Jump to content

Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Transcluding GA review
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|03:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=World history|status=|note=}}
{{GA nominee|03:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=World history|status=onreview|note=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=High|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=High|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top}}
Line 137: Line 137:
There appears to be a coding error in the "Bank Holiday" and Emergency Banking Act section and I'm not smart enough to fix it.
There appears to be a coding error in the "Bank Holiday" and Emergency Banking Act section and I'm not smart enough to fix it.
The "play audio" section in the table is overlapping the text in the article itself. [[User:EthanEverhart|EthanEverhart]] ([[User talk:EthanEverhart|talk]]) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The "play audio" section in the table is overlapping the text in the article itself. [[User:EthanEverhart|EthanEverhart]] ([[User talk:EthanEverhart|talk]]) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
{{Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)/GA1}}

Revision as of 10:01, 23 May 2023

Older discussions

I notcied that there was nothing about the Treaty of Paris

I've found that the first country to recognize the United States is sometimes reported as Statia, Dubrovnik, or Morocco depending on semantics. No matter which is correct, this seems to be such a minor detail in US history that I don't think it belongs in a summary of the entire period Flying Jazz 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: "The war was not a wonderful success" -- for the U.S. ? for the British ? for both ? Kyk 11:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I saw a mention of trading with Indians, but I missed anything else; had the U.S. started the banishment operations against the Indians yet in this early time period? Kyk 11:53, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No. But the British were arming the Indians and encouraged them to kill American women and children.

USNA

Most of the original documents dating from this time, to include the important Franco-American Treaty of Alliance of 1778--making the U.S. an acknowledged nation among nations--and the British-American Treaty of Paris--that which ended the warfare of the American Revolution state that the United States was not simply called the United States of America but instead the United States of North America. A theory has been tossed around recently that says the USA's official (if original means official, since a declared change from USNA to USA was never made) name should in fact be that of North American. Some have even proposed that the name changed only after the War of 1812 after the British burned the District of Columbia due to the fact that the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence were burned with the Capitol, and that "short-hand" copies from Philadelphia replaced the originals. This would explain the name change since the "short-hand" copies exclude North from America. This is a theory some historians have been tossing around for a while now without any intention, as of yet, to officialize it (due to a lack of records, most lost during the same burning of 1814 when both the Capitol and the Library of Congress were put to flame).--SOCL 15:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historians have been tossing around this theory? I challenge that. Reference please.Rjensen 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably not have said historians have been tossing this around; further, I said some historians, not the historian community. Most of what I have heard have been discussions between professors who say they've read articles on the matter, though I can't say I've ever read anything. In the end, I was simply wondering whether anyone else had heard about this.--SOCL 03:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original US Constitution and Declaration of Independence were not in Washington when the Capitol was burned by the British and survive to this day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.196.82 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am wrong.Who were the "Americans" that were fighting the War of Independance? Were they not made up of British,etc.So in other words British were fighting British!!Who were the statesmen who declared Independance and created the war.They all spoke English and had British names so originated from Britain.My point is,and I no nothing,it seems that from a political point, the leaders saw an opportunity,for their own gain,to rule America for themselves.They were actually fighting against their own countrymen. Maybe someone with more knowledge on this subject can put me right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.88.150 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London IP address leads me to suspicion you're just rolling, but, just in case you're actually interested, further discussion on the causes of the revolution can be found on the American Revolution page. In a sense you are right, the American Revolution was unique among colonial revolts in that nationalism played little if any role.

In the year AD 1776, war was beginning

First sentence of article: this phrase seems out of place with the rest of sentence starting the article. Thanks Hmains 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory Statement

The opening paragraph states: "American Patriots seized control of the colonies and launched a war for independence." This is not only inflammatory, it is factually inaccurate. Somebody please change it. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

they did something just like that. it really was a war for independence. Rjensen (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see the word "Patriots" replaced by something less encumbered with political baggage. "Rebels" would be more accurate. The American rebels had to win the war they "launched" and successfully establish the new nation before they could be considered "patriots" (and then only by their fellow rebels). Also, why should "Patriots" be capitalized? WCCasey (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Patriot" is the technically correct term. the dictionary (Webster's Unabridged) defines the word: "one who advocates or promotes the independence of his native soil or people from the country or union of countries of which it is a part (as a colony)." The other side were Loyalists. These are the standard terms used by historians and reference books. If you love America you'll like the Patriots; if you love Canada you'll cheer for the Loyalists. Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced comments moved here

Third paragraph, third sentence of "articles of confederation" contains this gem; "The ports of the British West Indies to all staple products which were not carried in British ships." I would correct the sentence fragment, but I don't know what it is the ports of the west indies did. 98.191.219.8 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of the first paragraph the current phrase "the Constitution of the Republic of the united States of America in 1789" is an update of the former statement "the Constitution of the United States in 1789, still in effect today". The purpose of the edit was to correct the phrase "still in effect today". The original 1789 Republic Constitution and government was replaced with a Corporate Constitution and government after the bankruptcy of the Republic. So the constitution of the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" (Corporation), not the "united States of America" (Republic) is in effect today. Although similar in name and language, the difference in the structure and effect of the 2 constitutions is huge. The main reference for this edit is the Congressional Act titled “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia”, also known as the “Act of 1871”. An additional reference is the Supreme Court case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), which declared the original Republic Constitution null and void relative to common law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKL718293 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up wording

I have cleaned up some of the wording in the 1776-1777 section. The factual content remains unaltered: I only re-worded some of it to make it more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.54.235 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:DATERANGE, the FULL four-digit years should be written out in any given date range on Wikipedia (with the exception of one-year periods which can be written either way: 1923–1924 or 1923–24). The above moves should be made to fit within Wikipedia's guidelines, and also for consistency with the four-year formatting of the other "History of the United States" pages and categories (1789–1849; 1865–1918; 1991–2008). Even "History of the United States (1918–1945)" is held at the four-year version, and that period's entirely within one century of "19XX". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Clean up / Rewrite

Hello, I noticed this article listed under Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/History#History_by_time_period_(10_articles) and graded as "Start-Class". I think it can be greatly improved and expanded beyond political/military history.

I worked on the article introduction and have started on the background section. Here is the incomplete draft I am working on for the background section: User:TimothyBlue/sandbox/Revision: History of the United States (1776–1789) - Background

I'm reasonably new to this, so any kind/polite help, collaboration, suggestions or guidance on proceeding is welcome. If I make a mistake it's not intentional. I try to get the right tone into my written words so they sound polite and kind but sometimes I fail. I have a phobia about my writing sounding harsh (I'm sure others can sympathize with sending an email and having the tone misunderstood by those reading it) and I'm hoping to improve on that and my writing skills in general by working on this. Timothy (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the notion that London's highest priority was "in order to pay down some of the enormous debt that had been incurred during the war and cover the costs of maintaining an army in North America to secure' both the newly acquired and existing colonial possessions" is in my opinion not true. The issue was owning the 13 colonies for the benefit of the rulers of GB and not for the good of the Brits who lives in the 13 colonies. They went further and rejected the constitutional rights of Englishmen living in the 13. London retreated on the money issue--it wound up with a low stamp tax that did not raise revenue to pay enormous war debts--- or soldiers. London did NOT retreat on the issue of total control. secure is a key word--against whom? why did London have an army in North America--Patriots said it was to control the colonists and cited the Boston Massacre/Lexington/Bunker Hill as indicators of what London was planning. Rjensen (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this loaded language?

In the The First States to Abolish Slavery section, the phrase "to tear down one of Britain's cruelest wars against human nature" is used. This seems like overly emotive loaded language to me, and the itallics in particular seem unnecessary. Although slavery is very bad, I would say more concise, emotionless language should be used here. The section is also uncitated; if it were citated I would rephrased the sentence myself using the source. I'm not very experienced with editing wiki articles though, so perhaps someone more experienced could help here. AlisterSinclair (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coding error in #"Bank_holiday"_and_Emergency_Banking_Act section

First time posting in 'talk' so hoping this is the right page to do so. There appears to be a coding error in the "Bank Holiday" and Emergency Banking Act section and I'm not smart enough to fix it. The "play audio" section in the table is overlapping the text in the article itself. EthanEverhart (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the United States (1776–1789)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence (talk · contribs) 09:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Thebiguglyalien, I'll do this. It might take anywhere from 1 to 4 weeks, with the later end of the spectrum also having the higher probability. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harv error: link from CITEREFAlden1963 doesn't point to any citation
  • Harv error: link from CITEREFNugent doesn't point to any citation.
  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAlden1966.
  • Seven instances of p/pp errors, such as "Middlekauff, p. 610–611. P/PP error? p. 610–611."
  • 37 instances of "missing publisher" (many of these might be in further reading.. I'd fix 'em anyhow 'cause "consistency", but...)
  • 6 instances of "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.)" (If any of these are news articles, you don't need this)
  • 4 instances of "Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;" § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent referencing, e.g., "Hamowy, Ronald (2000)" has 3 cites in the Notes section, but other authors have {{sfn}} and the full reference in the References section.
  • Did you double-check all the lists/timelines in 1776 in the United States through 1789 in the United States to see if there's anything salient that may have been overlooked? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thebiguglyalien, I can write a quick Python program to check all those 1776 in the United States pages, if you wish. Can also standardize refs to {{sfn}} and {{sfnm}} if you wish. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just fixed the cite errors, so those shouldn't be an issue. I'm not terribly concerned about how the references are formatted beyond the GA requirement of being verifiable (reference formatting has never been my strong suit), so format them as you like. I imagine that I at least glanced at those yearly articles while writing this one, but it would have been six months ago, so it couldn't hurt to double check them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention a promise of writing the bill of rights, but did you mention it was written? And maybe its impact?
  • You have a painting by John Singleton Copley, but don't mention him, which seems jarring. EB describes him as "...generally acclaimed as the finest artist of colonial America". § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 13:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Slavery section seems a bit thin... I seem to recall... that the import of slaves dwindled during the Revolutionary war but greatly increased immediately thereafter?.... I will look... maybe read Richard Allen (bishop); will look for more. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs)
  • @Thebiguglyalien: In addition to my comments above, I was inclined to "Fail GA" because it seems to have no meaningful coverage of Native Americans or free Blacks. However, Mike Christie suggested that my inclination was not the best path forward, see brief thread. Sounds good then, I was about to make a mistake. What can we do about this? Would you rather argue that these topics do not fit within the scope of the article, or are not well-covered enough in secondary/tertiary sources to write much meaningful text, or would you think that adding more is the way to go? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 03:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this article as being about the national entity of the United States, including a broad summary of the major happenings between the given years. So I'll ask the opposite question: since you bring up these specific aspects, is there anything in particular about them that stands out as an omission? The article is only 31kb of prose, and I'd gladly add anything that gives a more holistic view of the article's subject. My first thought would be a paragraph about Black art and culture under the "culture and media" section, but that would depend on what the sourcing looks like for that. Native Americans are a little more complicated, because then you've got the difficult question of whether indigenous nations within the states were independent or part of the United States. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply! I think free Blacks must be given space. I wouldn't limit it to arts & culture. Maybe something about population, population movements (if any), and economic condition/prosperity. And just anything else you might happen to find that looks salient, but those are the things that I can think of offhand. Native Americans: I actually don't know. It just seems to be a meaningful omission... Just spend 2 or 3 days doing due diligence and looking for stuff in high-quality sources. Below is a list pulled from those Wikipedia "Lists of events" I mentioned earlier. I am not advocating for any item in the list. I'm just saving you a little time looking:
    September 1 – Invasion of Cherokee Nation by 6,000 patriot troops from Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina begins. The troops destroy thirty-six Cherokee towns.<ref>Saunt, Claudio (2014). ''Revolution: An Uncommon History of 1776'', p. 27. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. {{ISBN|9780393240207}}.</ref>
    January 3 – The Treaty of Hopewell is signed between the United States of America and the Choctaw Nation.
    January 10 – The Treaty of Hopewell is signed between the United States of America and the Chickasaw Nation.
    January 31 – The Treaty of Fort Finney, is signed on January 31, 1786, between the United States and certain leaders of the Shawnee.
    August 6 – American Revolutionary War: Battle of Oriskany – Loyalists gain a tactical victory over Patriots; Iroquois fight on both sides.
    March 8 – American Revolutionary War: In Ohio, the Gnadenhutten massacre of Native Americans takes place in which 29 men, 27 women and 34 children are killed by white militiamen in retaliation for raids carried out by another Native American group.
    September 17 – The Treaty of Fort Pitt is signed, the first formal treaty between the United States and a Native American tribe (the Lenape or Delaware).
    October 22 – Treaty of Fort Stanwix is signed between the United States and Native Americans of the Iroquois League.
    January 21 – The Treaty of Fort McIntosh is signed between the U.S. government and representatives of the Wyandotte, Delaware, Chippewa and Ottawa nations of Native Americans.
    Thanks! § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 06:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tracked down one of the books that was listed in further reading, and it ended up being really helpful. It had respective chapters on both Native Americans and African Americans in this time period. I skimmed all of the chapters that were relevant to this article and added the main points. I'll note that there was already a sizeable paragraph about interactions between the US and Native Americans, but now there are two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources spot check
  • I'm not saying that everything above is OK (tho I have no reason to believe that it is not); I'm starting this section as a prod for me to get moving on this aspect. I may revisit earlier sections at a later date...
    • Cogliano, Francis D. (2009):
      • Current note 11, Cogliano 2009, p. 99: "The Boston campaign continued with the Continental Army besieging British-occupied Boston until the British retreated to Halifax, Nova Scotia in March 1776" Yes(-ish), but. First, the page is 100, not 99. Second, this is the first mention of the Boston Campaign in the article. It relies on a DYK-style wikilink to explain what the Boston Campaign actually was, which is a distracting tactic. Moreover, the consequences of that campaign (which are spelled out clearly in the "Legacy" section of Boston campaign, e.g., everything after the words "While the British continued...") are not mentioned.
      • Current note 118, Cogliano 2009, p. 116: "Many slaves also pledged support to the Patriot cause, particularly in the north, further inclining these states to end slavery." FOUND, although I might suggest specifying that the "pledged support" that is mentioned was in fact active and valuable military service.
      • Current note 117, Cogliano 2009, p. 118: "The American Revolution made the issue of slavery more prominent, as some writers began to criticize what they saw as hypocrisy in supporting liberty while owning slaves, causing the institution to lose popularity in the Northern United States." FOUND
      • Current note 22, Cogliano 2009, pp. 102–103: " The campaign shifted to Washington's favor after he led a crossing of the Delaware River that led to a victory in the Battle of Trenton, followed by another victory in the Battle of Princeton, boosting American morale." Half-found the bit about morale, yes. The bit about this being a shift in Washington's favor, no.
      • Current note 29, Cogliano 2009, pp. 22–23: "Throughout the Revolutionary War, smaller battles and ambushes were fought west of the Appalachian Mountains along the southwestern area of Canada and in American territories. Fearing the expansion of the United States and encouraged by the British, several Native American tribes launched attacks against Americans. Battles and massacres took place between the Continental Army and Native American fighters as well as against non-combatants and farms" FOUND, but "smaller" is misleading. Yes, they were smaller, but still devastating. See page 23, 10 lines up from bottom, last word of line, "In Kentucky..."
      • And while I'm at it, this is a good place to look for Native American info. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 17:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_United_States_(1776–1789)&oldid=1156533268"