Talk:British North America

Desrepancy in dates

How is ie term "British North America" was first used in 1783, but then the list of members is from 1763? - grubber 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello grubber, you are correct. The proper usage for the term the British Colonies in North America, is British America and the British West Indies for the time period prior to 1783. Similarly, the proper usage is the term British Colonies in North America is British North America and the British West Indies for the time period after 1783.

I propose that Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies be merged into this article. 64.231.49.211 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the Thirteen Colonies has its own stand alone article, I propose that the Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies should their own stand alone artilce as well. Fair is fair eh.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that "Loyalist Six Colonies" should be merged into anything. It should be deleted. "Loyalist Six Colonies" returns zero hits on Google. Even the map in the article refers to "The Thirteen Colonies" and "Other British Colonies".

Don's idea of "fair is fair eh" shows, I think, a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. The fact that we have an article on Ken Dryden does not mean we have an article called The approximately six billion people on Earth who are not named Ken Dryden. -Joshuapaquin 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello JoshuaPaquin. I see you haven't changed. Now, as per deleting the Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies, I earnestly hope that does not happen. I believe it is a good article, and I look forward to its development and growth.

As per not-understanding how Wikipedia works, you know that that is incorrect. I am well aware of how Wikipedia works. Indeed.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I support the proposed merger. What is important is that the article is where people expect to find it. "British North America" works; "Six colonies" (or sim.) doesn't. semper fictilis 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As per usual Wikipedia consensus kills another informative and useful article. The Loyalist Six Colonies of the Nineteen Colonies was important. Firstly, Americans and English-Canadians have a common origin and they need to remember that. It was only the choice to fight for King George III that divided us from one people into two peoples. Secondly, the British Colonies in North America were historically refered to as two separate British Colonial Regions, namely, British America and the British West Indies prior to 1783, and after 1783 they were refered to as British North America and the British West Indies.

At its zenith (1763-1775) British America had 19 Settler Colonies, 1 Commerical Colony (i.e., the Hudson's Bay Land), and 1 Crown Colony (i.e., the Crown Lands Reserved for the Indians). Its massive borders stretched from the top of Hudson's Bay in the North to the Florida Keys in the South; from the Mississippi River in the West to the Island of Newfoundland in the East. British America was arguable the best Colony that the British every had, and they scandered it (well the Firebrand Patriots and the "Kings-Friends" both had blood-on-their-hands). The schism in British America of the 19 Colonies into the 13 Patriot Colonies and the 6 Loyalist Colonies was a tragedy. Just as tragic as about 100 years later when the schism of Union States and Confederate States occurred. At least the Union was able to re-absorb the Confederacy, and make the nation one again.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is pretty bad wiki to have a this article stand as the article for pre- and post- revolutionary times. There needs to be an article about the 19 colonies, or the British Colonies in North America, which I think should end at 1776, with further reading in the 13 Colonies and British North America articles... WayeMason 02:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If this term is only used about the situation after the creation of the US, then there is no point in listing the 13 colonies that joined the US from the start. They were never part of "British North America", as the article itself defines the term. They had nothing to do with British North America, actually, apart from being its enemies. Could we all agree on this? (One could always add a little boilerplate on the top, to the extent of: "This term is only used for colonies that were British after 1783. For previously British colonies in North America, see [other article].)" That is, if nobody disputes the statement that "British North America" is only used in this sense. If somebody does, then the intro must be altered instead. -- Jao 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Continental North America

The article refers to Continental North America in its first sentence, but goes on to treat the Dominion of Newfoundland as part of British North America. Labrador may be on the continent, but is the island of Newfoundland? Isn't this a conflict? clariosophic 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the Island of Newfoundland on the East Coast is considered apart of Continental North America, just as Vancouver Island and the Aleutian Islands on the West Coast are as well.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

British America vs. British North America

It's not true that "British North America" is only used to describe the British colonies after 1783. A Google Book Search suggests to me that historians use the terms "British North America" and "British America" interchangeably. A couple titles of major academic works show how "British North America" is used to describe the British colonies in North America before 1783, such as Fred Anderson's Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754–1766, or Bernard Bailyn's The Peopling of British North America. The claim made in this article that there is or was a "formal" distinction between British America and British North America has never been sourced, and may in fact be an Wikipedia invention. Can anyone confirm or deny? —Kevin Myers 19:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there's a bit of fluidity to the term "British North America". . The article on "New France" seems to include reference to anything that was ever claimed by France and has a nice map to go along with it showing the maximum extent of French control (although the territories wouldn't have all been under simultaneous de facto control.) I think we need to figure out what the 'broad term' for British North American possessions was (or the one(s) most commonly used; and then there may need to be some explanation that after the Revolution the term "British North America" came to refer to the colonies that did not revolt or were founded after the Revolution; and then decide what to do with the British Columbian bits. The article at present doesn't mention anything about the establishment of the Pacific coast colonies of Vancouver Island (1849) or British Columbia (1858) prior to Confederation. As for maps, I think it would be more helpful to have a pre Revolution map and another 1867 map; these would represent high water marks of the 'First' and 'Second' British North American empies.Corlyon (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree in the long run it would probably be a good thing to have several maps showing the evolution of BNA. It would help illustrat it a litte. I'd also agree it is quite fluid - it often seems to be used to mean whatever the author wants it to (I've seen some references that don't count the West Indies, and some that do). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

BNA as legal title vs. BNA as historical categorization

British North America existed as a legal title only during the era when their was a position called the Governor General of British North America, however that title was very inconsistanly used. From 1765 to 1840 it was usually the same person as the Governor of Quebec or Lieutenant Governor of Lower Canada. However some GGs seem to have appointed local lieutenants for Lower Canada. James Kempt, perhaps? His article is vauge. From 1841 to 1866 the Governor General's title was changed to "of the Canadas" or "of Canada", and he was responsible for that entire colony with any deputies for the eastern or western halves (Geroge Aurthur being a short-term exception). After 1867 no one was ever considered to be administering a place called "British North America".

The term British North America remained as a usfull descriptor, however. This is why it was used as the title of Canada's first constitution the BNA Act (1867), and the various amenments to it, which were alled called "British North America Acts". This made sense because Canada was still decidedly British legally and in cultural terms. However the name of the state they created was the Dominion of Canada. Britain also retained possetions in North America that only later joined Canada: NWT (1869), BC (1871), PEI (1873), British Arctic Territories (1880), and Newfoundland (1949), so BNA could be applied to them.

This article should probably not limit itself to the legal usage of the term because the other use (cultural/geographical) was so prevalent and so strong. I proposed re-purposing the article into a page that discussion the various uses of the term, rather than a copy or fork of Canada under British Imperial control, British colonization of the Americas, or the recently created British America (which itself seems to mostly duplicate Thirteen Colonies).--Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

North of Mexico

The definition is a little off: Bermuda is also north of Mexico, but is not listed here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really in North America either, is it? - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure it was, geographically and, for the time, politically speaking. It was was administered as one of Britain's colonial possessions in the Americas (as opposed, say, to Britain itself or even its possessions in Europe).--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the Bermuda article claims it's had some form of self-government since 1620, which wouldn't connect it to the mainlad for most of the British occupation of North America. Of course this could just be local bragging about thisng that aren't really true! - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes to article

I know this is difficult for some people to understand, but major chages to the article, even to the infobox, need to be discussed. I know the fact the that I reverted these edits at the same time that I reverted the undiscussed merge confused the merger about what I was reverting, but your confusion doesn't make me confused! I knew then, and know now, what I was reverting, and why. Over the past few months, the infobox info, particulary the scope and dates, has been changed sev, eral times without discussion by people who thought there changes were absolutely correct, only to be changed by someone else who thinks there changes are absolutely correct! WHile it's quite obvious they all can't be right, it's less obvious who actually is right. That needs to be discussed here, and settled, if possible, so there will be a consensus the next time someone who is abosulutely sure their changes are correct implements them again. - BilCat (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is severely straining my assumptions of good faith, but if we must, let's review every single change I made.

1. "the British Empire included 20 territories north of Mexico" Inaccurate. "Mexico" is either i) an anachronistic reference to the present-day country, or ii) incorrectly designating a geographic region far to the south of the actual boundaries between the British and Spanish colonies (New Spain during the period in question included Texas, Upper California, the Louisiana Territory, etc.; the Anglo-Spanish border actually extended up the Mississippi—"Mexico" is neither here nor there). Use historically accurate term, "Viceroyalty of New Spain." Aside: I'm at a loss to imagine what could possibly be contentious about this.
2. "The Floridas were ceded by Spain to the United States in 1819." Logical gap. How can Spain cede the Floridas to Britain in 1783, then suddenly to the United States in 1819? If we want to mention the Floridas as British territory in 1775 but explain why they did not form part of BNA, the salient point is they were returned to Spain in 1781 (de facto) or 1783 (de jure). Subsequent Spanish-American treaties or boundary adjustments are largely irrelevant to this article.
3. Identify Province of Quebec as the successor to Canada, New France for clarity. Again, pretty uncontroversial, one would think. Improve overall flow and grammar of paragraph.
4. "common_languages = English" Gross misrepresentation. Add French.
5. "national_anthem = God save the King" False. This was the (unofficial) national anthem of several individual colonies. Others had no official anthem.
6. "religion = Anglicanism" False. There was no established church in BNA. If we simply mean "common religions," we ought to start with Roman Catholicism.
7. "life_span 1783–1949" False. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia, "the term usually applied to the British colonies and territories in North America after the US became independent in 1783 until CONFEDERATION (sic) in 1867."
8. status = Colony False. Or at least questionable. Much of BNA consisted of colonies—plural—but large portions were also private corporate (HBC) claims, protectorates, etc.

Albrecht (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Albrecht, I agree with you on some of these indivdual points. But why did you think that it was a good idea to remove the article completly. Billcat was right to revert it - you need to discuss it on the talk page. What has this got to do with good faith? Bilcat made clear in the edit summary why the change was reverted. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth do you mean by "remove the article completely?" Compare the revisions. Of course, earlier I did merge Canada under British Imperial control (a fictive unit of historical periodization) into BNA as a History section. This was rejected and reverted for nebulous reasons, leaving us with a thoroughly problematic non-article on the one hand and a BNA apparently policed against my edits on the other. Albrecht (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies that was me misreading the edit history after I'd had a couple of beers. However I still don't see why you should question Bilcat's good faith. His point makes sense - it would be best to cain a conensus on the talk for your changes (and as I say I mostly agree with them).

My question is - does BNA simply include the colonies that became Candian provinces. I always though BNA was an umbrella term for all the British colonies in North America post 1783, rather than just the ones that were confederated as Canada in 1867. How is Newfoundland, for instance, treated? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What baffles me is the insistence on reverting my changes without ever giving an indication of what exactly was wrong with them. "I knew then, and know now, what I was reverting, and why." Okay, sure. But apart from the cardinal sin of being "undiscussed"—as if every legitimate edit begins with a preliminary round table, a suggestion which verges on abusive—what were the reasons? Also, since the reverter fully reversed all the changes instead of manually restoring the parts he found problematic, one is forced to conclude that everything in my edit was objected to, which defies belief. The complete indifference to preserving valuable stylistic/factual corrections constitutes negligent and callous editing at best.

I'm also profoundly unsatisfied with the somewhat unclear—but very stubborn—opposition to my merging Canada under British Imperial control into British North America. Everyone seems to agree that the article—a rather crude military and political history from a Central Canadian perspective—doesn't hold water. The awkward "under British control" is essentially meaningless and definitely invalid as a unit of historical periodization. And here we have an article with a near-identical subject/scope and virtually no content, almost screaming for expansion. So naturally the attempted solution is immediately torpedo'd on vague technicalities and cries of "non-consensual!" Albrecht (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A merge is a major action - it should at least be discussed beforehand, I know that's a difficult concept for the infalible to understand. All I ever asked was that you discuss the merge first, and gain a consensus to move it. What a unique concept! As to your other changes to the article, I have explained why I reverted it wholesale, though you seem incaple of understanding my writing. Other users have no problem comprehending me, so I believe the difficulty does not lie with me. Anyway, when know-it-alls claim they "know-it-all", I object, especially when you don't even bother to comprehend my explanations, and then claim I haven't given any! So, whne you keep telling me what not to do as if I'm stupid and don't understand what I'm doing, I'll keep reverting you when I deem it necessary. - BilCat (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)