Talk:American Revolution

Archives.

1

Link distinction

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

Archive

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

Immigrants and Loyalists

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

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

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

GA/R

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

Citation on Rousseau?

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

Historians find little trace of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influence in America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Callout at top of article.

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

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

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

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

Real Americans

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

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

End rant  :)

LookingGlass 13:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

End date

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

Articles of Confederation:

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

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

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

Boston Tea Party? Boston Massacre?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Loyalists

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution again

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

Should this be here?

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

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

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

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

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

Port Bill

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

North America---a Continent???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When

By late spring 1776

By summer 1776

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

Townshend Acts

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

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

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

Some Causes of the American Revolution

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

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

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

Accurate List of Enlightment Influences, Please!!!!

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

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

France

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

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

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

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

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