Talk:Colonial history of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Colonial history of the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 24, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States History (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Old talk page post: Why did the British colonize America?[edit]

Help needed - the english colonised america for land, religious, political, freedom, trade. can you tell me about this? mav 03:27 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Colonial history of the United States / Colonial history of America[edit]

This article is one big naming quandary. As you may know, until recently it was called "Colonial history of the United States." Then someone changed the name, because back then there was no such thing as the United States. But the new name is no more appropriate, because today's United States is only a small part of America. Neither can we merge it into British colonization of the Americas, because the British had other colonies in Canada and the Caribbean. Help, anyone? -Smack 00:31, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why was it moved from "Colonial history of the United States"? Currently, it seems to focus on the British colonies... is it to be about the colonial era of the land that is now the USA, or the colonial era of the Americas generally? Either way, the Spanish had settlements in Florida (including St. Augustine, which is older than Jamestown and still inhabited) and the southwestern US, and the French controlled Louisiana. If we really want a thorough history of the colonies that once were what is now the USA, Russia controlled Alaska. What's the focus of this article? Kwertii 19:00, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It was moved because there was no entity called the 'United States' during the time which this article describes. (I am not the one who moved it, btw.) I am, however, the one who wrote most of the text that is now in the article (see my profile for information as to why it's unfinished), and I did intend to cover to some extent the history of non-British colonies that were later annexed (Florida, New Netherland, Louisiana, etc.) -Smack 22:04, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Certainly the United States of America was not formed until later, but the previous title of "Colonial history of the United States" was certainly a better reflection of the article contents than the title "Colonial America". -- Infrogmation 17:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think I have come up with a solution to the naming dilemma. We should call this article "Pre-National History of the United States." Does anyone have any objections? -Smack 06:04, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) P.S: Before registering your objections, please read the discussion above. -Smack
Yes. That name is horrendous. RickK 06:06, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
That's awkward, but it's certainly much better than the article's current title. -- Infrogmation 17:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other Possible Titles[edit]

Other possible titles "History of the 13 Colonies" (in line with the 13 Colonies article. "British North America" "Colonial era history of the United States". What else? Suggestions, comments? -- Infrogmation 17:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rename it British North America (1492-1776)[edit]

Rename the article "British North America (1492-1776)" and include information on Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. No offense, but I think Americans are somewhat narrow-minded in that they only focus on their own pre-revolution history, rather than look at their SHARED pre-revolution history with other British North Americans. When offering a general discussion of British American colonies of that time, there is no reason to exclude Newfoundland and Nova Scotia - it's already pointed out in the article that the British colonies differed widely in character, founding principles, etc, so why exclude these colonies? Even after the declaration of independence, two sides of the story should be told, both from the side of the colonies which participated in the revolution, and those which fought against it.

I agree. I am American, but there is no narrow mindedness here. Although, I thought the 13 colonies were administered separately from those up in modern day Canada? I vote for "British North America", and, as well I would add in the country infobox with appx population, official flag, languages. In fact, if I get no objection I will add the infobox myself. IT would really help the article look better, although I request help from those who might have demographics information for the time period (Canadians? I think maybe you guys might know as you were all in the colonies for much longer) user:Pzg Ratzinger

I find it a bit strange that this is not linked to British history in the context of all its other colonies in British America? I mean while the 13 (then 14 Colonies) and Canada and the Caribbean colonies / Central American Colonies were ruled in a non-confederate sense, they were all ruled by Great Britain. I find it a bit strange to claim this is an American history page when there was no United States of America at the time. There seems to be a huge historical disambiguation between North America and America in-terms of British rule, either way this written in a historical vacuum with no links to the other American colonies.


"North America" misleading[edit]

This article is very misleading. For one thing Columbus never visited North America, and it's even possible he was unaware of its existence. He spent much of his eight years in the area bouncing between the Caribbean and South America, apparently looking for Japan (Cipangu).

Amerigo Vespucci, likewise, never set foot in North America. That honor goes to Giovanni Caboto (John Cabot), the discoverer of Newfoundland, and possibly Nova Scotia (at least he's the first we know about). sugarfish 00:12, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I never said that Columbus discovered North America. The opening paragraph reads, as it did when I wrote it, "the lands of the Western Hemisphere." It also explains that North America was a "backwater of colonialism." -Smack 05:54, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Possible Religious Bias[edit]

I hate American History....It seems so depressing....unlike Russian history where the bolsheviks killed a bunch of people....wait thats depressing as well....oh well...we cant have it all

In speaking about religious toleration versus religious "domination", author appears to be presenting his or her own opinion. Possible Bias. Any comments? Lukilus

It's perfectly accurate. Pilgrims came to New England seeking to establish a society in which they could enforce their religious convictions. They weren't seeking a place where others were free to practice their own convictions. That concept would come later. It's not a disputed point of history. - Nunh-huh 03:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Read This First[edit]

I would recommend everybody to read this article and then choose title: Use of the word American. Dentren | Talk 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs more Canada[edit]

The opening sentence correctly identifies Colonial America as including parts of today's USA and Canada. But I can't find anything in the article on colonies in Canada. This requires inclusion.

Another item: the definition says Colonial America ends in 1776. Huh? Only 13 colonies declared independence then, not all of America, and not even all of British America. Colonial British America continued in Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Upper & Lower Canada, and Newfoundland. It's not complicated. Just say Colonial America technically covers the period up to 1776 in what became the USA, and through years when colonial status ended in other areas: 1867 in NS, NB, ON, and QC; 1873 in PEI; 1949 in Newfoundland. Then, to keep the article focussed, say that it deals with the era you wish to talk about, united by whatever themes you fix upon. - Yoho2001 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has undergone several shifts in focus, and is not yet internally consistant. At one point, it was only a history of the 13 British colonies which became the first 13 states of the US. There was some suggestion that the focus be shifted to "British North America", apparently meaning the British colonies in the US and Canada. Then someone changed the focus to include information on all European colonies in what is now the United States before 1776. And finally, someone decided the article should be about "Colonial North America north of Rio Grande" and moved the page to that spectacularly unweildy title, but did not include any new information about territory not now part of the United States, and of course did not fix the redirects. It's very confusing, and I don't think the article will ever be improved unless consensus can be achieved on what the article is supposed to be about. If it's the colonial history of the United States, perhaps Colonial United States would be a better title. If it's supposed to be about the Colonial North America north of Rio Grande, information on Canada needs to be added.--Cúchullain t/c 08:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First women in Jamestown?[edit]

Someone recently added a sentence to the article that claims that the first "females" arrived in Jamestown in 1619. We know that the first woman in the 13 colonies arrived long before then (since the first baby, Virginia Dare was born in 1587), and I find it hard to believe that Jamestown existed for twelve years as an all-male settlement. --Smack (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The first women came over when the first colonist were sent over.[citation needed]

'British' Law[edit]

The article talks about 'British' Law, does such a thing exist? Should this be 'English' Law, which certainly does exist. The Scots have their own legal code.--Pat 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The question is, did such a thing exist two hundred and fifty ago? In other words, was the separate Scottish legal code created recently, or does it date back to the Act of Union? --Smack (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the important aim is accuracy in Wikipedia articles. This article talks about British Law which I suspect is wrong. I think (but am not certain) that the law of colonial America was English law.
Frequently there is a confusion between when it is correct to say English, and when to say British. This could be one of those confusions.--Pat 17:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
it follows the english tradition, of common law and jury trial not scots law which is more similiar to the european style.
British law certainly exists. It is this article. English law is this article. But in this context (discussing common law, jury trials, &c.) you're right that it's English law that's meant. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing Motivation[edit]

"Practical considerations such as commercial enterprise, over-population and the desire for religious freedom played their parts."

In this article a central theme is overlooked. The main players of the colonialism partook in colonialism inorder to create an empire. They also wanted to prove their dominance of their country and hold it over other countries. Topics such as mercantilism should be addressed as well.

Lawrence DiLorenzo describes in his book "How Capitalism Saved America" that the early colonies in Virgina were financed by aristocratic investors and then wealthy industrialists, but that because they wanted to maintain control over the colony, they didn't allow settlers to own any land. All goods produced were to be sold in the company stores, the colonists would in turn benefit from the growth and development of the colony. What happened was that people worked very little as they had no 'real' personal stake in the colony. That is why so many of the colonists died of starvation and the reference to 'the Starving Time'. Thomas Dilorenzo has much more detail than this in his book, but there is some very relevant information that would help anyone looking into this - as well as references cited in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.146.105 (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote given describes the motivation of the colonists. Your points have to do with the motivations of the colonizers (the British gov't & charter holders.) You're right the latter is important, but they're different topics. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Iroquois not French[edit]

Little problem with the French and Indian war section - "The war is called the French and Indian because the Iroquois confederacy, which had been playing the British and the French against each other successfully for decades, saw that Britain was getting the upper hand and threw itself decisively into the French camp." The Iroquis were actually on the British side, whereas the Huron (among others) sided with the French. Any objections to a change?

Colonial "America"?[edit]

What is the scope of this article? It seems in some places to focus on European colonies in what would become the 13 colonies. No mention is made of earlier settlements in Florida, Puerto Rico, etc., or visits to other parts of the United States by Old Worlders. If this is the case, it should be made clearer in the intro.--Cúchullain t/c 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention there is nothing on the Spanish and French colonies in Mexico and Canada, or further down in South America. -Deepstratagem 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't start that here. This article is obviously supposed to be about the colonial history of the United States, or at least some parts of it.--Cúchullain t/c 22:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection. If this article was obviously about the United States it would have a different title. -Deepstratagem 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't be coy. If you've read the article you can tell it's obviously about the colonial history of the nation now called the United States. My point is that it either needs to be retitled to reflect that it's a history of only the territory that became the 13 Colonies or it needs to be expanded to include the colonial history of other parts of the United States.--Cúchullain t/c 07:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, this, "Oh, don't start that here." is the objection I don't understand. Deepstratagem 08:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia's naming convention is that articles are placed at the name they're most commonly refered to by in english. Thus Colonial America is an article that should cover the colonial times of the United States - as it is widely used to mean in english. It may upset you that the usual english usage (in all registers) of America means the United States of America but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox WilyD 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
(1) It wasn't called the United States then. (2) America refered to something else unambiguously at that time (and still does). Therefore this is inconsistent with naming conventions. Furthermore, this page has an Anglo-American focus, which is clearly against NPOV policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus. Deepstratagem 01:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Deep, the term Colonial America - today - in english - means What would become the United States at the time it was being settled by peoples from Europe. Thus it is what is required by the naming convention. Furthermore, because it's an article about British colonies, and Anglo-focus is entirely appropriate, just as it's appropriate for England. WilyD 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It may be the case that it is a popular name for What would become the United States but it conflicts with British Colonial America and it conflicts with Spanish Colonial America, so it is already wrong at many levels. Furthermore, "History of the 13 British colonies" would be more appropriate and much less ambiguous. Deepstratagem 09:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be less appropriate because it would violate the naming convention, and would be more ambigious (there are certainly more than 13 British colonies). Having a Colonial America (disambiguation) linked from the top for British Colonial America and Spanish Colonial America might be reasonable - but the naming conventions are pretty well establish. You can challenge them generally if you like, but trying to do so on specific articles isn't appropriate (and won't work). WilyD 12:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you are not paying attention, and you are back to double standards. "There are more than 13 colonies"... well read the article - that's what it is about. Deepstratagem 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the definition Encarta uses:

This article focuses on the history of the English settlements that achieved independence as the United States of America. It covers their experience during the colonial period, which lasted from 1607 to 1763…

I think that would nicely define the article if it's name was changed back to Colonial America. That's not just Encarta's definition of Colonial America, either. Author after author, site after site, Colonial America seems to almost always be defined similarly. I think the article should be moved back to Colonial America and have the focus restored. It really is a cluster fuck with the current name. Prometheusg 07:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
i love history  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.169.255 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) 

Merge[edit]

I think it's time to stop arguing on talk pages, and more time actually improving articles. Neither of you addressed my concern after all that. Anyway, I'm suggesting a merge to Thirteen Colonies, because it's a pretty detailed history of them (or of the land that became the 13 colonies anyway). The current 13 colonies article is essentially a list. I propose we merge this over there, and use this page (Colonial America) for disambiguation. It could either be an actual disambig page pointing to various colonies, or it be a summary of the colonial history of the rest of the US as well (before the semantics police jump me, we already have European colonization of the Americas to describe the wider Colonial America(s); this could easily be retitled Colonial United States). Other than expansion, which would make it way too long, I think this is our best option. Any thoughts or objections?--Cúchullain t/c 22:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Titling this Colonial United States is an obvious violation of the naming convention for articles with no real justification. We already have European colonisation of the Americas for the other subject - as long as the two are interlinked, you can only see the problem from the top of a soapbox. WilyD 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
For the love of God, Wily, that was only a suggested solution to a hypothetical problem! It seems you are more interested in arguing on talk pages than on improving articles.--Cúchullain t/c 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Preventing degredation of articles is easier than improving articles, so it what I'm more likely to work on when I only have a few free minutes. WilyD 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In recent years historians have mostly talked about the Atlantic connection, and have not emphasized the 13 colonies. Rjensen 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish colonial America.[edit]

This theme needs to be expanded.

Please do so in the Colonial America Article, I'm not much up on Spanish History, except that which directly impacts Florida, and I've tried to incorporate that into the Colonial America article. Bo 13:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe it has now been corrected. Though the article could use some streamlining. Deepstratagem 05:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

New France?[edit]

Given the current title of this article (Colonial North America north of Rio Grande), New France should be included as well; it was located in North America, north of the Rio Grande. If we are to exclude it, then we may need to rename the article. 68.40.64.186 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

good point, so I added a section that links to the main articles. Rjensen 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been brought up elsewhere on the talk page. Since the article was originally about the colonial history of the United States (or at least parts of what is now the United States), there was formerly no info on elsewhere. Then someone moved it to "Colonial North America", a poor title for the subject. This was exacerbated by someone who decided all "North America north of Rio Grande" should be the subject. The renamings have caused considerable confusion, and as I've said above, I don't think the article will ever be improved until we get a clear idea of what we're supposed to be writing about. Why just "Colonial North America north of Rio Grande"? I would suggest moving the article to "Colonial United States", except that now good editors have included info on colonial Canada, because judging by the title, Canada should be included. But why the Rio Grande should be the dividing line is beyond me. This is a cluster fuck, and I don't see any way out of it without some bold strokes.--Cúchullain t/c 06:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ways of Life?[edit]

The "Ways of Life" section is poorly titled since it includes alot of architecure and furnature details. Maybe this should be sorted out. Zaphodyossarian 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zaphodyossarian (talkcontribs) 18:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Colonial America[edit]

I was bold and moved the page back to its old title of "Colonial America" from the extremely awkward and confusing title Colonial North America north of Rio Grande. There is still the issue of the Canadian material that has been added here by various good editors. Perhaps it should be merged to one of the Canadian articles, or perhaps this article should be renamed "Colonial America and Canada". My vote is to move out the Canadian parts, and perhaps retitle this article "Colonial United States" to avoid the inevitable confusion the name "Colonial America" causes. Whatever is done, I don't think it should be moved again without a vote at requested moved.--Cúchullain t/c 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! We may all agree, then! I recently edited British North America to cover the loyalist provinces from 1783-1867 and move the pre-1783 material to British America. I think that this could possible to merge British America and Colonial America, with a redirect from British America to here. The British America article is crap, I was just fixing structure, but this article has substance. Can you folks review this and tell me if you think it can work? I am also not happy with the 13 colonies article, it needs pruning! WayeMason 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Colonial Northern America / Colonial North America[edit]

'Colonial Northern America' is surely a name used nowhere in history. 'Colonial North America' would be a more useful name for this article. Any objections to changing it? Hmains 02:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original name is most appropriate (Colonial History of the United States). It describes what happened in the colonial times area of the USA before it came to be. See the talk on the top of this page. Spryde 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving it back to what it was a few days ago. The title for this article has caused so much confusion that renaming should be done by gathering consensus at requested moves. I've detailed some of the problems this article has faced up above.--Cúchullain t/c 19:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way the title I moved it to is Colonial America, which has its own set of problems. But as I said, fixing this will require more serious steps than just retitling. My personal vote would be for something along the lines of "Colonial history of the United States", as Spryde suggested, but as I've said above, this would require moving the information on Canada out. But let's not do it without gathering consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The title Colonial history of the United States is the most accurate for this article and could avoid many edit problems. JC 29 September 2007 14:35 (PST)

Northern America = New Spain[edit]

The New Spain was also known as "Northen America", also Mexico's first declaration of independece was with the name of "Northen America" and an official document was signed in 1813 called Solemn Act of the Declaration of Independence of Northern America see: Mexican War of Independence. -JC 26 September 2007 20:40 (PST)

Colonial British North America / Colonial America / Colonial history of the United States of America[edit]

As the article is about the colonial history of the U.S., I've moved it to Colonial America. As per User:WilyD above, this is the most common English-language term for the region and period. The name Colonial British North America was especially inappropriate as British North America is used to describe those British colonies which remained part of the British Empire after 1783.[1] Spacepotato 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Colonial history of the United States of America is the most appropiate name for this article and it has no conflict with any other suggested name. JC 14:30 17 Octuber 2007 (PST)
Although objections have been raised about this name (there was no USA at the time covered), I think it is the best choice so far presented. The British ones don't work because California and Louisiana Territory, etc. weren't ever British. However, this article still has a lot to cover - Oregon Territory, Santa Fé de Nuevo México, Alta California, etc. Rmhermen 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone not realize that Colonial history establishes that there were colonies, and United States represents the area involved as represented by the current country. I think it is perfect when you look at it as two distinct parts, i.e. Colonial history of the United States, and not the History of the United States part. Monsieurdl (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

English Civil war[edit]

what happened in the colonies during the english civil war? did the conflict spill over?

This was going to be my question as well, there is no mention of what happened during this period.
Not too much. There was a new governor in Virginia and during Cromwell's "reign", few Puritans moved to New England but some Royalists moved to Virginia. The later Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia is sometimes linked to the Civil War. Rmhermen (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've read some stuff about this. It's actually quite interesting, because the colonies tended to be quite aristocratic in their administration, and many were closely linked to the royalist cause. This particuarly affected the Carribean, as well as the future United States. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PoV text and weasel words[edit]

In the section British Colonies: Puritans, beginning in the second sentence, it reads "They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. Within two years, an additional 2,000 settlers arrived. The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States[citation needed]. They hoped this new land would serve as a 'redeemer nation.' Seeking the true religion, they fled England and in America attempted to create a "nation of saints" or the "City upon a Hill,' an intensely religious, thoroughly righteous community designed to be an example for all of Europe." These PoV phrases and weasel words have no place in an encyclopedia. Any thoughts about how best to cut them out and wikify the entry? Bricology (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Easier for me to follow it like this:
The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. Within two years, an additional 2,000 settlers arrived. The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States. They hoped this new land would serve as a "redeemer nation." Seeking the true religion, they fled England and in America attempted to create a "nation of saints" or the "City upon a Hill," an intensely religious, thoroughly righteous community designed to be an example for all of Europe. Roger Williams, who preached religious toleration, separation of Church and State, and a complete break with the Church of England, was banished and founded Rhode Island Colony, which became a haven for other religious refugees from the Puritan community. Anne Hutchinson, a preacher of Antinomianism, likewise was exiled to Rhode Island.
Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash-crop oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of individual hard working farmers, who harvested enough crops to feed themselves and their families and to trade for goods they could not produce themselves. There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake. On the other hand, town leaders in New England could literally rent out the town's impoverished families for a year to anyone who could afford to board them, as a form of alms and as a form of cheap labor. Along with farming growth, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, often serving as the hub for trading between the South and Europe.
Now, lookit: there's not much wrong with the first and third passage you bolded. They accurately describe what the Puritans sought and attempted to create. The second one is kinda iffy: the author was intending to present their POV but stated it declaratively. Otoh, there are some weasel words and other POV issues (New England was "hard working" "unlike... the Chesapeake region"), so my thought is:
The Puritans, a much larger group, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. Within two years, an additional 2,000 settlers had arrived. The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit, and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States.° They hoped this new land would serve as a "redeemer nation." They fled England and in America attempted to create a "nation of saints" or a "City upon a Hill:" an intensely religious, thoroughly righteous community designed to be an example for all of Europe. Roger Williams, who preached religious toleration, separation of Church and State, and a complete break with the Church of England, was banished and founded Rhode Island Colony, which became a haven for other refugees from the Puritan community, such as Anne Hutchinson.
Economically, Puritan New England fulfilled the expectations of its founders. Unlike the cash crop-oriented plantations of the Chesapeake region, the Puritan economy was based on the efforts of self-supporting farmsteads who traded only for goods they could not produce themselves.[citation needed] There was a generally higher economic standing and standard of living in New England than in the Chesapeake.[citation needed] On the other hand, town leaders in New England were empowered to rent out the town's impoverished families for a year to anyone who could afford to board them,[citation needed] as a form of alms and as cheap labor. Along with agriculture, New England became an important mercantile and shipbuilding center, serving°° as the hub for trading between the southern colonies and Europe.
Which is what I left in the article. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
°Removed [citation needed] from this point as it depends on a mass of information more appropriate to the Puritan article linked at top of section. If the tagger has a dispute with any of the points, he should just edit them out. "Politically innovative" seems suspect to me, but perhaps they were more distinct than I remember reading about. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
°°Removed "often served" as it either served as the hub or didn't. -LlywelynII (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

former spanish colonies should include Texas[edit]

I think Texas should be listed if you're including sections on New Mexico and California.Nitpyck (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What a cute user name. Anyway, yes. Absolutely. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - looney toons[edit]

I don't know how to undo vandalism, but there's all kinds of stuff about Bugs Bunny and Acme Corporation in the intro paragraph. Just letting you guys know. Ingridjames (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Going to history and reverting is the easiest way. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Female breeding 'most successful in South Carolina' ... WTF?[edit]

I have no idea what

Once women were married, their main duty was to produce offspring and tend to the family. These efforts were the most successful in South Carolina, where wealthy rice planters lived in townhouses in Charleston, a busy port city.

was supposed to mean to the person who wrote it, but (esp. since the aside on women is true of all premodern societies anywhere outside of Amazonia) nixed it into as good a shape as could be made. -LlywelynII (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Colonial Experience[edit]

"centuries-old experience of conquest and colonization during the Reconquista" But Spain established few colonies during that period- they were too busy re-conquering the Moors. And how would conquering an arguably more developed and more highly civilized country next to you be better than the English experience of trying and failing to conquer France? Spain got its experience by having New World colonies for over 100 years before most of the other Europeans began. Nitpyck (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for one, as the English failed to conquer France they had no opportunity to colonize it. At least not in the way Spain was conquering and colonizing the Iberian Peninsula bit by bit and developing systems of colonial imperialism. Perhaps it doesn't sound like "colonization", but as I understand it, the Spanish conquest of Moorish lands went hand-in-hand with establishing colonies (perhaps today we'd say "settlements") and "colonial" systems of administration. Anyway, if additional sources are desired, I have some that make this argument quite effectively. Pfly (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think that the additional info is not needed on this page; but perhaps, it could be added to section 8 of the Reconquista article. Nitpyck (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion, religion, nationality[edit]

The sentence the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of New England (later called "Yankees"), the Anglican settlers of Jamestown, I changed said Pa settled by Quakers, New England was settled by Puritans and Jamestown by English. But ALL were settled by English. They were predominately but not exclusively settled respectively by Quakers, Puritans, and Anglicans. It is stylistically and logically better to have all three the same kind. It's like saying in Iraq there are Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds. Or saying there are gas cars, electric cars, and Ford cars. Nitpyck (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Again, there is nothing in the Jamestown article to support any statement about religion at Jamestown. Hmains (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmains is right. We're not primarily talking about ethnicity or religion, but what the motive force was. In NE the Puritans took charge of the migration of their own people as did the Quakers in PA. There was no religious force involved in early Virginia, but there were English businessmen who recruited English men in the name of glory for England.Rjensen (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
First, they carried an Anglican priest Robert Hunt with them because they were Anglican.
Second, Look at the sentence - The Dutch of New Netherland, the Swedes and Finns of New Sweden, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of New England (later called "Yankees"), the English settlers of Jamestown, and the "worthy poor" of Georgia, and others—each group came to the new continent for different reasons and created colonies with distinct social, religious, political and economic structures.[4]

New England's first settlers were not Puritans, and at no time were all the settlers Puritans, although they dominated. And the same is true of PA., the Quaker weren't first or only but were the dominate group. In Virginia the Church of England was first, the Anglicans weren't the only group but they did become the established church in Va. The three regions had three dominant denominations two of which were established until after the revolution. And the three regions were distinct social, religious, political and economic structures. I'd be willing to accept - The Dutch of New Netherland, the Swedes and Finns of New Sweden, the English settlers of the Virginia, New England, Pennsylvania and Georgia colonies, and others—each group came to the new continent for different reasons and created colonies with distinct social, religious, political and economic structures.- but to disregard the Anglican settlement is POV implying the Anglicans were not as religious as the Puritans and the Quakers. Nitpyck (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is who dominated. the Quakers owned and rules Pennsylvania, the Purtitans controlled New England and the English controlled Virginia. All correct and appropriate and necessary to know. Saying "Puritans in New England" gives more information than "English in New England", likewise Quakers in PA. There was no similar Anglican settlement in Virginia. Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Rhode Island was not Puritan but was a colony in New England. The Proprietors in Pa soon became Church of England and political decisions were split between them the Quakers, Germans(Reformed, Lutheran, Mennonite, Moravian) and Scotch Irish (Presbyterian). To ignore the tensions between these ethnic and religious groups is to miss much of what happened in the colonies. When Va expanded other religious groups entered, but the Anglicans dominated by use of taxes to support the Church of England. In the lede we don't need all this extra detail- it belongs in the article under the individual colonies. Again I think the lede says enough with "each group came to the new continent for different reasons and created colonies with distinct social, religious, political and economic structures". Nitpyck (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
well yes there is a lot of history here. Rhode Island was founded chiefly by dissident Puritans led by Roger Williams, who had been exiled from Mass. Bay. The text in question does not mention Rhode Island in any case. Penn and his Quakers set up pennsylvania and the Quakers dominated until the 1750s. The Puritan church was central to forming NE, and the Quaker meetinghouse in PA. In Virginia the first leaders were Puritans but they did not set up a system like New England; indeed religion was pretty back-shelf. 67 clergy arrived in VA 1607-1660, 33 Puritans, 12 Anglicans and the others of unknown status (Cooke 3:565). the clergy were controlled by local JP's--not by any bishop--Virginia insisted there be no bishop. So the local churches were nominally Anglican but the church was a minor player until James Blair arrived in 1685, set up a college and had some authority.Rjensen (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
As a aside, saying RI settled by Puritan dissidents is like saying New England settled by COE dissidents.
You have failed to convince me that the majority religion of the colony is more important than the home nation of the colony. And you still have failed to respond to why there should not be consistency in the list: The Dutch , the Swedes, the Finns, the Quakers, the Puritans, the English , and the "worthy poor". Listing by nation in the lede - the Swedes, the Finns, and the English just makes more sense to me. What information is lost by calling English colonies English? Nitpyck (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
To nitpick your aside, "saying RI settled by Puritan dissidents is like saying New England settled by COE dissidents." By my understanding, both statements are broadly true. The puritians were COE congregationalists who believed in a state church, but wanted their brand of chuch to be the state church. Roger Williams was a Baptist who believed in separation of church and state, something the Puritians wouldn't accept, so he left and founded RI on those principles. Where am I wrong? - BilCat (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Williams started out as a Puritan clergyman, but became a heretic (on the Baptism issue and also demanding tolerance) in Massachusetts and was exiled. So he and his followers bought some Indian land and founded a colony that was outside the boundary of Mass. Bay. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

He didn't "become" a heretic. The magistrates of Massachusetts branded him a "heretic", primarily over the issue of compensating Native Americans for their land. From a Rhode Island POV, there were no religious difference between Williams and the clergy of Mass.--Ishtar456 (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How does that differ from the statement in question? - BilCat (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
But I would oppose VA settled COE, NE settled COE dissidents and PA settled by COE separatists even though this is true because it is too much info to be in the lede. Nitpyck (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What does colonize mean?[edit]

Starting in the late 16th century, the English, Scottish, French, Swedes, Germans and the Dutch began to colonize eastern North America. Change to began to settle in because there were no Scottish or German colonies. This is to differentiate between the countries which colonized and the peoples who settled in those colonies. There was no Finnish colony but there were Finns in New Sweden. The countries of Spain, France, Netherlands, Sweden, and England attempted to claim and colonize the area under discussion in this article. England succeeded and their colonies admitted or absorbed peoples from many parts of Europe. The footnotes make no claim of a German colony, because there was no German colony in continental North America. Nitpyck (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

good point--let me add Scotland DID try to set up colonies (they failed), and none of the many German states tried. Rjensen (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

New France Map[edit]

What a terrible map - it shows the land area that was claimed by France at any time between 1534 and 1803. It does not show New France at it's greatest extent (1763?). For example, Fort Caroline is shown as part of New France, but only lasted a year (1564) before being obliterated by Spain. Does anyone have access to a better representation of New France?75.69.101.208 (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing historical information[edit]

There are some important missing historical information missing in this article. There is no mentioning of King Philip's War, Queen Anne's War, and King George's War. These colonial wars were fought in the present day United States and Canada and both wars were part of the French and Indian Wars (not to be confused with the separate French and Indian War of 1754-1763). So why is there no research or section dedicated to the French and Indian Wars? --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All three wars are mentioned already but in general these wars had little effect upon the American colonies' development at a scale that would be covered in a general article like this one. (The removal of the Acadians and development of Louisiana is not mentioned and probably should be but that is associated with the French and Indian War.) Rmhermen (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Puritians[edit]

The article makes a statement: "The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit, and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States.[neutrality is disputed]" I more than dispute the neutrality, it is factually incorrect! As a historically aware descendant of several Puritans and Separatists, who is still living in the region of those colonies, I must say that the colonists' culture, government, priorities, religious commitments, economy, etc. are completely foreign to present day New Englanders. It would have been nice to have found here an article that discussed some of those differences instead of one that made un-cited, nonfactual statements like that. Wikipedia is currently very weak in its coverage of the structure of colonial government and society. If it was accurate we would all know that the Puritans' way of life, in the 17th century, was completely altered by the time The Revolution occurred. Wasn't that apparent to us in grade school?--Ishtar456 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New France[edit]

The French did send a few hundred fur trappers and settlers into the western areas, and that gets the space it deserves, according to the RS that cover this topic. Their history has always been part of Canada/ New France, where it is well covered. Rjensen (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)