This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.210.85 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Why is there no mention of the U.S. invasion and attempted annexation of Canada in this article? It was only a sideshow but nevertheless a legitimate theater of war. If the contributions of women and blacks are sufficiently important to the modern historian to discuss at length in this article, then the invasion of Canada should also apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.201.138 (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 erudite. Padillah 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
...Nor "erudite"... (Sorry... inveterate proofreader with a predilection for making hasty typos myself.) Esseh 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
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 contextualize information as well as reflect perceptions of reality?
End rant :)
LookingGlass 13:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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...).
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)
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)
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)
Hi yall. 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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)
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)
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)
These wordings are ambiguous. They would be better if replaced by more specific time periods. --B.d.mills 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
According to the book 1776 by historian David McCullough, Boston was under siege in late October 1775. (see chapter 1) Boston was sieged until March 4, 1776 when it was agreed to attack with cannon from Dorchester Heights. (see page 90, paperback) 63.226.196.7 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) J. E. Zimmer
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)
•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
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.
"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)
This article is mainly concerned with the War of American Independence, by which the political independence gained by the American Revolution was defended. But scarcely anything is said about the Revolution itself, despite the name of the article -- the actual period in 1775-1776 when power passed from colonial governors and assemblies to local patriotic organizations. July 4, 1776, is represented as if it marked the beginning of the revolution, rather than its culmination. But this short period was, one might think, the most crucial period of the Revolution, which left the British with the task of re-conquering a rebellious continent rather than just suppressing local revolts, and obviously tilted the scales decisively in favor of the revolutionaries. Something about how it happened, how it was resisted, and what the immediate consequences were, would be a welcome addition to this article. RandomCritic 19:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I know it was Cornwallis who surrendered at Yorktown, but other than that, I have no information regarding him. I don't even have a clue what his first name is. Information about him is appreciated. --Dubtiger 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Where it says "The war expenses of the individual states added up to $114,000,000, compared to $37 million by the central government,[43]" it's not easy to see whether the states owed more than the central government or vice-versa. If both were writen in numbers ($114,000,000 compared to $37,000,000) or both in words ($114 million compared to $37 million) it would be much better.--190.74.108.43 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC) um, cornwallis surrenders at york town —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.227.113 (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In my history textbook, it says the join or die was for the French and Indian war, not the revolutionary war. Maybe it needs a citation? EDIT: In [[2]], it says that it was for the French and Indian war. RJRocket53 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Or, with modification, for both: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1091369 --JimWae (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The existing article stated:
"The British government determined to tax its American possessions, primarily to help pay for its defense of North America from the French in the Seven Year War. The issue with many colonists was not that taxes were high, but that the colonies had no representation in the Parliament which passed the taxes."
I have provided sourced material that shows (1) that the taxes were intended to pay for future defense rather than to retire debt already incurred and (2) that the amount of the taxes was indeed a factor in colonial opposition. It can be argued that as events developed the principle overrode the practical, but this seems like it is better argued in the sub-articles that cover specific time periods. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this statement because not only is it demonstratively false, it is simply ludicrous. Miller is a long dead author who sixty five years ago had a non-neutral point of view of the Revolution and who speculated about the effect of the molasses taxes without doing any analysis or citing any sources. Some of his work no longer stands up to modern scholarship. In fact the Sugar (molasses) duties were the largest source of British revenue from the colonies bringing in almost 40,000 pounds per year. BradMajors (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. As you address each issue, either strike through the issue or add a checkmark indicating it has been completed. Needs inline citations:
Other issues:
This article is in good shape besides these above issues. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects/task forces so that the workload can be shared. I would like to see this important article remain a GA, so let me know on my talk page if you have any questions, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Could someone find the article on the History Channel's "The American Revolution" from 2006. I can't seem to find it anywhere on Wikipedia. That said, when it IS found, there needs to a link at the top of this page. Thanks. --Jophus00 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read that rather few movies have been made that depict the American revolution or events during it. Many more have been made about the Civil War and the Vietnam War. Is this so, and why? -- BIL (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Date of Revolution start: March 1775 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.252.158 (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Howdy. I've created ((American Revolution origins)). I intended to create a simple box to navigate between all those obscure county resolves issued 1774–1776. Although we only have a handful of articles on them now, there were many of them, and the articles will no doubt increase. But I got ambitious and listed various writings, declarations, etc. in the run-up to the Declaration of Independence. Maybe the template will become too big eventually and we'll have to create an offshoot. Feel free to play with it and add stuff I missed. —Kevin Myers 07:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC) After the surrender at Saratoga in 1777, there were thousands of British prisoners in American hands who were effectively hostages.
There were prisoners taken and executed for treason--spying for the English. Edmund Palmer was hanged at Gallow's Hill near Peekskill, NY, in 1777 by Israel Putnam. There were others but I have documentation for Palmer. 216.232.20.88 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Jhudgina (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.
But the sentence before this reads: "After the surrender at Saratoga in 1777, there were thousands of British prisoners in American hands who were effectively hostages." I haven't looked up the dates (Palmer was executed in August 1777) so this may mean that none were executed after Saratoga. (I think spying is included in treason--Putnam thought so).
Janet
There's some mixing of different circumstances mentioned in the discussion here. Keep in mind that spies and prisoners of war were two different things. Hanging a prisoner of war was controversial; hanging a spy, not so much. Legitimate military officials on both sides could hang spies at any time. If you were a military man who got caught spying while out of uniform, it was understood that you would be hanged. Nathan Hale and John Andre were hanged because they were wearing civilian clothes when captured; had they been in uniform they would have become prisoners of war and subject to different rules.
The real nasty part of the war was Patriot vs. Loyalist: they hanged each other quite a bit, activities that were often of doubtful legality, and sometimes simple lyching. Indeed, the very word lynching comes from this time: see Charles Lynch. Huddy was hanged by American Loyalists, not Brits. Between them, Patriots Benjamin Cleveland and William Campbell hanged a whole platoon of Loyalists, but I don't think they would have dared to hang a uniformed British soldier. The British hanged just one American soldier for treason, Isaac Hayne, a controversial case that Wikipedia has not yet taken notice of. —Kevin Myers 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Kevin Myers brings the point home as saying "Patriot vs. Loyalist" or a "local committee" (community majority) did not necessarily follow exactly as Gen G Washington's procedures which had to be approved by Congress concerning prisoners. These matters evolved as reports from these civil communities arrived to the Congress and Gen Washington. There were questions as to what was treason, ranging from speaking ones political opinion to as much as speaking to an enemy military officer (either side) of a troop column passing by the farmstead-- passing along local intel or simply word of mouth "local news". It's one thing for a local committee to hang a despised neighbour for any reason and another for new evolving centralized government to do so. Hence, the confusion if the hanging was centralized government or a local action. Remember, there was no "Constitutional Rights" yet early on and the 1st Amendment et al would come about decade later. Washington's views to Congress and his officers can be overseen in the following link: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw160143))
Historians find little trace of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influence in America.[3]
Then why mention him at all in this encyclopedia article? I saw the discussion above, but I find that this statement is more confusing than informative. It seems to be part of a debate that a typical Wikipedia reader will have no interest in. To put it another way, if we're compelled to say Rousseau had little influence, we must also explain why one might be tempted to think otherwise. And at that point it seems that we're heading down a minor side trail.
Mindful of WP:BOLD, I'm removing the sentence. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Editor Lord C added a section with the above title in the Origins part of the article. Part of the edit included the following:
"The ruling was interpreted by many pro-slavery Americans colonists as part of a wider move to eventually abolish slavery throughout the British Empire (including the American colonies, some of whose economies were based upon growing slave-tended crops)."
The clear implcation that Lord C is attemping to make is that the Somerset ruling was a reason why many Americans favored independence. In other words, the worldwide leader in the international slave trade (not to mention its strong economic support for the slave colonies in the Indies), Great Britain, was seen as such a serious threat to slavery prior to 1776 by Americans. Such a claim by Lord C needs documentation from reliable sources before being added back into the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with your cites is that they do not link the Somerset case as part of the American reasons for revolution. This is the sentence that you wrote that allegedly makes the link:
"The landmark ruling was interpreted by many pro-slavery colonists as part of a wider move to eventually abolish slavery throughout the British Empire (including the American colonies, some of whose economies were based upon growing slave-tended crops)."
You source this to Chapter 3 in Hochschild. In fact, Chapter 3, in discussing this case, makes no such claim (I appear to be using a US edition while you are using a British edition but I doubt there is that much difference. I have added some info to the section using Hochschild (I included the only direct reaction to the case decision that I could find in the chapter) as well as info from David Brion Davis's "Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World" to add balance to the section. I have also moved the entire section from "Origins" to "Factions: Patriots, Loyalists and Neutrals". This section should probably be fleshed out a little more to provide specifics on both sides attitudes towards and use of blacks, both slave and free. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
these sources do support it Mark S. Weiner, "New Biographical Evidence on Somerset's Case," Slavery and Abolition, Vol. 23, No. 1 (April 2002), 121-36. Blumrosen, Alfred W., Blumrosen, Ruth G. Slave nation: how slavery united the colonies and sparked the American Revolution. Sourcebooks, 2005. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1599128, as used in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett%27s_Case#The_case_beyond_England of the somersett case article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment it seems to fizzle out around the Treaty of Paris, with an Aftermath section seeming to imply that the end of the Revolution came withend of the war. My understanding, admittedly as a non-American, was that it also included the period leading up to 1787 constitution and the period after that when the nature of American goverment was framed. Or does it just cover the period leading up to the American Revolutionary War and the war itself?
A brief search on the internet produces several different answers. Some seem to agree with the current state of the article, others include the post-1783 era, some even include the US Civil War as part of it, while others seem to assert it is ongoing as the nature of goverment in the United States is continually evolving. If it is then the post 1783 stuff might need expanding. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't paid attention to this article for a couple of years. Wow, it's a bit of a mess, ain't it? Lots of good stuff here, mixed in with some errors, omissions, and digressions. The article can't decide if it's supposed to be organized chronologically or thematically, and so some things are repeated, seemingly at random. All in all, it's not a bad rough draft for an article on the American Revolution. What it needs is for someone to take the wheel and do a complete rewrite, upgrading the article to a new level of coherence. And by "someone", I mean "not me". Volunteers? —Kevin Myers 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've heard religious toleration guaranteed to Quebec after La Conquête called one of the "outrageous acts" leading to the Revolution. If anybody can source it, would you include it at La Conquête? Thanks. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Also the act passed in the same session for establishing the Roman Catholic religion, in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger (from so total a dissimilarity of religion, law and government) of the neighboring British colonies, by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France.
...an act for extending the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, establishing an arbitrary government therein, and discouraging the settlement of British subjects in that wide extended country; thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them.
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies.
It's interesting to see the Canadian/British perspective on this. While I don't expect this to be reflected in a (understandably) American-perspective article, in Canada we see the American War of Independence more as a reaction to the events set in motion by the Seven Years War, the (to the British) perfectly reasonable expectation for the settlers to bear some of the costs of this massive expansion of the English colonies, and the visceral reaction against the abandonment of the 1763 Proclamation Act, whose goal was assimilation of the French, and its replacement with the accommodating 1774 Quebec Act. For the French, the choice was between an accommodating British government or a generally anti-Catholic American government who saw no need to extend the rights of English settlers to French settlers.
What makes this of such great interest to Canadians is the fact that Canada is in large part a creation of what happened after 1763 and after 1776. And how this came about is, perhaps not surprisingly, seen in a very different light than in America. Canada Jack (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The main reason why the Quebec Act was considered an Intolerable Act was that Parliament reaffirmed the political structure that existed when the French controlled Quebec. The French had set up Quebec as a feudal colony with nobility (seigneurs) and serfs (habitants). Even though the habitants had a significantly higher standard of living than peasants in France or serfs in Russia and Prussia; the habitants were still serfs. They were required by law to give a tithe of 4% of their harvest to the Roman Catholic Church, 10% percent of their harvest to their nobleman who owned the land, one sack of flour out of every fourteen sacks to the nobleman because habitants could not own their own mills, and 8% of any money made by a habitant when they sold a part of their farm to another person (usually their children). All habitants fell under the corvée (mandatory labor) and mandatory enlistment in the Quebec militias controlled by the nobility. The expansion of Quebec into the modern day Mid-West of the United States also extended the feudal system of Quebec raising the possibility of British farming families settling in the region (both legally and illegally) to be reduced down to the level of serfs.--Thebigmac100 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Her, south of the Ohio River, the ancestor's major concern was lawful deed and titlte to land which had become based on the Quit-rent. This was far better than the pre-Seven Years War "hack on tree & field of corn" approach of Gov Dinnwiddy because of the lack of frontier surveyors who could not keep up with the pioneer settlers, in a manor of speaking. Virginia's "Chief Scribe" (Crowns local Tax Collector) was required to tax land based on 100 acre of surveyed land. This had been understood by the House of Burgess in the Virginia Colony. The scribe was oonly interested in collection of land & Indian Trade otherwise permit holding busness revenue within, here, the Virginia Colony. I'm not certain about the other Colonies lawful methods concerning collecting real estate taxes and lawful holding of land. The Allodial title was one of the biggest concerns as why some here were Tories at first. There are very many letters and reports I've read about this subject of "Good Title & Deed" during this period from 1768, especially, onward. Here, generally two things got Gove Dinwiddy fired and replced by Gov Dunmore; 1st he spent too much time in England causing a delay in Virginian approval offered up by the "House of Burgess" and the "Councel" and his enticing colonials to serve in the " Virginia Colonial Militia" with "Land Bounty" pay south-east of the Ohio River. The Commanders, after the War, chose with their men where their 2000 acres (on average per officer & a few upper officers were entitled to more or bought Bounty from others and some traded claims) and it was supposed to be sub-divided among them. They had to have a regional "government Agent" to sign off on these transactions, else, these "surveyed deeds" would need to go back to London itself to get authorized legal-- a serious problem for among others, the House of Burgess. Captain Crawford was one of the major surveyors asking to survey our area's counties before the Revolution for example. By this time, there were still colonial boundary disputes that the surveyors across several Colony's lawful surveyors were nearing to put to rest. Now it appeared that the Quebec Act would further the dispute of a "Good Deed" south of the Ohio River not knowing if any of the plans for a "14th Colony" would materialize for there was several Colonial ideas in the works for here, some confusion and serious questions of authority and losing lands as what happened here during the Eschetus Law (Cheet Mountain & River area) earlier by those of personal expierence who earlier lost land from these questionable concerns of Gov Dinnwiddy. So, the Quebec Act also caused some French & Indian War Veterans" to "sell-out" thier Land Bounty diy-ups" for cash. This caused a further problem with the selling of these "redeemed" lawful claims as who would be the lawful tender of these, the local sherif or the Colonial Governor or which authority? The Quebec Act was a Crowns' decission that put a serious problem to an already local lawful problem or question in getting a "good Land Deed". Lawful Treaty among Sovereign Nations (including Native American Nations) at that time was proper between Internaion recognized Governments, Nations of International Law-- Lawful Treaty aceptable by other Global Nations. Now with the Quebec Act (Interntional Treaty Lawful?), the question was wheather alredy surveyed land here be, using today's term, be "Grandfathered"? Or, need redone-- again? These technical difficulties are seldom mentioned in Introduction Level (high school level)broad scope history books. Thank you for your attention, 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ive been editing broad arrow but know little about the section entitled Use in the American Colonies and the Massachusetts Bay Charter mast preservation clause (except what Ive gleaned from google). I invite editing and references from anyone knowledgeable - was it a contributing factor towards revolution? etc. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with the poster who inserted the note about whether the so-called American Revolution can indeed be properly called a "Revolution." I've always preferred to call it the "American War of Independence" and though I may be wrong on this count, many British historians call it that as well, as there were none of the hallmarks of what normally consitutes a "revolution" as there was no attempt or goal to overthrow the governing country itself, simply a movement to secede from that country.
However, I hasten to add that I do personally consider there to have been an "American Revolution," that being the COnstitution's creation and enactment in 1789, a truly revolutionary, in the sense of being "novel," document. Canada Jack (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't buy that this is as "fringe" a viewpoint as you portray this, but while I agree somewhat with the argument he had set forth, I also agree that this dispute doesn't merit much play here, no more than what stood originally. So, while I sympathize with the argument, I agree that it doesn't warrant much attention on this page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
the article has a strong pro american voice to it, obviously this is understandable given its great importance to American, but efforts should be taken to give it a more neutral tone. for example there is no reference to the fact the boston tea party was over a tax cut, that cut into smugglers profits. though i am no great fan perhaps some of Niall Ferguson analysis should be included in order to better balance the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Shore, I think the anonymous poster has a point. Not really relevant to wade into the issues - I think everyone here is aware that circa 1775 American colonists viewed taxes from London as unwarranted. But that is the American perspective. The British/Canadian perspective is that Americans had an very slight tax to pay - the equivalent in modern terms in one calculation I've seen of paying for a movie and a pizza one night a year. And, given the correct point that that was a tax cut (I am amazed how many Americans don't know this), the colonists, from this perspective, were incredibly stingy people who elevated their cheapness by calling for "revolution." Like going to the Supreme Court to fight a parking ticket. And, the very real issue of the debt some of the rich colonists owed to the mother country which the revolution conveniently wiped out is not mentioned either. The point is, the principled motivations so often ascribed to the colonists are seen quite differently from others. However, even given what I wrote, I don't see this article as being so overly weighted so to as completely ignoring the British view ("virtual representation" as a response to "no taxation..." for example is here) that it warrants the tag. Canada Jack (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point perfectly, but that is not the point... My point is simply whether the viewpoints on the issue are adequately reflected. You say "stingy" has nothing to do with? You miss the point - that is the other perspective. The American perspective is that the issue was having a say in the matter. The Brits see it as a naked grab of land and resources over phony grievances. IOW, the Brits never saw this as really being about a tax or an issue of colonial rights. But why would they? They weren't the one who felt their rights were being suppressed! Canada Jack (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
they imposed taxes because they saw it as unfair that British taxpayer was solely responsible for the cost of the colonies and responsed to domestic pressure to have the colonies contribute toward this and the debts generated by the seven years war. north shoreman unilaterial removal of tags is bad conduct, and the problem is clearly biased, now i have now great feeling either way but i do know noted historian Niall Ferguson does as he present these ideas in both his book and television show empire. addedum obviously some american bias is going to be unavoidable as the event is of infinitely more importance to americans being a cornerstone of there history than anyone else but you should always strive to reduce it while reach for the wikipedia goal of NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.248.225 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
i haven't read his books, speaking to the arrogant bastard was more than enough of his viewpoints to last lifetime
I think you are correct, Tom. The tag is unjustified. Canada Jack (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
i'm glad the pre existing editors all agree that the prior status quo was fine unfortunately i dispute than thus it is disputed, i would recommend putting forward a request for comment
The history describing the causes of the revolution seems to me a bit lacking in some important fundamentals.
The reality is that, despite the American attitude that the colonists invented their form of government, the British had inadvertently invented it for them and then, without realizing it tried to change it. In order to allow the colonies to thrive (bearing in mind that originally the British had trouble even getting any colonies to take hold) the Crown essentially gave the colonies mostly full control of their destinies and asked next to nothing in return. The British essentially provided a military which protected the colonies and a high-level but very limited legal framework that guaranteed certain basic rights. Other than that, though, the individual colonies were given a lot of (de facto) freedom to regulate their own affairs and Britain was, for a long time, simply grateful that they could claim a colonial empire and, later, that it was prospering to the point of giving them a powerful trade network. This de facto formula of governance that the British never intentionally tried to formulate was what the colonists tried to follow when they set up their government and separated powers between the States and the central government (at first out of paranoia they made the central government extremely weak but soon realized they had to create a central authority with at least a little bit of power). The Revolutionary War essentially came about as a result of the fact that many British began to resent the free ride the colonists were getting and began to demand that they pay their fair share (this, of course, was not an entirely correct perception in Britain but still ...). The colonists, in a sense, had developed a gross misperception (largely enabled by Britain's never doing anything to challenge that perception) that the British regarded the colonies as separate states from England with their own rights, legislatures, etc. When reality came down the colonists simply refused to accept it.
This whole history explains a lot of how the early U.S. developed and why a lot of things happened (not to mention clarifying how the British and the colonists got on such completely different pages in their thinking). The philosophical ideals that fed into the justification of the revolution are important to but (and forgive me for being a little cynical) the reality is that the philosophical ideals cited by the founding fathers and others were at least in part rationalizations to justify their wanting to resist the changes to the de facto arrangement they had had with Britain for a long time. This is not to say that their statements were not sincere or that there isn't merit to their arguments, but one should be careful not believe (as this article a little bit implies) that the colonists made their decisions based simply solely on rational Enlightenment.
--Mcorazao (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure it can claim to be the first republic since Rome (even the first democratic one). The Corsican Republic, Dutch Republic and English republic (before Oliver Cromwell became a dictator in 1653) all preceded it. I have a feeling there may have been others too. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The wording is much better now thank you, but it should possibly include a reference to the Corsicans. While the English and Dutch Republics fail the "successful" and "democracy" tests (the Dutch like a number of Italian states called themselves "republic", but lacked any significant democratic apparatus and the English republic failed because of the coup by Cromwell, and the later restoration of Charles II) it could be contended the Corsican Republic was both democratic and successful.
It lasted for fourteen years, and it was ended by external forces - an invasion by the French rather than a domestic failing as a system. The Corsicans and their founder Paoli were a cause celebre in the eighteenth century particulary in Britain and America (where several places were named after him), and were an influence on the founders of the American Republic. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that these two causes of the American Revolution have not been addressed by the article. Both of these subjects do play a factor in igniting the American Revolution.
The first factor is Mercantilism. One of the core principals of Mercantilism is that a colony exists for only two purposes: 1) the manufacture of raw materials for the home country; and 2) the consumption of finished products from the home country. The American Duties Act of 1764, the Currency Act, Stamp Act, and the other acts are more than just tax bills. They are also economic bills that affect the economies of all the British Colonies. These acts did cause economic distress throughout all of the colonies as merchant companies and businesses were damaged by provisions that exclusively favored British merchants. The best example of how Mercantilism played a part in the American Revolution occurs in the American Duties Act with the importation of Madeira Wine from Portugal by British colonial merchants. The Act imposes a tax of seven pound sterling per tun (a cask holding about 252 gallons) on Americans buying wine from the Portuguese while British merchants only paid 10 shilling per tun. The reason why these provisions were placed in the Duties Act is the following: 1) The elimination of direct trade between British colonists and the Portuguese 2) The elimination of Colonial merchant companies from competing with British merchant companies 3) The elimination of Colonial barrel makers and fishermen from competing with British barrel makers and fishermen. The barrels manufactured by colonists and fish caught by colonist were the principal trade items sold by Colonial merchants for Portuguese wine. 4) The boosting of profits of British wine wholesalers who can pay more taxes by driving up the price of wine to make the colonists pay for it. 5) The imposition of multiple duties that the colonials would have to pay as the wine is taxed each time it enters or leaves a port, sold from one merchant to another, or transported from one colony to another colony. 6) The forcing of colonists to buy cheaper alcoholic products made by British businesses.
The second factor that caused the American Revolution was economic depression. In the summer of 1763, the leading Amsterdam money house of Gebroders de Neufvilles went into bankruptcy. Their collapse leads to the failing of over 30 financial companies in Amsterdam and 95 financial companies in Hamburg. This financial collapse would sweep across every European nation and plunge the continent into an economic depression that would last into 1771 to 1773 depending upon the country. This financial collapse and economic depression spills over with more severe effect in the American colonies. The combination of the Currency Act which deliberately devalued colonial currency to favor British merchant and financial companies affected by the depression; the demobilization of nearly 90,000 Americans who served in the provincial militias and provided manpower for construction and operation of the supply lines; the collapse of American merchant and financial companies that dragged down other businesses that were tied into them; and the flood of nearly 350,000 immigrants fleeing the depression in Great Britain to the colonies provided another catalyst for the American Revolution.--Thebigmac100 (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
wasnt there one that occured and had a global effect during this war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murakumo-Elite (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been some edits that seem to stem from confusion about the status of what was the Thirteen Colonies after they became self-governing, but before the United States Declaration of Independence. This is a good question, and can be answered by looking at the facts.
Colonies, by definition, are governed by a state. The Thirteen Colonies became self-ruled ("self-governing") before they signed the Declaration of Independence, many (if not all) declaring themselves states by 1776. They did consider themselves a part of the British Empire, but were not ruled directly by Parliament, similar to Canada or Australia today and their relationship with the Commonwealth of Nations (similar, but not the same). Perhaps one could look at it as the Thirtten Colonies seperating themselves from the United Kingdom Parliament, but not from the Crown, at first. Therefore, the signing of the Declaration did not determine the change in colony status (that had already occured), but a change in status in relation to the Empire - which was a seperation from it. At that point they were seperated from the governance of Parliament AND the Crown. These are different things, and follow an evolutionary pattern in relation to the Revolution. Shoreranger (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
col·o·ny (kl-n) n. pl. col·o·nies 1. a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country. b. A territory thus settled. 2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency. (emphasis added)
There was no precedent for the American Revolution, so modern definitions are a little anachronistic. I believe that would be true of the first definition, which I suspect is only true *since* the American Revolution, when the Empire eventually changed its policies to allow some self-governance of its overseas territories as long as they remained "subject to" the Crown, in order to avoid any more Revolutionary Wars - becoming colonies no more, but Dominions or Commonwealth Nations. Throwing off the governance of Parliament, while staying in the Empire, had no precedence. That is part of what makes this revolutionary. Seperating from the Empire in 1776 was more revolutionary, and republican democracy just went even further revolutionarily.Shoreranger (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is a bit tricky to go by what the British called the "13" up to 1783. We don't go by what the Americans called George III (a "prince") now do we? On a side note, Shore, I think you grossly exaggerate the links between Canada and Australia to Britain today. While Britain had some say in both countries' rule up to the last century (in Canada's case the last vestige was removed in 1982) the current status is merely an association, a glorified club of states with related histories. Canada and Australia in no way consider themselves to be part of a "British Empire."
Shore, the comments on Canada were made by me - forgot to tag it properly, sorry about that. But when it comes to the Head of State, you are wildly incorrect. Canada is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen's role as Head of State is defined by the Canadian constitution. Who that person is is irrelevant, we define who that person shall be and what that person's powers are. She could be a Canadian or a Brit, or from Costa Rica. The fact that she is not a Canadian is irrelevant - her powers as we define them are what is relevant and what she can do in her role is, basically, what we tell her to do.
As for there being a distinction between being "given" independence instead of fighting for it, that's a rather bizarre thing to say. If it is ceded or gained through war, it is still sovereignty. Are the liberated countries of Europe post WWII in some ways less sovereign because foreigners fought for their freedom, their sovereignty? Canadians have no role in Dutch politics nor can we expect to have some role because we "gave" them independence. The determining role on sovereignty is whether the structure of government is such that foreign entities have a say. In Canada, that ended in 1982 when the last vestige of foreign control was removed. Britain via the Queen in no way has "control" theoretical or otherwise over Canada than Austria does over California by dint of one of its sons being the governor there. In America, clearly, sovereignty commenced the moment people there declared their governments to be beholden to no other powers. And that was in 1776. That reality was recognized in a legal sense when Britain effectively gave up its claims to its American colonies in Paris in 1783, but that was the de facto case from 1776 as nothing Britain did or tried to do was actionable within the United States. Canada Jack (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
In the rule that history will continue! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.97.189 (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)