774 work A Summary View of the Rights of British America, he put forth the rather radical theory that the "states of British America" (his phrase) were in fact states on par with Great Britain, sharing only a common king. But this view is perhaps contradicted by the Declaration of Independence as edited by Congress, which, as Prof. Jensen notes above, proclaimed to the world that the colonies were now states. This ambiguity has continued through the years. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, argued that the Union began in 1774 with the Continental Association. Few historians would back him up on that; some scholars in fact have argued that, according to international law, the "United States" as a political entity didn't officially exist until another state recognized it, which happened with the French alliance. We usually date the birth of the US to the Declaration, because the Declaration is a legal document that proclaims the United States to be a member of the international community, but the precise moment when the individual "colonies" technically became "states" is a fuzzier notion that is rarely specifically answered, because it is inherently ambiguous.

A standard scholarly work on this point, which I see cited all the time but have not yet read, is Jerrilyn Greene Marston's King and Congress: The Transfer of Political Legitimacy, 1774-1776. Maybe one of you guys can read that book and give us a full report. —Kevin Myers 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that, in fact, international law does not recognize the constitutive theory of statehood - as Kevin writes above - but, rather, it is the "declarative theory of statehood" that has standing internationally. That is, recognition by another soverign state is not the criteria for statehood, but - for instance - attributes such as "(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states" define a state. All of these, it seems, would define each of the individual states just before they agreed to unite as the United States, if not define them individually for some time before that. The capacity to enter into relations would surely define the decision to join the Second Continental Congress, as well as to later agree to provide militia to defend Massachusetts in 1775. Shoreranger (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In practice an entity does not have "capacity to enter into relations with the other states" as a state unless the other state(s) recognise it as a state. --PBS (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so, Phillip, as NGOs regularly enter into agreements with states, but do not have a permanent population within a defined border, etc. The PLO would provide a different aspect to this as well, arguably meeting all the criteria except a defined territory, and accepted internationally as the legitimate representatives of a people, but NOT a state, per se. Shoreranger (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you not notice my qualifier "as a state"? --PBS (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I was thinking in terms of the subject relevent to the article. How, then, does it play out when the state of New York and the state of Pennsylvania agree to send militia to the state of Massachusetts for defense against the British - are they not "in practice" mutually recognizing each other as "states" in the sense we are discussing, meeting all criteria? Shoreranger (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Illegal ?

I was thinking, and somebody can hopefully clarify this for me, when the America had their civil war and the south went for secession it was deemed illegal, with the American Revolution, what - if anything, makes it different? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See Secession in the United States. Shoreranger (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Only because the "Patriots" won. At the signing, of the American Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having replied to a comment by John Hancock that they must all hang together: "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." -- PBS (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

legality means in line with the will of the people, not what some king somewhere thought. Many patriots were captured by the Brits, but they put none on trial and did not hang any of them. Rjensen (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The American model of democracy is a representative democracy not a direct democracy, so from where do you get the idea that it is the will of the people? In England, the point of what kings thought about government and how much wight should be attached to those views was sorted out on 30 January 1649, more than 100 years earlier than the events we are discussing. That combatants were captured and not executed does not make the actions of the "Power" for which they are fighting legal, see the treatment of Freeborn John and the resulting Declaration of Lex Talionis in the English Civil War (A war in which the Earl of Manchester pointed out "We may beat the king 99 times, and yet he will be king still. If he beats us but once, we shall be hanged". See also that although the English Parliament passed the Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish it was not enforced on the high sea as expedient reciprocity often won over other principles. See also and what was done with POWs in the American Civil War. Just because prisoners were not tried for treason does not mean that the capturing side would not have done so if the risks to their own side were less. For example at the end of the Second English Civil War Parliamentarians were far less lenient to Royalists than they had been, in part because they had won two civil wars decisively. And a condition placed on the Restoration of the monarchy was the An Act of Free and General Pardon, Indemnity, and Oblivion, An act that has been frequently copied in other civil wars (eg Biafran War [1], and Good Friday Agreement). The legality of otherwise of a rebellion is decided at the end of an armed rebellion not at the start, and it is decided by the outcome of the conflict. --PBS (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this, the Constitution was ratified as an indissoluble Union; the secretary of the Virginia Convention wrote that Virginia would not recognize partial or conditional ratifications as valid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two quick points: there never was any serious possibility of Britain hanging American rebels (Franklin's famous line was a metaphor). Second, republicanism is based on the sovereignty of the people (not the king). Specficially the will of the people is stated in the Declaration: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." Rjensen (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly not hanged; Jacob Leisler was drawn and quartered, although Nathaniel Bacon would have been hanged if he'd lived. Why Rjensen supposes the eighteenth century would have more lenient if the Revolution had collapsed quickly is beyond me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Times change indeed--and one execution a century before doesn't say much. Many leading Brits favored and admired the Americans and King George III did not have full control of Parliament--his opponents were friends of the American Revolution and indeed came to power after Yorktown caused the King's government to fall. Charles James Fox for example. Rjensen (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Several dozen, actually; the evidence that Bacon would have been hanged is that his followers were. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Role of people who supported the revolution but never set foot in the Americas

I am thinking in particular of the remarkable Rev Dr Richard Price of Newington Green, who inspired Thomas Paine & Ben Franklin, and who was sought out by John & Abigail Adams when they sojourned in London. (He also contributed to the political radicalisation of Mary Wollstonecraft, who may have encouraged the 2nd First Lady to remind her husband to "remember the ladies", but that's another story....). The point is, there must have been quite a few characters -- and Price was a character -- who applauded from afar. Is there room for them in this article? Price doesn't seem to fit into categories such as Category: Clergy in the American Revolution, but his sermons did more to provide the philosophical justifications for republican revolt than many of the minor chappies listed there. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section Rewrite, please

Ladies and Gentlemen, the lead section desperately needs a rewrite in my opinion. The current Lead:

The American Revolution refers to the political upheaval during the last half of the 18th century in which the Thirteen Colonies of North America overthrew the governance of the British Empire and then rejected the British monarchy to become the sovereign United States of America. In this period the colonies first rejected the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them without representation, and formed self-governing independent states. These states then joined against the British to defend that self-governance in the armed conflict from 1775 to 1783 known as the American Revolutionary War (also: American War of Independence). This resulted in the independent states uniting to form one nation, breaking away from the empire in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. The states having already rejected the governance of Parliament, the Congress now rejected the legitimacy of the monarchy to demand allegiance. The war raged for seven years, with effective American victory in October 1781, followed by formal British abandonment of any claims to the United States in 1783.

The American Revolution included a series of broad intellectual and social shifts that occurred in the early American society, such as the new republican ideals that took hold in the American population. In some states, sharp political debates broke out over the role of democracy in government, with a number of even the most liberal Founding Fathers fearing mob rule. Consequently, many issues of national governance were not settled until the Constitution of the United States (1787), including the United States Bill of Rights (1789) comprising its first 10 amendments, replaced the relatively weak Articles of Confederation (see Federalist Papers) that framed the first attempt at a national government. In contrast to the loose confederation, the Constitution enshrined the natural rights idealized by republican revolutionaries, and guaranteed them under a relatively strong federated government, as well as allowing for dramatically expanded suffrage for national elections. The American shift to republicanism, and the gradually increasing democracy, caused an upheaval of the traditional social hierarchy, and created the ethic that has formed the core of American political values.[1]

There are several issues with these two paragraphs, not least of which is that the writing is simply terrible. In the first paragraph, the last sentence is simply restating what is said in the previous two sentences. The inclusion of sentences attempting to define the role of legal entities such as "nations" and "states" in the first paragraph is not at all informative to the primary topic. I can see that subject as being important, but the first paragraph is not the proper place for it. Finally, The writing is simply jumbled and incoherent at this point (run on sentences, poor punctuation, confusion about the topic, etc...). The Lead section guideline asks good questions which, when applied to the current writing, this article fails at. The writing is neither clear nor accessible, and perhaps most importantly where are the sources! Ohms law (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohms is quite right. The cause is that the lede does not reflect modern scholarship but is a made-up story that experts do not agree with. It seems to say that 13 Colonies ran the show and is unaware that the nation came first, that it declared independence, that it made war and diplomacy, and that it was the victor. The article itself ignores most of the states--as do most historians--and concentrates on the nation. So the lede is indeed terrible. Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comeon folks, let's get to work on this! I was hoping that my edit a few days ago would at least garner some attention for the poor Lead... V = I * R (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

English parliament or 'British parliament' ?

The article's introduction says "The adherence of the colonists to the British constitution and what they viewed to be the tyrannical deprivation of English rights by the English Parliament, in concert with the failure of King George III to protect his subjects from such abuses, compelled the colonists to sever political ties with Great Britain."

Given that the English Parliament ceased to exist in 1707 after merging with the Scottish Parliament to form the British Parliament, why is the English Parliament being mentioned? I have a very sketchy knowledge of the American Revolution, so I would be grateful if someone more knowledgeable could clarify whether that is a mistake or not.

Polanyi (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognition: contradiction in the article?

The article states that:

• "... the French ... in early 1778, significantly becoming the first country to officially recognize the Declaration of Independence."
• "In 1777, Morocco was the first state to recognize the independence of the United States of America."

Perhaps a clarification may be in order?--Doron (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Please make a correction on this page

{{editsemiprotected}} The word “where” in the following sentence should be changed to “were”…thank you! The great majority of American patriots had never heard of Locke nor other Enlightenment thinkers and where not familiar with republican political theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscott1966 (talk • contribs)

Not done: I can't find this quote anywhere in American Revolution. It has either been removed since you made the request, or you are referring to another article. — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 06:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

USamerican Revolution

I think the properly word for somebody who's from a place like The United States of America is USamerican, America is the whole continent, if this encyclopedia is serious, well, you have to start to put things the way it is. I will try to fix anything i see here. It is not fair to use the adjective only for the people that born in The United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chac10 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In the English language, 'America' is hardly ever taken to mean a continent (if you call a Canadian an American they will correct you immediately). Also, USamerican isn't a common word in English. AlexiusHoratius 23:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Whereas "America" can be used to denote the "New World", "American" is almost exclusively used for people from the United States, and, furthermore, there is little chance for confusion in an article about the American Revolution, the subject of the article is universally called the "American Revolution" and in articles about American topics, according to Wikipedia policy, American English should be used. There is nothing ambiguous about the term "American" in normal American English. -Duribald (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Most --but not all--scholars say religion played a minor role in the Revolution. Theologian and commentator Michael Novak argued it was central but he is not a historian and his views have not been accepted by any scholars of the Revolution that I have seen. The exaggerated argument needs to be reduced in volume relative to mainline interpretations. Rjensen (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This should not be interpreted to deny such issues as the question of an Anglican Bishopric in America, which was a real concern, especially in the middle colonies; but this is presumably the minor role mentioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Septentrionalis is right about the bishops as minor issue. London never sent a bishop because it did not want to stir up strong opposition--if it had done so then religion (re bishop) would have been a much bigger issue. Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Requested

I note that a mediation case was opened some weeks back but there has been no progress. Do the relevant parties still wish for mediation? Manning (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty stable now, but the tag is still there. I am content the way it is, as long as the tag goes. Shoreranger (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gelernter

David Gelernter is a computer scientist with bizarre views on the 18th century. One reviewer concluded, "Gelernter starts with an undoubted fact and uses it to construct a bizarre fantasy."[2] Another expert says he tries to distill Puritan religion but "But Gelernter's own distillery doesn't work."[3] John Wilson in Christianity Today, Oct 2007 ridicules his "absurd premise." Richard Gamble, a conservative scholar in Modern Age (winter 2008 p 81) says Gelernter "ends up with an absurdly puffed-up caricature of the American identity." I have not found a favorable review by any major scholar. That means he doesn't make the cut in the field that has been studied by hundreds of real historians with better credentials and more credible ideas. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd concur. Shoreranger (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion

The American Revolution is the political upheaval during the last half of the 18th century in which thirteen of Britain's colonies in North America at first rejected the governance of the Parliament of Great Britain, and later the British monarchy itself, to become the sovereign United States of America.

A "political upheaval? It was called a rebellion at the time, was it not?--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

it started as a rebellion and soon became much more than that--for it created a new nation with new leaders, new values, and a new approach to world affairs. So that makes it an upheaval. Also as the dictionary notes, "rebellion" is used for smaller affairs, usually unsuccessful (like Boxer rebellion, Bacon's Rebellion, Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion). Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rebellion of the Southern states, that is a "smaller affair"? In that case, and I quote Wikipedia, "Both the outgoing and incoming US administrations rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion." The Boxer rebellion engulfed an Empire (50,000 – 100,000 Boxers & 70,000 Imperial troops according to Wikipedia)! Whatever dictionary you are using, you can safely deposit it in the waste disposal unit. There were a large number of rebellions that lasted from hours to years, decades even. Until the Treaty of Paris there was no new nation as far as British law was concerned, therefore it was a rebellion. What this article does is retroactively projects views of post-treaty patriotic propaganda. By the way, the 'new values and new approach to world affairs' was not so new. There had been republics in Europe before that pronounced in the American colonies, so the 'new leaders' simply borrowed on the experience and thinking of others. Right? And even rebellions over payment of taxes was not new

Funnily enough the article clearly states it was a rebellion in the Yorktown section "News of the defeat effectively ended major offensive operations in America. Support for the conflict had never been strong in Britain, where many sympathised with the rebels, but now it reached a new low."

PS. In saying it was a rebellion I ma not passing moral judgement over either the cause or the outcome of the events that constituted the rebellion, but only stating a fact.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Political upheavals (or revolutions) succeed, while rebellions do not.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you speaking for the United States experience, or the World? May I refresh you memory with some other 'revolutions', like the French, the Russian and the Chinese, to name the most prominent. In fact there does not seem to be an article for political upheaval, the nearest being this. But was it a political upheaval? You mean the fighting was not a part of the same process of rebellion against British rule? No, it was not just a political upheaval, but a rebellion defended by force of arms to ensure disobedience to economic policies that would have, in the argument of the colonists, affected their social well being --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It was refered to contemporarily by at least some influential participants as "the revolution", and the war was a result of the political conflict, not the other way around, at least in this case. Shoreranger (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed - and made

It says Lord Nelson defeated the Spanish Armada, which is more than a little incorrect. I would think the individual we want in that place is Francis Drake. 173.26.186.96 (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. Good catch. It's fixed. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Stated in the last paragraph under "Prisoners."

But Edmund Palmer, a Lieutenant in the English army was taken prisoner in 1777 by General Putnam of the US army for spying and adhering to the 'Cause of the Sovereign' and subsequently hanged near Peekskill, NY. Copyright of the Public Archives, Ottawa, A.O.13/15, page 32. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhudgina (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but the crime of treason and the crime of espionage are not the same. Shoreranger (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Boston Massacre Trial

I deleted the fllowing recent addition to the section American Revolution#Townshend Act 1767 and Boston Massacre 1770:

Evidence from one of the dead that mitigated the guilt of the soldiers was denigrated because of the dead man's Catholicism.

Since the entire section is 8 sentences long and since, in WP:Summary style fashion, the section refers to the two man articles that cover the events, it seems like this little factoid is totally out of place and very POV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. -Duribald (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. it also was mis-stated (Adams said it in a pamphlet after the trial) Rjensen (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a couple of things I don't understand, and there's a correction I want to make. Firstly, how is that sentence POV? Secondly, what was misstated? Thirdly, how is Adams' denigration of Carr's testimony a factoid? I don't believe it is. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Adams statement did not affect the trial and did not affect the American Revolution in any way, so it is a factoid that has no place in this article. Put it in the Sam Adams article (but be sure to specify when and where he made the statement).Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The POV aspect is that the factoid you picked to emphasize throws anti-Catholicism into the event as if it were a major aspect of American opposition to British rule. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the use of the word factoid. Do you doubt it happened? Neither of you have explained what was misstated. I'm not sure it's true to say Adams' statement did not affect the revolution in any way; the successful smearing of Carr's reliability as a witness (and thus the further demonisation of the British troops involved) can only have aided separatist sentiment. I don't believe the sentence "throws" anti-Catholicism into the event; Adams did all that throwing. Nor that it any way portrays the colonists' separatism as being heavily tinged with anti-Catholicism; Catholics probably had more freedoms throughout most of the colonies than they had in Ireland at the time. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check out http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Factoid where one of the definitions for factoid is, “a briefly stated and usually trivial fact.” As has been explained, this section of the article is intended to be a short summary of the two larger articles it refers to. Mention of this minor factoid is indeed trivial within the context of this present article, plus it brings up the subject of anti-Catholicism with no context or balance.

The broader issue is, of course, to what extent ALL of the rhetoric generated by the Massacre led to the Revolution. This is adequately covered by the remaining language that says, “Although the soldiers were tried and acquitted (defended by John Adams), the widespread descriptions soon became propaganda to turn colonial sentiment against the British. This in turn began a downward spiral in the relationship between Britain and the Province of Massachusetts.” The details about the “propaganda” such as dogs lapping up blood in the streets and Redcoats firing “wantonly” into a crowd of “peaceably disposed Whigs” belongs in the Boston Massacre article where there is room for a fuller discussion of the events. It is simply your OR that your single factoid is much more significant than all of the other details available about the Massacre and reactions to it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bernardo de Gálvez y Madrid

I removed this since there were to many details about one person for an article on a subject this broad, and most of the material was about the revolutionary war, which has it's own article. -Duribald (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Nation" in the intro?

I understand it's the common word for a country, but the US isn't a nation in the sense that most people outside the US use the term. There's no official language, common ethnic background, or common culture. Furthermore, the term "nation" implies that there's a unitary government or at least a central government with reserve powers, on the European model. That certainly wasn't true during the Confederation period, and isn't even entirely true today - the states still have reserve powers and there are things that the federal government is constitutionally not allowed to do. Perhaps stating that the colonies became states, confederating and eventually federating instead, might give a better impression of the dynamic at work here? 75.3.130.63 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The US set new standards for what a republican nation is, with innovations like the first written constitution and the creation of a muli-ethnic nation. English has always been the language of American government and the vast majority of the people, and there is much more in the way of a common culture than many large countries (more than Germany or France or Britain or Canada or Russia or Italy, say). The Congress in 1776 declared independence, made treaties, controlled a national army, and printed money and borrowed money in the name of the new nation. So let the statement stand. What do historians say? They call it a "New Nation" Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the US is not a distinct nation (even in the 21st century!) is, frankly, bizarre, as is the claim that somehow being multi-ethnic or having a federal republic are disqualifiers for nationhood. I agree that on July 4, 1776, most Americans probably identified themselves more strongly by their individual state citizenships than as Americans, but even then and certainly by 1783 a collective national identity had emerged in addition to a unified governmental entity. That the Articles of Confederation were less strong of a national government than under the Constitution is not really an argument against nationhood. And that we aren't "on the European model" has been a unifying point of national pride from the beginning (hence, um... the American Revolution). --CAVincent (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "nation" is one of the most abused in the English...well - actually in every language. What a nation "really" is is one of the most contentious subjects of political discourse in the last 200 years. It is a question that has lead to murders, wars and genocides. To pretend that the word implies something very specific, as you suggest, is to oversimplify the issue. Fortunately, however, in the intro of this article it can simply be seen as a synonym for "country", which America is. -Duribald (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If there were a national identity by 1783, why was there a secession in 1860-61? Clearly, at that time, the states that seceded didn't think they were part of a nation. They thought they were independent states that had freely associated with others to form a federation, and that they could leave as they like. Others, New York for example, when ratifying the Constitution, ratified with the provision that they reserved the right to get out if they didn't like it. George Templeton Strong said in 1861 that "We have never been a nation. We are merely an aggregate of communities, ready to fall apart at the first serious shock." The US is certainly a country, but not a nation per se in the non-US sense, and it certainly wasn't then. I'm just trying to raise the point that people inside the US mean something different by the term "nation" than people outside the US, and when the US is termed a "nation" on par with European nations it confuses any discussion of American government and history. Using that term without explanation as to the different cross-cultural meanings - and I don't think there's a quick way to do that in an intro - makes the article say two different things. Just going by the definition of "nation" in the wiki entry, it contains multiple meanings that it might not be a good idea to imply. "Federation" is an accurate description of what happened - why doesn't it give a better impression of what happened than a loaded word? Perhaps keeping the word and changing the link from "nation" to "American nationalism" to reflect this difference might be acceptable? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending secession or anything, I'm just trying to place the term in its historical and sociological context. 75.3.130.63 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

the job of the article is to tell what expert opinion says on the matter--and the answer is there are many books that emphasize the "new nation" theme by including it in the title -- as demonstrated by Amazon list of 143 books that use "New Nation" in the title. Editors who speculate otherwise are operating in a vacuum of their own OR; they need to cite some historians who say the U.S. was not a new nation in 1776. Not a single such book has been cited. Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk about OR! An amazon search to demonstrate historical consensus?! It's not a book, but if you want a historian's say (Gordon S. Wood, professor of history at Brown University), look at this. 75.3.130.63 (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny anyone should allude to the American Civil War - remember the Gettysburg Address?: "...[O]our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, concieved in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." In addition, Washington referred to "national" and "nation" in his inaugural address. Shoreranger (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Gettysburg Address was not to be a piece of historical scholarship. It was to advocate a line of policy/action. Certainly Lincoln wanted the US to be a nation; that doesn't mean it was. And Washington could certainly have been using the term in the American sense, not the outside-the-US sense, which is why I think it's reasonable, even if you guys aren't going to change "nation" to "federation," to at least change the link to "American nationalism" to clear up the cross-cultural double meaning. I don't see why I should be burned at the stake for suggesting what is really a disambiguation edit. 75.3.130.63 (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous poster: The discourse here has been nothing but civil. If you believe you are being "burned at the stake" simply because you have so far been unable to present an arguement effective enough to convince your fellow editors, perhaps you are overly sensitive about this issue, or in general. Just because the majority of editors - or even all of them, as seems to be the case so far - doesn't mean you are being persecuted, only that the defense of your opinion has been ineffective. Now, to the matter at hand: Do you honestly believe that Washington and Lincoln are not experts at the concept of nationhood? I would suggest that political motive alone is certainly not reason enough to discount expertise on a matter of political theory. Shoreranger (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'm gone. Wikipedia is expert opinion, I didn't know that. 75.3.130.63 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neither Lincoln nor Washington are experts on political theory or even known as great political thinkers. They are known as men of action. They certainly are not to be considered as reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense, and the Gettysburg adress is a political speech. A good one, mind you, but nevertheless. -Duribald (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is France a nation? At the time of the revolution France was less ethnically homogenous than America. Only half of the population spoke French at all, and the ethnic differences have lasted to this day. Is Italy a nation? At the time of the unification Italians spoke different languages and had really no common political history at all. As a matter of fact they mostly had a history of going to war on each other. Is Belgium a nation, with it's two distinct ethnic groups? Is Britain a nation, with it's four constituent countries? Is Switzerland a nation? Where is this European national homogeny you´re talking about? -Duribald (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I say anywhere that everything except the US is a nation, in all senses of the term? You can't deny that the term "nation" has, in some uses, a nativist/ethnic tint. Suggesting that it's legitimate to read that nativist/ethnic tint into American history, without explanation, muddies up the article unnecessarily. Why is it not better to clear up that ambiguity? 75.3.130.63 (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that nationhood is a construction and that nationality has been defined, and constructed, in many different ways. People identify as a nation based on many different criteria: language, religion. "race", history etc. America has been built mainly on what is sometimes called "the myth of the great America" - a shared set of ideas, or, perhaps, rather a self-image. Nationhood is based on a perceived community, and this perception may actually be based in anything. If people identify as a nation based on a criterion, then they "are" a nation. There is no objective essence to be found in the concept of nationhood. To say that there is a strong ethnic element in the idea of a nation is just to superimpose your idea of what creates a national community. It is, in Wikipedia language, POV. Now, this discussion is somewhat anachronistic, since the idea of the nation state and nationalism erupted after the revolution. But whether you apply the term as meaning "country" or nation in the nationalistic sense, the term applies. The goal, after all, of the revolution was to build a community, to "form a nation", as it says in the intro. If you feel that they didn't succeed, then that's your idea. Feel free to write a book or something about it. I might buy it. But this is an encyclopedic article and we follow the reliable sources. -Duribald (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing: queries

I've gone through the top portion. Can someone check my change concerning the word congress' (did it refer to the colonies' congresses or the First Continental Congress? I assumed the latter.

"The French signed an alliance with the United States government in 1778 that evened the military and naval strengths, later bringing Spain and the Dutch Republic into the conflict by their own alliance with France." This is unclear. What does "evened" mean in this context?

Also, the "In response to" paragraph ... I hope the meaning is preserved.

There are a lot of entities floating around, so let's be clear about which is which. Tony (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

American Patriot Party? not

Scholars do not use the term "American Patriot Party" because there was no such organization in the 1760-1780 period (there have been so-named parties founded in the late 20th century). Likewise there was no organization then named the "Patriot Party". References to childrens books or to popular magazine articles or popular books written 100 or 200 years ago cannot be considered a "reliable source" when we have thousands of schoalrly articles and books written by hundreds of experts who do not use these terms. Rjensen (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Plutocracy"

If "plutocracy" is the wrong term, and it very well may be, the article needs another term to describe the political power of the artistocracies of the day, which is entirely different from the European artistorcacies of today, and particularly of the United Kingdom today, and is a vital concept for the Revolution to be understood properly. Shoreranger (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"plutocracy" was never used at the time (it was coined much later) and is not used by historians. The people in 1770s and historians use "aristocracy". It meant rule by families thru inheritance of wealth, status and power.Rjensen (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think should be presumed that the average reader will not know that distinction, and it will have to be made in the article. Shoreranger (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Plutocracy means rule by the wealthy. That was not an issue in 1770s--Washington for example was among the richest men in America and people like Jefferson and NY General Schuyler (Hamilton's father in law) were close behind. So it should not be mentioned at all. Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not necessarily objecting to the removal of the term "plutocracy." However, it is qualified in the article as "inherited plutocracy" and is itself qualifying the phrase "of the aristocracy." This phrase conveys an idea that is key to understanding the opposition the Americans had with the aristocracy: The revolutionaries did not care that there was a system of inherited titles per se, as there is now, but were adamantly opposed to the political power and inherited wealth that was attached to those titles. Inherited titles exist today, but without that power and - often - without that wealth. It is confusing for some readers who are only familiar with the current British socio-political situation to understand the opposition of the Americans to what appears to be a benign system of honorifics that holds no real political power. It is necessary to succinctly convey in this article that it was not merely the titles of the aristocracy that rankled the Americans, but the political power they weilded in a system that no longer exists. If the phrase "inherited plutocracy of the aristocracy" does not properly convey that, then an alternative needs to be found. Shoreranger (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism in lede

I mistakenly first inserted a Wiki'd reference to "classical liberalism" in the lede, but see now that article actually deals with a more modern interpretation than I expected. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that such changes be discussed first, so I am now opening a discussion on including a reference in the lede to "liberalism" as a major influence on the development of the Revolution, on par with the reference to "republicanism in the United States." Any opinions? Shoreranger (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In the last 30 years experts have overwhelmingly emphasized the republicanism element. Locke (="Liberalism") is still there but not as prominent for most scholars. For example Ferling Setting the World Ablaze (2002) repeatedly shows republicanism was a main factor and mentions Locke and liberalism only in passing (the passing mention: "Of course, Jefferson's outlook was influenced by Enlightenment liberalism, classical history and theory, English law, and his study of English history and government." p 81) (There are still a few schools who emphasize liberalism) Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not suggested that a mention of "liberalism" replace "republicanism" in the lede, only that they coexist. There doesn't seem to be anything in that response that contradicts it being understood as among the primary contirubtions to American revolutionary thought. In fact, the quote offered only seems to demonstrate it as a given. Shoreranger (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Liberalism" is a bit of an anachronism, since the word appeared first in the 19th century. I'd prefer the use of the term "enlightenment philosophy". But since the word "liberalism" is used by scholars, it's certainly not wrong, by Wikipedia standards,. Locke and Montesquieu ARE revered by liberal thinkers and considered part of their core philisophy. They are certainly considered precursors of liberal democracy. (When I studied American culture and history (early 90's), the enlightenment element was totally dominant, and no mention was made of any special American ideology called "republicanism". When I read of this "republicanism" ideology it seems virtually identical to the thought of the Swedish Age of Liberty 1720-1772; when Sweden was made a republic in everything but name, and wrote the first modern constitution guaranteeing the freedom of the press. This is just a personal reflection, hence the parantheses.) I'm coming out in favour of adding a mention - whether in the form of "liberalism" or "enlightenment philospophy". The concept of human rights, the division of power in a three-tier system and so on are core "enlightenment liberalism" values. -Duribald (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this has marinated, and the original requesting party has nothing to add below, so I am going to put the reference back in. Shoreranger (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Liberalism" in American Revolution lead para.

At your suggestion, a discussion on this issue was begun here. You have not yet commented, so I am trying to insure you have the opportunity. Just FYI: we are not talking about "libertarianism" or FDR's "modern liberlism" but, rather, liberalism as developed and understood during the Enlightenment . Shoreranger (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Others have commented above, which is what I've wanted. I already know what I think about. - BilCat (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

convoluted lede

The lede is convolugted and does not reflect the way RS handle the big issues. I recommend this: "The American Revolution was the political upheaval during the last half of the 18th century in which the Thirteen British colonies in North America became the United States of America. In 1774-75 the colonies rejected the authority of the Parliament, expelled all royal officials and set up new governments. They sent delegates in 1775 to the Second Continental Congress, which formed a national government. The Congress in 1775 took charge of the armed conflict against the British known as the American Revolutionary War (1775–83, also American War of Independence), and appointed General George Washington as commander of the Continental Army. In July 1776 when the Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, rejecting the monarchy on behalf of the new nation. Patriot victories on the battlefield convinced the French to form a military alliance in 1777; with Spain and Netherlands joining France and the U.S., the superior military and naval power of Britain was neutralized and victory was secured on the battlefield at Yorktown in 1781. Peace was formalized in Treaty of Paris in 1783, which proved highly favorable to the new nation, giving it all the territory east of the Mississippi. About 15-20% of the people were Loyalists who favored Britain during the war; after 1783 80% remained in the new nation but about 75,000 left for other parts of the British Empire, especially Canada. " Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be "The Thirteen Colonies" not "The Thirteen British Colonies" as the former is a proper name, the latter is an inaccurate geographic description (there were more than 13 British colonies). And... "Canada" is ambiguous as that referred, until 1867, to modern-day Ontario and Quebec, and many UEL went to Nova Scotia etc. Canada Jack (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The American Revolution refers to the political upheaval in the last half of the 18th century that led thirteen of Britain's North American colonies to form the independent United States of America. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.39.8 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

North American revolution

To call this an American revolution suggest an involvement of the whole continent in the revolution, but in fact this is just a country called now, US of North America, I think the title should be changed to North American Revolution and of course redirect from American Revolution.

No, this is not an anti US statement, simply believe that is is inaccurate and unpolite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.113.18 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxation without representation

It's not clear in the article what body the 'patriotic' colonists wanted to be represented in. Did they want election to the British Parliament, or election to another imperial democratic body?

...if there was an existing elected legislative body in existence that representatives of the thirteen colonies were excluded from, how is the USA the worlds oldest democracy - doesn't this imply democracy already existed in Britain? - confused...216.107.194.166 (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain was a monarchy, and the revolution was a successful seperation from that monarchy to form a soverign and independent republic. It was not simply a matter of increased or decreased levels of democracy, though it may have started as such. Had a concept like "home rule" existed at the time, Americans may have settled for it - and it is pretty clear to historians that the success of the revolution was the major cause of development and acceptance of such an alternative for territorial possessions of the Empire in its future. I think it is quite clear that the Americans wanted direct representation in the Parliament at first, as that is the body specifically named in the article as well as a long litany of Parliamentary legislation that are noted as leading to the revolution. In the minds of Americans, it was not just the abuses of the Parliament and its system, it was the tyranny of an indifferent king that did not protect them of those abuses once informed and petitioned for redress that drove them away from the monarchy, Shoreranger (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

America was certainly not the first country to have an elected legislative assembly. However, in most countries suffrage was considerably more limited. What you choose to consider the oldest "democracy" is a matter of personal choice of definition of the term "democracy". --Reign of Toads  17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Historians call legislatures selected by 1% of the adult men undemocratic, and those elected by 50% democratic. Do all elections look alike? well no, that's the beauty of careful historiogtraphy.Rjensen (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea that there was a specific theory of democracy invented by historians, and that it was universally agreed upon. Do you have a source for this? --Reign of Toads  19:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well historians are the ones who handle 18th century history. See Middle-Class Democracy and the Revolution in Massachusetts, 1691-1780 by Robert Brown (1968)Rjensen (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A book from 1968? Please! There's been a rather extensive debate on the democratic ideal since. And historians are not isolated from the rest of social science on this matter. There are numerous models of democracy, from Karl Popper (in The Open Society and Its Enemies), who simply uses it about any system where there's an established procedure for peacefully removing the nation's leadership, to rather elaborate models (see Helds Models of Democracy for a historical overview of different democratic developments and traditions). Any of these model can be used for historical analysis, as long as you're clear about what definition you're using and why. What historians, and other scientist, do seem to agree upon, is that the development of democracy has been gradual. The American Revolution played a significant role in this development, as did the British parliamentary system and, why not, the Swedish parliament during the Age of Liberty 1720-1772. --Reign of Toads  20:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A Popper book from 1945? Please! --you need to read some history before trying to edit an article that reflects the work of hundreds of historians. Better start with Gordon Woods and Edmund Morgan. Rjensen (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's very constructive "professor". Held's book is used, amongst other things, to train historians specializing in the development of democracy, which is why I referred to it. One example would be the master's programme titled "Roads to Democracy" at Uppsala University's Department of History. Unfortunately there's no point in trying to discuss the subject with you. --Reign of Toads  11:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So I'm reading from the above comments that the establishment of a democracy was not the main point of the revolution & where "no taxation without representation" is mentioned, this does not mean "no taxation without elected representation"? We seem to look at historic democracy with modern eyes, but did the founding fathers consider they were creating a democratic republic at the time? Did the leaders in the British Parliament in 1776 believe they were heading a democratically elected body? Is there a point when a nation does become democratic? ... when did the British become democratic? - was it via the 1832 Reform Act or later? & when did the US become democratic? - was it via the 1870 fifteenth amendment to the constitution when suffrage was extended to all peoples regardless of race (or earlier or later)? Should we be stating that a nation was x% democratic against modern standards at a particular date? 216.107.194.166 (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain was a monarchy, and the revolution was a successful seperation from that monarchy to form a soverign and independent republic. Actually, Britain was a constitutional monarchy having gone through various revolutions by 1776 which had largely eliminated the authority of the monarch. While it is certainly true that the United States established a republic, dispensing with the "monarchy" which had existed, it is not true, as the implication goes, that Americans therefore established a "true" democracy unlike the system in Britain which allowed for the "arbitrary sway" of the monarch. Now I know you weren't exactly saying that, Shore, but for one who talks about republican and democratic concepts with such clarity as it applies to the United States, it's a bit sloppy to slough off the reality of British parliamentary democracy, as if it was some pale partner to the King. Canada Jack (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. King George III was very powerful and determined the policy toward America; After he went crazy his successors lost power. Democracy came to Britain much later (starting in 1830s); in 1770 era a couple hundred people controlled all nearly all politics at all levels in Britain. The Americans revolted against this aristocratic system in which 99% of the people had no voice (most free men voted in the US by 1776). Rjensen (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So it comes down to the definition of free men? ... were there any education, property (as in Britain), or income critera that needed to be met in the US before a man could be considered an elector? What were the criteria that needed to be met in Britain before a man could vote - were they similar to the US critera? It also seems to be in dispute how much control king George had over the government of Britain and its empire. Was the British Parliament controlled by George, influenced by him - or has the true history been distorted so that it became the USA versus the Monarchy?, rather than the USA versus the British Parliament. 216.107.194.166 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where you get your history, RJ, but parliament became the supreme political power by 1690. This fixation on the mad "prince" somewhat distorts American perceptions towards Britain. Britain had a democracy at the time, imperfect as it was. And to pretend that the democracy that America had in 1776 - or 1790 - was in any substantial fashion a quantum leap better - is disingenuous at best. And the truth to that was underlined by how these two democracies dealt with eliminating the scourge of slavery. One by legislation, the other by war. The same goes with the contention that a republic is superior, more democratic, on its face than a constitutional monarchy. In both cases, in modern terms, the "democracy" which existed then was a joke. But they were still democracies. Canada Jack (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of this seems like red herrings and just an excuse to use this as a forum for the topic, which is expressly prohibited on the discussion page as per the intructions on top. I suggest readers and editors take what is written on face value, and don't look for implications that don't exist, at least on my part. That said, there can be no doubt that differences with Parliament escalated to a renouncement of the monarch (the Declaration of Independence is almost wholly about the monarchy, not Parliament). When speaking of the Revolution in its entirety one cannot deal with only one or the other. While relatively quick, it was nonetheless an evolution of thought and events that must be seen taken on a continuum and not in isolation. Shoreranger (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Shore. I will now go and fry my red herrings. Canada Jack (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

John Adams' argument was that since the colonies were outside the kingdom, the laws of parliament did not apply to them, only laws they enacted themselves through their own local assemblies, which were not democratic either. (Curiously this line of reasoning came up over the issue of trials at Guantanamo Bay.) Some suggested that Americans be represented in parliament. Despite the weakness of Adams' position as a legal argument, it was persuasive as a moral argument. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion - but the way it evolved, it probably should been under a 'history of democracy' article.75.69.101.208 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons why delisted (unaddressed concerns Feb 2008 reassessment)

We should consider re-nominating this article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations after the following issues have been addressed:

• Need inline citations for the following sentences/assertions/quotes:

1. "John Locke's ideas on liberalism greatly influenced the political minds behind the revolution; for instance, his theory of the "social contract" implied the natural right of the people to overthrow their leaders, should those leaders betray the historic rights of Englishmen." This needs an inline citation, unless it is also from the same inline citation in the next sentence (if so, just add it to both sentences). (Note that the text currently states: "John Locke's ideas on liberty greatly influenced the political thinking behind the revolution. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's theory of the 'social contract' influenced Locke's belief that among humanity's 'natural rights' was the right of the people to overthrow their leaders, should those leaders betray the historic rights of Englishmen." This is unintelligible, since Rousseau was writing several decades after Locke, whose Second Treatise was published I believe in 1690.) (inline citation added)
2. "He lost the case, but John Adams later wrote, "American independence was then and there born."" Quotes need inline citations directly after the statement. (inline citation added)
3. stats dropped & sentence rewritten; it was based on Ency Brit. "Lending weight to the argument was an economic boycott of British merchandise, as imports into the colonies fell from £2,250,000 in 1764 to £1,944,000 in 1765." Statistics such as these need an inline citation directly after the statement.
4. done--cite added. "The event also began a downward spiral in the relationship between Britain and the colonies, especially Massachusetts."
5. "...despite the fact that the cause was a reduction in duty (from a shilling to 3 pence) and not an increase." (text removed from article)
6. "There would be no negotiations whatsoever until 1783." (text was false & was removed from article)
7. "While there is no way of knowing the actual numbers, historians estimate 15% to 25% of the colonists remained loyal to the British Crown; these were known at the time as 'Loyalists', 'Tories', or 'King's men'." If this information comes from the source at the end of the paragraph, also add it to the end of this sentence, if not, find a source for it.
8. "William Franklin, son of Benjamin Franklin and Governor of New Jersey remained Loyal to the Crown throughout the war and never spoke to his father again." If this information comes from the source at the end of the paragraph, also add it to the end of this sentence, if not, find a source for it.
9. "62,000 Loyalists (of the total estimated number of 450-500,000) relocated to Canada (42,000 according to the Canadian book on Loyalists, True Blue), Britain (7,000) or to Florida ([number missing]) or the West Indies (13,000), making it one of the largest mass migrations in history. This made up approximately 2% of the total population of the colonies."
10. done "The boycott of British goods involved the willing participation of American women;[citation needed]"
11. rewritten with cites. "Therefore no American prisoners were put on trial for treason, and although most were badly treated and many died nonetheless,[citation needed]"
12. better numbers, add cite "In 1790, Congress combined the state debts with the foreign and domestic debts into one national debt totaling $80 million. Everyone received face value for wartime certificates, so that the national honor would be sustained and the national credit established."

Other issues:

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

I have copied/pasted these items from the message posted by Nehrams2020 on 28 February 2008, for the convenience of those of us who wish to improve this article. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd very much like to help make this a GA. Some sentences from the above list no longer exist in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this article do a good job of explaining its subject?

I'd like to ask a question that risks offending people who have worked hard on this article, but that isn't my intention. Here goes. Does the American Revolution article as it stand today do a good job of explaining the Revolution to people new to the subject? Would for example a high school student doing his first research project on the Revolution find the article a useful introduction? Would someone from outside the United States who doesn't know anything about American history find in this article a clear explanation of what the American Revolution was all about?

I'd say the answer is no even though I have personally learned a lot from the useful information the article does contain. (For example, the passages about the role of republican ideology in forming the beliefs of American patriots were helpful to me in understanding the Revolution.) The biggest weakness I see is the overly long introduction which piles on one unexplained fact on top of another quickly overwhelming people who don't know much about American and British history. I suspect many readers new to the subject would give up on this article after reading the first four or five sentences simply because the introduction expects them to absorb too many facts too quickly.

I suggest it would be better to offer the reader a slower more gentle introduction. After a sentence or two summarizing the Revolution (a social, political and military conflict between Britain and the thirteen colonies that resulted in American independence), the article should step back and provide some basic information we can't assume every reader will know. For example, there should be a short paragraph with appropriate links describing English colonization on the Atlantic seaboard. Next there should be another paragraph or two describing the colonies political and economic relationship with Britain as well as a basic description of how those relationships began to change after the French and Indian war. There should be some description of how trade between Britain and the colonies was expanding as well as the explosive population growth in the colonies. From there the article could go on to discuss the origins of the Revolution itself.

As I said, the article already contains a lot of good material, but it needs to be introduced in a less intimidating way. The article should start with the assumption that the average reader doesn't know much about American and British history.MMonastyrskyj (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed an advanced article. For basic introductions, the introductory reader should start with History of the United States and History of the United States (1776–1789). Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I admit I am probably not unbiased in this case, but I contend that the beauty of Wiki are the links, and if the reader avails themselves of them they can learn what they need to know from the intro and the links to get the basic idea. I also think that the expansion of the background - which is basically what is being proposed by the specific suggestions - expands an already long article unnecessarily with information that is available in other articles, and seems to already be linked to the article at the beginning of sections in the "See" or "More" links. I applaud the desire to improve the article, though. It is just a complicated set of ideas whose complexity has been compounded by pre-concieved notions and unsubstatiated assumptions in the popular mindset that seems to require this level of detail to avoid broad assumptions. Shoreranger (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Referencing system for this article

This article uses a complicated hierarchical referencing system, with the following structure:

• Bibliography
  • Notes
  • Reference works
  • Surveys
  • Specialized studies
  • Primary sources

I cannot find any Featured articles that include a referencing section as complex as this. For comparison, look at the following semi-random examples:

• British Empire
• History of the Philippines
• Hungarian Revolution of 1956
• Plymouth Colony
• Samuel Adams
• Zanzibar Revolution

All of the above are Featured articles (History). My preference would be to use the following simplified outline:

• See also:
• Notes: (this secton would include all inline citations)
• References: (this secton would include the full name/author/etc. for all sources cited in above section)
• Further reading: (this secton would include a list of works that were not used as sources in the article, but are nevertheless of interest to those who wish to explore the topic in greater detail)
• External links:

We could also change to using List-defined references. This can help separate large reftags with long cite entries from the ordinary text, making it easier to read and to edit. This is a bit complicated and involves a fair amount of work, but I can do this if there is a general consensus in favor. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It has a complicated system because it is one of the most complex topics in all of historiography--there are tens of thousands of books out there and more every week. The FA reviews did not complain about this feature. Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen the FA review for this article, but I do know that it does not currently meet GA criteria, and is therefore even further from FA quality. Hard to believe this topic is more complex than say, British Empire, Germany, Earth, Global warming or Japan. I guess we can just wait for the GA review, subsequent peer review and FA review to see if anyone else balks at this. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

well yes, this article is much more complex than the others because thousands of scholars have been working on the topic for over 150 years, and there is much more scholarship to deal with. (the only comparable article is not "global warming" or nations but the mediocre article on the British Empire, which deliberately avoids all the advanced modern scholarship and is a thin compilation of dates and unexplained events. The problem with FA/GA is that they use style checklists and the evaluators have no idea about the quality or depth of content. Rjensen (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Rjensen. I certainly agree with you that the FA/GA criteria are not always reflective of an article's true merits. But regardless of its shortcomings, this is nevertheless the system within which we are obligated to work. Naturally, we all would like this article to be as thorough and accurate as possible, but we must also be careful to limit its complexity to that which would be consistent with an encyclopedic entry, and not for example to that expected of a PhD thesis or a comprehensive history textbook. This is a difficult and often frustrating balancing act, but I suppose that's part of the challenge of the Wikipedia project. Anyway, I intend to leave the hierarchy of the referencing system as it is, until or unless a consensus is reached that it should be changed. Respectfully, DiverDave (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to conforming this article with Wiki standards for references and citations, for whatever it's worthShoreranger (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC). Shoreranger (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Tyranny?

'the states collectively determined that the British monarchy, by acts of tyranny,...'

Shouldn't the 'acts of tyranny' be in quotation marks since the 'tyranny' of such acts was being defined by British colonist 'rebels' 'traitors' 'conspirators' 'revolutionary terrorists' 'political agitators' etc (POV!)? The acts may have been 'tyrannical' in the strict definition of the word i.e. imposed without choice, and later been in response to civil rebellion, but today the word is loaded with additional emotive meaning whioh is surely much more perjorative than the facts reveal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.5.95 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference is clearly referring to the perspective of "the states", and the sources clearly substantiate that their position was that they were living under tyranny. One may argue (in another forum) whether they truely were living under tyranny, but it is undeniable that the sources indicate that they claimed to be living under a tyranny - most famously by expressing that claim clearly in the Declaration of Independence. Shoreranger (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the original poster that we should emphasize that "tyranny" is how the colonists view it. Normally, it should be in quotations, but I have to also agree that the way the sentence is structured, it is clear that it is the states who determined this "tyranny" existed and therefore quotation marks would be superfluous. Canada Jack (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"European American" excludes non-European whites

I don't understand why in most cheese is hot and it is not cold haha! recent edit European American was changed to white. Who are the non-European whites who are being excluded? Was colonial America full of Arabs and other Middle Easterners? Those are the only non-European whites that come to mind. Colonial America's white population was of European origin, so why object to calling them European Americans? For that matter I don't have any objection to them being called white, but the reason given for changing the name doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMonastyrskyj (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC) MMonastyrskyj (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)MMonastyrskyj its called a double standard. almost evry where you look they will say african americans, asain americans, but almost no where is there European Americans. I think it's a very POV thing. i say we should revert it to european americans. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It's because these "<insert continent here> americans" terms are very recent, and the "european americans" is not even used nearly anywhere. It would be better to stop trying to change the language just because some words don't fit into your personal ideologies. By the way, as how all the previous terminologies all evolved from accepted through disliked to offensive, you will see that in a decade the african/asian american term will be regarded as the highly offensive one, and a brand new term will be invented. --87.169.27.150 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Shoreranger (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)==Self-contradiction in "Native Americans" section==

The most prominent Native American leader siding with the King was Joseph Brant of the Mohawk nation, who led frontier raids on isolated settlements in Pennsylvania and New York until an American army under John Sullivan secured New York in 1779, forcing the Loyalist Indians permanently into Canada....

...Mohawk chief Joseph Brant, who led a band of 300 Indian warriors and 100 white loyalists in 1778 and 1780 multiple attacks on small settlements in New York and Pennsylvania.

Thus according to the first passage, Brant was permanently forced into Canada in 1779, whereas the second one states he continued with raids in 1780.

Top.Squark (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they don't look well cited, so that is a problem in itself since we can't verify the meaning that way, but I presumed the attacks were launched across the boarder from Canada, where they were "permenantly" settled. Shoreranger (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope the boarder wasn't injured when they swarmed across him.... Canada Jack (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Better to own than rent?Shoreranger (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Good one, Canada Jack! Shoreranger, you may or may not have realized this since you posted... the attacks were launched across the _border_...Hawkrawkr (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I did realize: A boarder "rents"!

Slavery

Added facts, context and cites for a more accurate story of slaves' actions and many escapes to freedom during and after the war. Material was dependent on an outdated source.Parkwells (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"or were resettled in the Caribbean" ??? well yes but they were brought by their Loyalist owners as slaves to one of the most brutal places on earth. ex-slaves went to Sierra Leone. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some of them went to Sierra Leone, although the first colony was only in 1787; the black troops, on both sides, were largely freed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)-

Sierra Leone was not settled by African Americans until later, after people moved from Nova Scotia to the new colony. Freedmen did not go directly from the US to Africa. Freedmen were resettled in the Caribbean; one started a black Baptist church in Jamaica. Slaves may also have been taken there by Loyalist masters, but I was writing about those who were freed.Parkwells (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

If someone would correct "becaming" to becoming that would be great as the article is semi-protected.98.207.190.11 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

General Patriot POV

I'm not going to touch this at all for awhile as it will take alot of care and work, never the less I've noticed a general patriotic POV. In general the article just seems to go out of its way to excessively justify the Patriots and to downplay other views and factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.26.2 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)