Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Article scope debate Apr 2020

Just out of curiosity, since we spend a great deal of time debating the intent and scope of this article, and cleaning up text that goes beyond the limit of this article, is there a way to pin a summary of these decisions to the top of the Talk page? I guess this is more of a Wikipedia question than a question about this article itself. But having that scope handy might help keep the article focused. Canute (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Canute, It would seem the various section titles give us an adequate summary of the discussions.

• Primary theme of this article
• Coverage of foreign aspects
• Condensing British global involvements
• Inappropriate off topic section
• Unbalanced coverage
• Due weight... etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems we now have a consensus to effect these things, and it appears that Lord Cornwallis has acquiesced somewhat. I'd recommend that we move slowly, however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of pinning decisions to the talk page, especially with the long discussions we've had around what is and is not within the scope of this article. I don't really know if that's a thing, though, I've never seen it anywhere else. Canute (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot on the plate here. Best to go slowly. The whole theme of this article, per the bulk of sources, hinges on the effort for independence. British global efforts by and large involved their own interests and had little to nothing to do with the American struggle for independence. e.g. There were few if any American patriots involved in the dozens of British-French-Spainish conflicts about the globe. We still have more coverage about those things than the battles of Bunker Hill, Saratoga and Yorktown combined. Gotta wonder how that happened. In the Other British involvements section there are some two dozens battles w/ links covered, while battles like Saratoga and Yorktown are nominally covered in the article overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)#

Hi guys, sorry I haven't responded for a couple of days, been pretty busy.

Defintely the first three years of war is purely an Anglo-American thing (although France was shipping armaments and supplies to America, and the British were very aware of the French potential to intervene while they tried to deal with the growing war in America) However, the war doesn't hinge solely on the independence issue after 1778. Once entangled with the French the British were compelled to withdraw troops and downgrade America in strategic thinking. Due to the terms of the Treaty of Alliance and Bourbon Family Compact the war almost continued into 1783, even though Britain had by that stage already conceded American independence. At the last the sticking point that nearly prolonged the bloodshed wasn't American independence but the "Gibraltar equivalent". Stockley's Britain and France at the Birth of America: The European Powers and the Peace Negotiations of 1782-1783 is good on this.

Like I've said, I think there are a lot of issues in terms of naming and demarcation of this war not just on Wikipedia but in the RS. I guess there might be scope for having two sister articles. One that covers the war in the American/Canadian theater and one that covers the entire war, of which that theater is just one part. This is similar to the earlier wars where we have an article about the international war respectively (Nine Years' War, War of the Spanish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War) and the American part of it (King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War and the French and Indian War). This would allow a greater narrative focus on each. Not ideal, but it might be some kind of solution to these recurring issues. Again, best wishes. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

AGREE with @Lord Cornwallis: I would say that the ARW itself is NOT the worldwide conflict among Europe's Great Powers of the 1700s - - - BUT the Great Powers do use the ARW of British colonial insurrection amidst their worldwide Second Hundred Years' War to advance an ongoing conflict in overlapping chronologies: (1) Anglo-French War 1778-1783, (2) Antilles War 1781-1783, and (3) Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 1780-1784.

Misapplications of RS otherwise are the Tail wagging the dog, the ARW military history part wagging the Second Hundred Years' War whole. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sister article

A sister article is actually the way to go. Currently Previously in the Other British involvements (1781–1783) section there are were 33 battles/conflicts mentioned, with links in the redundant sections, not to mention all the names/links for various commanders and leaders. Before the International war breaks out (1778–1780) section was condensed there were many such links contained in it. — Presently there are more links to battles and conflicts in the Other British involvements section than there are in the entire article. — Many of these battles come under the headings of Anglo-French War (1778–1783), Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, Anglo-French War, Second Anglo-Mysore War, etc. Most if not all these battles involved no American belligerents and had no concerns or impact on the prospect of American independence. e.g. The conflict with Mysore ended in 1784, the year after the American Revolution was over. If we are to consider the conflict with Mysore as part of the Revolutionary War, which Britain surrendered in, then it goes that the Revolution didn't really end until 1784. All this is very misleading, to say the least.
In terms of coverage and scope, one only has to look at the table of contents in a given publication about the American Revolution to see where the greater bulk, if not all, of the coverage lies - i.e. the conflict in America between the British and the patriots. If there is an exception to speak of, one that gives nearly as much coverage to Britain's other battles, I'd be interested in looking at it and who authored it. Meanwhile we need to summarize this material, as I've begun to do with India, below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

mark1

In terms of WP:BOLD I could start drafting a separate article that covers in detail the global conflict, although as I say the RS treat them as a single war so the articles would need to reflect that. It would have the advantage of providing more narrative flow to what is a complex war. I don't know if their are any objectors? The other issue would be that of naming the separate articles, I guess. RS aren't that helpful on this. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Many of the sources simply say that the American Revolution 'sparked' or gave impetus to these conflicts and was not their actual cause, having causes of their own. When you consider that many of the hostilities towards Britain were already in place before 1781 that seems to make the most sense. It's quite likely that some of Britain's enemies figured that since she was greatly committed in America, now would be the time to act, as was the case in the Great Siege of Gibraltar, so you might want to be clear on these sorts of things. It seems a little peculiar that all these conflicts hit the fan in the last years of the Revolution. I'd also give the name of any sister or related article some further consideration. British naval engagements from 1781–1784 might be most appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. They may not be specifically a part of the American War for Independence, but the ARW provided the opportunity for many of these conflicts, and the additional conflicts contributed to the United States' victory because they diluted British warpower and drained British finances. I like the idea of summarizing these key points in this article. Perhaps naming the specific battles is too much. I support the idea of a sister article to go into that level of detail, but I don't have time to contribute to that right now so maybe I should abstain from voting. Canute (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a separate article would need to cover the whole period from French entry in 1778. That was the year the war went global, and Britain started shifting attention away from America to rush resources to other areas. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It almost seems obvious that Britain spread herself out way too thin, given all the engagements that occurred in a relatively short period of time. I'm wondering if there is a RS that says this in no uncertain terms. It would of course be OR if we were to otherwise make that conclusion in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally if you search on google books with the words "Britain" and "overstretched" - and any year between 1778 and 1782 there are quite a few sources to choose from. Like you say it stands to reason because France was about three times bigger than Britain, and the British had never fought France without the assistance of allies before.

Specifically on the 1778 decision in British strategy Middleton The War of American Independence p.110 refers to a note from Amherst to Sandwich "the contest in America being a secondary consideration, our principal object must be distressing France and defending and securing our own possessions against their hostiles attempts" leading to the decision to order Clinton to abandon Philadelphia and New York if need be.

A little later, Middleton notes the entry of France into the war had important consequences for the Royal Navy "since the defense of the mother country was now its first priority, as Sandwich constantly insisted".Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Middleton doesn't actually say that Britain was overstretched, or uses clear words to that effect, only that the conflict in America was less of a priority at that time. Seeing how France was Britain's next door neighbor, i.e.close by, that seems understandable, esp with Spain and others as France's allies. However, in the British Army during the American Revolutionary War, Daily life section it clearly says that Britain was "stretched to the breaking point" but there's no citation for that statement. Speaking of which, wouldn't this existing article be the place to cover all of Britain's other naval involvements, rather than creating a new article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a statement in the article that conveys the idea that Britain was overstretched, though not in those or similar words: — "Mahan argues that Britain's attempt to fight in multiple theaters simultaneously without major allies was fundamentally flawed". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Middleton references were to the British policy decisions in 1778 regarding the shift of importance away from the American Theater following French entry.

The google books reference was to the overstretched. Here a are a couple from the top of the pile

• Edward G. Gray & Jane Kamensky. The Oxford Handbook of the American Revolution. "Britain's already overstretched resources reached breaking point"
• Frank O'Gorman. The Long Eighteenth Century: British Political and Social History 1688-1832. "Quite simply Britain's resources were overstretched"
• Andrew O'Shaughnessy. The Men Who Lost America. "After 1778 the British Army actually shrank in America, overstretched by its commitments in the Mediterranean, Africa, the Caribbean, Central America, India, and Canada"

Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Vermont Republic

I noticed the Republic of Vermont (1777-1791) is completely missing from the list of belligerents even though its listed as a belligerent in multiple articles covering different campaigns and battles that took place during the war. I would like to ask for a consensus on adding the Vermont Republic to the list of belligerents. I vote yes. GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree to that, as a result of the revisions to the article there is actually now no reference to Vermont at all within the text strangely enough.XavierGreen (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Insert : — The removal of Vermont as a belligerent occurred on March 2, 2020 before the clean up and the multitude of NPOV issues were being corrected. Vermont was never covered in the text, even while you were active in the article in 2017 -- just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

AGREE with XavierGreen. At Vermont Republic, Wikipedia acknowledges that many of the 10,000 Vermonter residents took part in the American Revolution. However, it was not admitted as a state due to New York's New Hampshire Grants claim, which had been confirmed by royal order July 26, 1764. Congress would not allow the division of a state without its permission.

1. Vote FOR including Vermont as a belligerent in the list of State militias included in the thirteen now listed, including its flag , because unlike the other militias, it had an official flag for its republic.

2. Vote FOR including special mention of Vermonters at the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga by the Green Mountain Boys on May 10, 1775, and appropriately expanding the reference in an explanatory note. The British cannon seized there were transported by Henry Knox to fortify Dorchester Heights at Boston on March 4, 1776. They enabled Washington to compel the Evacuation of Boston on March 17, 1776, which effectively ended further British Atlantic-based incursions into New England for the duration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• For — If the militias from the Vermont Republic participated then they should be listed as a belligerent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to Oppose: — On retrospect Vermont will be the only colony mentioned by name, with a flag, in the info-box, so perhaps it's not a good idea to give the Vermont Republic singular mention there. A footnote next to the Thirteen Colonies link in the info-box, mentioning the V.R. would be more in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Vermont was not part of the 13 Colonies or the United States even until 1791, specifically because both New York and New Hampshire claimed the entirety of its territory. The Vermont government operated independently of that of the 13 colonies.XavierGreen (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but the question remains: Should Vermont, not officially one of the 13 colonies, be the only one mentioned by name in the info-box? Not even New York, Massachusetts and Virginia are listed by name there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Vermont was not a "colony", there was no British colonial government for "Vermont". The government of Vermont operated independently of that of the United States (and that of the United Colonies prior to September 1776). It was not part of the continental congress. The thirteen colonies bound each other together through the operations of the continental congress. There is no need to list each of the "thirteen colonies" because they bound themselves together via the Continental Congress.XavierGreen (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. Vermont Republic was its own independent country, independent belligerent. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The Green Mountain Boys were part of the New Hampshire militia which operated in what eventually became the Vermont Republic, but this didn't occur until 1777, almost two years after the war had begun. The Vermont Republic soon became neutral and served as a haven for both British and Colonial deserters. During the time the G.M.B. fought in the Revolution they were part of the New Hampshire militia, and by 1777 the Vermont Republic became neutral. The Vermont Republic initially sent troops to fight at the battles of Hubbardton and Bennington in 1777, two small battles with relatively few casualties, and thereafter the V.R. became neutral. During the Haldimand Affair, a portion of the G.M.B. attempted secret negotiations with British officials with the aim of restoring British rule over the territory. After 1777 the Vermont Republic was hardly a belligerent.  Listing this republic in the info-box, along with a flag, because the V.R. briefly fought in two battles before becoming neutral seems to raise serious due-weight issues. The info-box is a place were only major commanders, figureheads and belligerents should be listed. However, I've no objections with covering the V.R. in brief in an appropriate section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in the infobox: I too was surprised to see Vermont removed as a belligerent. Its only militia of note (the Green Mountain Boys) did support independence and fought in multiple battles, and Vermont received but rejected British overtures. There is obviously room to note the modest extent of Vermont's contributions to the war in the infobox, but it should not be excluded. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion also, NOT as a separate line-item 'Belligerent' - - some residents north/south still paid taxes to either NH or NY - - but I agree to place the Vermont Republic WITHIN the List of "states", because VR was organized comparably to a US state, and there were various factions maneuvering over a number of years for admission to the US (like Texas history, sort of ...); the entry will be s stand-out, even if it is the last on the list, BECAUSE it will be the only entry with its own flag. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Vermont Republic. Note: Vermont’s Green Mountain Boys of Vermont were settlers known in the Continental Congress as the New Hampshire Grants to New York. They secured British-held Fort Ticonderoga, and then attached to the Continental Army as a ranger regiment from June 1775 to 1778 at Vermont’s separate declaration of independence from Great Britain. Vermont was admitted to the Union as the 14th state in 1791. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)